Talk:ISA 720

RFD discussion: December 2016–July 2017
Do we really want to have an entry for every standard with an acronym in front of it? Whatever we decide, there's also the matter of a category the contributor created for it, which doesn't tie into our category structure (or any category structure) at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, for sure. It's SOP: it's the ISA called "200". &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I created this. I would like to keep it. I think the term conveys more meaning than the sum of its parts. Apologies if I got categorisation wrong. John Cross (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but so do Saab 340, US 422, and 18 USC 1466A; we can't include every instance of an acronym and a number corresponding to some idea associated with that acronym. bd2412 T 22:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we? Pur ple back pack 89  23:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's encyclopedia not dictionary material? Mihia (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We would end up offering a "definition" for every model of every product that chose to name their product with a model number, and for every road and route, and for every public or private standard combining an acronym with a number. bd2412 T 02:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I support us doing the second of those three. Pur ple back pack 89   18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We already have e-numbers in Wiktionary. See for example . So there is some precedent for including a codeconsisting of letters and numbers which has a specific meaning.  John Cross (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC), edited John Cross (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We also have (but not every numbered road in the UK). If we can find a text that uses "ISA 200" in a natiral way, without being a definition, then we should keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. How about these examples? "ISA 200 makes it clear that the objectives in the individual ISAs provide a link between the requirements of the ISA and the overall objectives of the auditor." "Understanding the clarified and revised ISA 200 is now fundamental to understanding the challenge of implementing clarified ISAs." (https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/audit-and-assurance/practical-help/audit-planning-and-risk-assessment/publications-and-learning-materials/right-first-time-with-clarified-isas-module-1.ashx?la=en) John Cross (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But couldn't such examples be found for, say, every numbered road, or every car model, or whatever it might be? Does a citation "I was driving down the A3062 in my Saab 340" justify inclusion in the dictionary of "A3062" and "Saab 340"? Where would it end? Mihia (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the term I have added is a useful addition to Wiktionary - it is a term in regular use by a large number of professionals around the world and it is a term recognised by an international standard setting body. I know people are worried about the precedent this might set. I would suggest that as there is a separate policy for brands, any precedent set here should not extend to models of cars or other products or services.  When it comes to road/route codes, some already appear in Wiktionary and I would suggest that those entries already create some form of precedent. I would like to keep the debate more focussed on whether      names and codes for recognised international standards (auditing or otherwise) that are used in natural sentences can be added to Wiktionary.  John Cross (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is also true of all of the RfCs, all of the ISO standards, and countless other standards which are domain specific. Unless the term has meaning outside of the standard I can't see value in keeping it.  The "meaning" of the term is either "the ISA standard numbered 200" in which case it is SOP, or the actual standard itself, in which case it is encyclopedic and out of scope. - TheDaveRoss 13:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I echo TheDaveRoss's argument here. Even after looking at the entry, and the sample usages, the definition parses out to just  + 200.  The long-form title and other information belongs in an encyclopedia article, which would go at Wikipedia and would ostensibly be found under [[:w:Category:ISO_standards]].  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleted together with, , , , , and on the grounds that they are SoP and more suitable for Wikipedia. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)