Talk:British Standards

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Original British Standard Handbooks

Can someone inform or list out what the original sets from the 1950's and 60's were of the BS Handbooks, which has extracts and condensed version of standards at the time as published book, hard bound;

No. 1 ???
British Standard Handbook No. 2 = British Standards for Workshop Practice (blue/grey colour)
No. 3 Building Materials & Components For Housing (dark blue cover)
No. 4 ???
No. 5 ???
No. 6 ???
No. 7 ???
British Standard Handbook No. 8 = British Standards For The Automobile Industry (dark brown cover book)
No. 9 ???
No. 10 STEEL & STEEL PRODUCTS (black cover)
British Standard Handbook No.11 = Methods of Test for Textiles (grey cover)
No. 12 ???
No. 13 ???
No. 14 ???
No. 15 ???
No. 16 ???
No. 17 ???
British standard handbook no.18 = Metric standards for engineering (red book cover)
No. 19 ???
No. 20 ???

more???

Rumor has it that each handbook had a different hardback cover colour assigned to it mapped to a colour specification of the time, the predecessor of BS381C? .. what was that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.164.225 (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I created the page for Publicly_Available_Specification in August 2006. I suggest that the section on this page for Publicly Available Specifications, created at the end of October 2006, be shortened and the examples moved into the existing page. --Dotjay 17:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European standards

This article needs amending or extending to cover European standards and their relationship with BS, especially BS-EN- type standards.

--John Stumbles 11:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Availability / pricing

I removed the passage:

Like with the products of other national standards bodies, the per-page price of these documents is substantially higher than that of mass-market books, which may hinder access by students and average consumers with a casual interest in such specifications. The company itself however would assert that the cost of standards reflects the costs of production.

This asserts an opinion about the expense of the Standards documents (an opinion I share FWIW) which is out of place in a Wikipedia article. In my opinion :-)

Perhaps if there were a notable source of criticism of the pricing that could be included? Alternatively (or as well) some figures for the prices of Standards docs could be included (perhaps alongside the example standards quoted).

--John Stumbles 10:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have (again) removed the comparison with the ASTM which seems irrelevant: a more valid comparison would be with ANSI or other national standards bodies (which ASTM is not).

I would like to see a reference for the licence conditions "forb[ding] ... copying of more than 10% of a document by library users". My own experience is that one can print out an entire copy of online standards at an academic library, although they are prefaced "A single copy of this British Standard is licensed to ..." <licensee> and watermarked "Licensed Copy:" <licensee> ... "Uncontrolled Copy, (c) BSI". Perhaps we should extend the article to talk about electronically-available standards.

I removed the word "severe" (in "licence conditions") as being POV (in the absence of reference to a notable source describing the BSI' licence conditions as severe). (It doesn't mean I agree I agree with, am defending or apologising for BSI's actions: just that WP is not the place to slag them off. :-))

--John Stumbles 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments on pricing policy & WP not being the place to debate it. An edit of mine was removevd & although I don't plan on an editing war a consensus would be appreciated. Some of the existing comments appear to be more a complaint about the prices than appropriate for WP. SamsonXX 19:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have a citation for this?

The {{fact}} template next to the bit in the "Availability" section discussing the restrictions BSI places on library availability has now been there for about half a year. That is more than long enough for it to have been backed up by a solid reference. I suggest that if it is not given one very soon, that passage should be deleted.

Also, if the text currently in situ is indeed accurate, I'd like to know why BSI doesn't allow open-shelf access. The other restrictions seem fairly straightforward (as others have said, whether or not I agree with the regime is not something that is relevant to an article Talk page), but I don't understand that one. Loganberry (Talk) 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why 'BSI doesn't allow open-shelf access'

BSI states that standards cannot be priced like normal commercial publications, see: http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/About-standards/Pricing-of-Standards/ Alkazzi (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an ISO member

The opening paragraph is slightly confusing, perhaps, but by my reading clearly states that the body that actually holds the membership is BSI Group, and this article is about the British standards themselves, not about the body producing them. Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was both self-serving and wrong. It is contradicted by both BSI Group and the BSI Group's own "About BSI" and "History of BSI WWW pages, which clearly state that BSI Group is the body that produces the standards ("BSI is the National Standards Body of the UK") and the British Standards are the standards themselves, as is clearly the focus of this article. Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976

was repealed 1.3.2000. I'll remove it from the article. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/34?timeline=true Ssscienccce (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

There are far too many examples listed, both of BS documents and PAS documents. I've adjusted the PAS ones and plan to remove most of the BS examples, leaving just 3-4 which can then be called "examples". Does anyone have any preferences for which ones should be retained? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are too many examples - although 3 or 4 seems miserly on a page about British Standards. Maybe 15 - 20? Alkazzi (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]