Template talk:Infobox book/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Relase Date

Why does the relase date come up as {{{release date}}} if left empty? Example: this bookAdammw 09:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a mandatory field and that is what WikiMedia does if this is not included. You can get round this by including the field but leave the content "blank" if it is genuinely not known. Do you have an example it may be that a publication date can be found. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed field: Wikiquote

I am thinking a link to Wikiquote may be helpful, much like the Template:Infobox_Film has links to official sites and IMDb.com. The current method is to add the {{wikiquote}} template to each article, but its format (box with icon) limits its placement in an article. It would be a lot more handy to have an "external link" in the infobox, and isn't that what they're for anyway? I can add it if there's a consensus to do so. TAnthony 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not then to Wikisource? feydey 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

These ideas have some merit on two grounds, they relate strongly to the main text of the novel (something some of the earlier ideas didn't) and they will produce only one possible entry per link (unless I misunderstand WikiQoute and WikiSource). What do others think on these two proposals. If they are thought worthwhile I would suggest they fit just above the "preceded_by" field and they are added to a couple of articles first as a trial to see how people react to their implementation. If people agree that is. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How's my first use

I've just used this for the first time, on A Nature Conservation Review. How does it look? Why isn't the ISBN showing up? Andy Mabbett 14:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

if you check the documentation above these discissions you will se the parameter is lower case. Fixed .:: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Without CSS

With CSS disabled, this appears as:

A Nature Conservation Review

Author Derek Ratcliffe

Country United Kingdom

Language English

and so on. I think there would be some value in prepending the word "Title" to the first entry, then hiding it with CSS. Andy Mabbett 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

why would you want CSS disabled and the title is a different section of the infobox - above the cover image.! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I wanted CSS disabled; nevertheless, it is disabled (or unavailable) for some people, and W3C "WCAG" accessibility guidelines rightfully say that pages should be readable without CSS. Andy Mabbett 10:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok understand - as the field is effectively the "title" of the infobox itself and also that of the Novel / Book, I don't believe change is necessary for this field. Also adding "title" would look visually awful for those "with" CSS. This is particularly the case when a cover image is added as is ideally the case. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

adding "title" would look visually awful for those "with" CSS - no, because I suggested "hiding it with CSS". Andy Mabbett 12:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you know how to do that - give it a go and we'll see how it looks.! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. It's not as neat, because, unlike the other labels, it's not in a separate table cell. Andy Mabbett 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Microformat for citations

Please be aware of the proposal for a microformat for marking citations (which pages about books are, in effect) in (X)HTML. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett 15:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors & foreword-contributors

What about a field for editors, for non fiction "compilations" like The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds. Maybe also for "foreword/ introduction/ preface by". Andy Mabbett 18:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally think these are fields too far. Mainly of use for non-fiction books. Editors can be placed in the infobox "author" field with suffix annotation of "(editor)". I don't think the other contibutors are significant enough in the case of "most" books to warrent a universal addition to the infobox. Both these types of extra can be added in the body of the article and possibily in the reference citation. Also it is worth noting that these additions vary from edition to edition. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Many non-fiction books (such as that cited) have editors, but no named authors. Perhaps we need to split this into two templates, one for fiction and one for non-fiction. Andy Mabbett 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is still the main person responible for the content. What is wrong with the suffix of "(editor)" in the author field. This is a solution often used in systems that have "simple" implementations of bibliographic information. The wiki infobox is not intended to be an exhaustive repository of normalised biblio information just a convenient banner splash for common info. And no a split "Book" form for non-fiction and fiction is not ideal at all. If we "must" have an editor field that is preferable to having a split. I remain to be convinced. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Serialized books and release date?

Consider Farnham's Freehold. It was serialized in a magazine in 1964, then printed as a novel in 1965. The release_date field is currently 1964 (serial)<br/>1965 (book). The documentation for the template is skimpy here--what's the right thing to do for novels that first appeared in magazines? Date of the first book edition, date of the appearance of the first piece of the serial, or both? grendel|khan 22:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The solution to the problem in example above seems adequate, did you have something else in mind. On the subject of the documentation if the existing example is "good" then you could add that as a pattern to use for others. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Multi-national release

So I was updating some infoboxes and realized that we don't have a policy established for books which are simultaneously published in multiple countries. Since this wikipedia is supposed to encompass all English-language "stuff," I feel like we should come up with a standard. For example, I was working on the page for Broken, which was simultaneously published in the US, the UK, and Canada, all in English (um, obviously) - by different publishers (so, with different ISBNs) in each country. So... which go in the infobox? Should all three (with a note as to which is the US/etc in <small>? The same issue also relates to the covers of multinational books. Any thoughts?? -Elizabennet | talk 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the technical answer to this one - we need to discover how the publishing world treats these and find a means of reflecting that. I would think that a publisher has a "prime" national location in such cases but I don't really know! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

-Oh, forgot to add: in cases like that, I think the country tag should apply to the author's country... unless it should list all the countries it's been published in? -Elizabennet | talk 19:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That should be true regardless of publication. It is the national origin of the cretive content, i.e. authorial content that is key. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Formatting the image caption

I've been noticing that the image caption field seems to format image captions strangely (i.e. not like normal image captions). The text is larger and oddly spaced... I don't know how to fix it, but I thought it was worth noting. Perhaps we could imitate the {{Infobox_Film}} in how they do the captions on images? Unfortunately I have no idea as to how to make these changes. -Elizabennet | talk 21:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have example articles to illustrate your points. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Release date fields

These have recently been changed, without any discussion. For an infobox with such wide usage this at least needs discussion, and co-orination with the second release date field. Also if change is agreed and I personally think it may well be better a change plan and or Bot assisted change be arranged. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason for reversion - no discussion on a key - infobox - no plan for change to hundreds if not thousands of articles. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You should mention that you brought the issue up in the talk page when editing, rather than reverting without any explanation, because I looked at this talk page and did not notice this section because it had been pushed up by following sections. I do not understand your objection: the old key works just as well with the change; the change is fully backward compatible and anyone is free to go on using the template with the old key as they did before with no change in behavior. Also, the change in the key is separate from the change in the heading, which does not affect the key. —Centrx→talk • 00:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to my poor editing protocol - however the debate is the thing to have.

First point to say actually agree with the terminology of the change.

Second I believe we would be best served if we could make the change "throughout" wikipedia if possible.

Thirld;y if we change "release date" to "publication date" we should also change "english release date" to "english publication date" as well. Making both changes at the same time.

Fourthy all documentation that refers to the new and "supported" field names and labels should all change at the same time.

Fifthly as there is also a companion infobox for short stories which uses the same terminology, similar changes should me made there as well.

Perhaps you might see why I thought this needs to be a little more planned and considered. Don't get me wrong I think the idea of the change is good and correct. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So, 1) what is wrong with "Date published" or "Published"; 2) You can make the change elsewhere, what relevance does that have to making the change first here?; 3) So then change "English release date" too, rather than reverting uniformly; 4) I thought I changed the documentation, if not, you change it or tell me where it is, this is no reason to reverse the change; 5) So change the short story infobox too. None of this requires any planning; none of this requires reversing the other change, they do not need to all be enacted in one single procedure. —Centrx→talk • 03:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

While I can't say I'm empathetic to any unnecessary change which comes down to a matter of preferred taste in phraseology (or prejudice against an publishing industry standard term—the case here I think. Shrug we don't make the world, we all just have to deal with it! <g>), I agree that the change made was BOT free and one term is as good as another. With that in mind, I made a trial substitution as a compromise offering. One phrase or the other is produced, depending on the tagging selecting the operable name. From this diff/version. The only code line changed is the logic after publisher: (There's some other inconsequential whitespace padding per my change request below.)

 -->{{#if:{{{subject|}}}|<tr><th>{{nowrap|Subject(s)}}</th><td>{{{subject|}}}</td></tr>}}<!--
 -->{{#if:{{{genre|}}}|<tr><th>{{nowrap|Genre(s)}}</th><td>{{{genre|}}}</td></tr>}}<!--
 --><tr><th>[[Publisher]]</th><td>{{{publisher}}}</td></tr><!--
 -->{{#if:{{{release_date|}}}<noinclude>1</noinclude>|<tr><th>Released</th><td>{{{release_date}}}</td></tr><!--
     -->|{{#if:{{{publish_date|}}}|<tr><th>Date published</th><td>{{{publish_date|}}}</td></tr><!--
     -->}}<!--
 -->}} <!--
 -->{{#if:{{{english_release_date|}}}<!--
     -->|<tr><th>Released in English</th><td>{{{english_release_date}}}</td></tr><!--
 -->}}<!--
 -->{{#if:{{{media_type|}}}|<tr><th>Media type</th><td>{{{media_type|}}}</td></tr>}}<!--
 -->{{#if:{{{pages|}}}|<tr><th>Pages</th><td>{{{pages|}}}</td></tr>}}<!--

Bottom line, this seems reasonable as a request, and unless there is some overwhelming reason to not use equivilant terms as desired, let's just get on with things that matter. Cheers! // FrankB 04:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The error is in describing it as "Released" at all. Keeping the release_date key is for backward compatibility, not because the template user is making some editorial judgement to call it "Released" in one case and "Published" in another. For a book, the book publisher actually publishes the book, it does not make it "released for publication" and then not publish it itself; films are "released", records are "released", books are "published". —Centrx→talk • 03:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I intend to recommend that we adopt "roughly" the ideas above about moving from "released" to "published". This has already been done for the "Short story infobox" (If anyone wants to check it out to see how the coding should perhaps be achieved). However I would like to co-ordinate this with changes to all the associated documentation and style guidelines etc. To achieve this If we could do this early next week when I can spend a bit of time making the supporting changes, we can get the protected element changes to suit at that time. Then I can run my Bot to start making changes to existing articles parameters to effect the changes in each instance. This is not urgent based on the way the changes can be written, but it would be nice to be consistent. Regards :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"release_date" should link to corresponding "Year in literature" article

Will someone please modify this template so that (for example) |release_date=1984 is linked to 1984 in literature without having to do it explicitly?

I mean, since we have List of years in literature, it just seems logical that the release date (if provided) should be linked to the corresponding "year in literature" automagically ... as part of my WikiGnome cleanups of articles about books, when the date is mentioned in the article, I have been changing (or adding) the appropriate wikilink, because many editors simply link to the article for the year, e.g., [[1984]] instead of [[1984 in literature|1984]].

I know that I can link it explicitly in the field, but (a) that's susceptible to human error, e.g., linking to the wrong year because of an incorrectly edited copy&paste (a mistake which I have made Too Many times, hence this complaint), and (b) that's the kind of thing that computers are supposed to do for us, isn't it? ("Never make the wetware do anything manually that can be done more accurately by software." - Software Engineering 101)

BTW, this should also be done for templates associated with List of years in film and List of years in television.

I'd take a stab at modifying the template myself (I've only been "pushing bits" for 30+ years now), but it looks like anons can't edit templates ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 08:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there has been discussion in the past that it specifically not link to the "year in literature" articles, because a full date is often used (month/day) and so the date wouldn't adapt for user date preferences. TAnthony 13:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! ... "Never mind" ... I'll just keep doing it manually. :-) —68.239.79.82 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the point is that if I am correct, you shouldn't be doing it manually either because dates in the infobox shouldn't be linked to the "year" articles at all. But I could be mistaken, I imagine Kevinalewis would remember the outcome of that discussion. TAnthony 13:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection and server loading

I just innocently added a category to this template, not thinking of how widespread it is. This page needs to be set up for WP:DPP ASAP so interwikis and other trivial edits like I just made don't cause ripple effects due to server loading. Things took quite a while to 'settle', which at 1:00 am EDST on a Saturday was probably the least impact one could hope for, but in addition, strongly suggests this is a prime candidate for being fully protected as many widely used templates (e.g. {{tl}}) are, for that specific reason... server loading effects. // FrankB 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. feydey 10:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that - long overdue. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request

without any {{EditProtected}}

We have time to discuss this if needed.

1. I've writen some changes into the template (in my sandbox) for anthologies, co-authors, and author-editors such as we have to deal with (All three plus a 'Editor') in the 1632 series, which is mostly all collaboratively written, and well over more than half being anthologies, counting the e-books. As we're currently looking at fourteen canonical anthologies in production or already published and (so far) one novel with three authors, this change here will go in cut and paste and no fuss — 'FrankB guaranteed' to not affect other pages using the template <g>.
   
   The upper section on that page is the current template, with disarmed comments (re: "---XXX>" in lines) then commented out as one big block so as to make the changes pretty clear in one place where you can see the diff on one page.
   
   

See serarate discussion below. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I opened up the whitespace here and there with one common C-Language style indenting that shows nesting clearly. The pertinent added fields are: {co-author, 2nd co-author, editor, author-editor (Eric Flint always adds a story to the The Grantville Gazettes when they're published in HC or PB. So it needs handled, whereas the online versions, he's merely the "Editor — which also needs handled, author 'alone' being incorrect, for sure.) The new code accepts only one of the three (Author/Author-Editor/Editor)
   
   

I think the indenting is good and whichever way we agree to go should be taken forward. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The effects and difference can be seen here, and I'm ambivalent as to whether to keep the colons as I wrote the co-author and 2nd co-author fields (the second call version shown). [I'm not sure the 'co-author' field shouldn't also float right as I did with the 'And:' ... any feedback on that point?]
   
   
2. There are two other changes of no consequence to current pages using the template; An option parameter infoboxwidth, and a change to the call to the /doc page:
   1. I find with all the templates I work with from WP:TSP explicitly listing the /doc page (as per {{Infobox Book/doc}}) is quite useful... if for no other reason, that when you take it to a sandbox to test changes, the link is still operable. (For parallel reasons, I usually subst (as I did here tonight) {{Template doc page transcluded}} on the doc page... which leaves the edit link stay alive on the sandbox page.
      
      
   2. I've played a lot in the past three weeks with Infobox widths and page layouts, especially with respect to {{TOCnestright}} and {{FixHTML}}; in particular what sort of behavior one sees in different browsers and differing zoom-in/zoom-out effects as the page is scaled.
      
      Hence I've become a strong advocate of fixed infobox widths, with the knowledge that 280-325px is more or less equal to 22-25em on the medium to medium small fonts most of us use (unconsciously, and generally without zooming at all). I'd prefer this box to be scaled in px (I can't recommend something specific without trials using the option parameter, but similar changes to half a dozen other sorts of infoboxes have gone unremarked—WikiProject MILTHIST did a lot of experimentation on this, and the idea of fixing the box width is really theirs.), but I can live with an option parameter 'infoboxwidth' as I wrote this changed version for cut and paste. The Infobox I was adding tonight (to Ring of Fire (anthology) will definitely layout and behave better with a slightly wider infobox.
   3. Three other points on this:
      1. Scaling a box in em's or ex's causes it's contents to expand and contract as one zooms in/out, whereas almost all contain fixed pics widths... creating an inherent incompatibility.
      2. Fixing the width, the contents within stay fixed relative to the local margins... the px width, so don't blow up obnoxiously on zoom-ins to large fonts on the rest of the page, and the images stay proportional and well behaved.
      3. TOC behavior and floating elements like pics generally behave much better overall if the tall infoboxes are fixed.

Guess that covers my reasons and reasoning. If someone want test a bit, I'd guess 250px is wider than the current infobox on most middle-of-the-road zoom settings. (Tack in a {{Commons}} template and compare. Thats' fixed at 250px.) Thanks! // FrankB 05:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I bow to your greater experience on these formating issues - and again whichever way we go on the other issues - Ipersonally would be happy for you to bring this experience to bear on the template formatting. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

editors, co-authors, and author-editors

This issue is raised above and needs careful consideration, so I have seperated the issue out to it's own heading. The problem I see with the proposal above is largely one of multiples. In other words as soon as we cater (by seperate parameters) for additional author's, editors etc where do we stop, one, two, three or more.

What most people do is use the one field and separate co-author's with a <br/>, also if an individual is in fact an editor one just adds a short suffix. "= A. N. Other (ed.)".

I know there may well be better ways to deal with this issue - however a discrete set of parameters may not be it. Also I am unconvinced that the incidence of "author-editors" warrents such handling, again annotation should be sufficient. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

{{editprotected}} The template is protected, so please add the following interwiki: [[he:תבנית:ספר]].

Thank you, Noaa 14:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. However, the page where you add interwikis (Template:Infobox Book/doc) was not protected. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OCLC parameter?

How about adding an "oclc" parameter. This can be helpful when someone wants to locate a book without an ISBN (such as an older book). Thanks. — Bellhalla 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Can someone add this code right after the ISBN line:

-->{{#if:{{{oclc|}}}|<tr><th>[[OCLC]]</th><td>[http://worldcat.org/oclc/{{urlencode:{{{oclc}}}}} {{{oclc}}}]</td></tr>}}<!--

This is code copied from {{Cite book}} and modified to fit syntax of {{Infobox book}}. I tested this code in User:Bellhalla/Sandbox/Infobox_book and transcluded it in User:Bellhalla/Sandbox/. Please feel free to examine and/or test either if you wish.

Thanks. — Bellhalla 15:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Option

I was thinking maybe hadding the option of being able to hide the infobox like on the CVG Infobox. It would prove useful on pages that contain a whole series of books. 04:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a particularly helpful idea, I would like to see series articles develop to the point where the articles generally take a life or their own (i.e. eventually split) in instances where the notability warrents additions of individual book infoboxes. In instances where this is not the case we should think about a "series" infobox to support these articles, and "not" use individual "book" infoboxes for these articles. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Change to Pub date from Release date

This is exactly what I was afraid off - the change going off half cocked. We need to keep everything consistent and also in line with the wording of the "Short story" infobox. Could someone please make the change to the relevant two line, I have copied in here the two lines from the already changes "short story" template so I believe they should work as found. {{editprotected}} <tr><th>Publication date</th><td>{{{pub_date|{{{release_date|}}}}}}</td></tr><!--
-->{{#if:{{{english_release_date|}}}{{{english_pub_date|}}}|<tr><th>Published in English</th><td>{{{english_pub_date|{{{english_release_date}}}}}}</td></tr>}}<!--

These should go instead of the currect "publish_date" and "english_release_date" lines

Regards :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ISBN link?

Why doesn't the ISBN entry create the hyperlink like when you have it explictly in the article? (ex. "ISBN 0345340744" makes a useful link in the article but when in the infobox, no luck) --MarsRover 22:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It does; all you need do is use the "ISBN" prefix as you would in the article. This is std WikiMedia as far as I am aware. It isn't a hyperlink as such but a wikilink to a specific wiki isbn search page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it does but then the infobox then has ISBN label duplicated. Any way around that? --MarsRover 19:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Wikipedia has not (yet) installed string functions (like removing/replacing part of a string). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Then change the infobox so the headings are handled differently and the ISBN comes up as a real ISBN. I mean, duh. DreamGuy 06:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dedicated to/In memoriam

I suggest adding this line into the template. What do others reckon?--Svetovid 10:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea - not sure what to think on it myself, it is such a large template already. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't people dedicate books just using the first name of the person? IMO, doesn't sound too useful. --MarsRover 19:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty trivial info for an infobox. Why not add wordcount or number of illustrations or weight of the book too while we are at it? DreamGuy 06:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazon

why not add a link on this to allow to search for the book on amazon? --Stinkfly 12:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Because if you list an ISBN Wikipedia does that already. --Doradus 18:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you did this outside that mechanism that would be essentially advertising. Which is not what wikipedia is about. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ISBN

Is there some reason the template doesn't turn the ISBN code into a link to the page that allows people to search for that ISBN on other sites? Seems pretty silly to not have that. DreamGuy 06:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I see from above that people who did the coding got all confused or something....

Not they didn't, they just were aiming at a different end result. Be kind! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was being kind by assuming they were just confused and not intentionally choosing to come up with an end result which was impractical for no good reason. If they did that on purpose then they really ought to rethink their priorities. DreamGuy 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's how to fix it:

Remove the line

{{#if:{{{isbn|}}}|<tr><th>[[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]]</th><td>{{{isbn|}}}</td></tr>}}

Add the line:

{{#if: {{{isbn|}}} |<tr><td colspan=2 style="text-align: center">ISBN {{{isbn|}}}</td></tr>}}

I can see how this would work for the lazier editor - BUT it would break ALL the existing template usage article pages. The change aim could be achieved I'm sure but it needs to take account of pages the currently include the "= ISBN 9-999-99999-2" style format and those that attempt to use the "= 9-999-99999-9" style format. All editors currently need to do is precede the number with "ISBN" which is easy. I can see the value in allowing both but any change needs to work for both formats. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Preceding the number with anything nowiki is completely impractical -- the whole point is to have the template do the grunt work, and if it doesn;t there's no point to even using the template in the first place, as you could just hand code the whole thing each time. And I don't understand how the two different ISBN formats would not just automatically work the way I suggest. DreamGuy 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In actual fact this also alters the tidy alignment of columns which we currently have so we need some concensus on whether that is desirable. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't alter any tidy alignment of columns in that we already have image captions centered so can have something else up there centered, AND give it the visibility it needs. Alleged tidiness shouldn't destroy the practical function of the template. And, honestly, this particular template is rather ugly to begin with, so certainly can be reworked.

We already had several people above say the ISBN link should work, and that's what this change would do. There's your consensus right there. DreamGuy 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, actually you have had a number of people express a desire for the same result you are pushing for, which I have no problem with. What we are actually debating to the best way to deliver what is requested. The agreement is that the "= ISBN" with the extra "ISBN" should not be necessary. I don't know that anyone disputes that. The concensus we need to on the eventual infobox appearance or layout and secondly on the technical method of coding. This second part ideally should take account of the "vast" majority of articles that make use of the "= ISBN" article coding. I think we should debate the resultant appearance first and then consider if this can be technically achieved second (with or without Bot mass changes to existing articles.) Once initial point on layout, what ever we do on ISBN we should do also with OCLC. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this would need not only a code change but a bot job to correct the current uses. In any case, since this will have an effect on all the pages that use the template, it needs more thorough discussion and consensus than it has received. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bot would only be needed is we decided on a layout and a technical coding change that left the existing article markup out on a limb. Personally I think we should be able to come up with something that could avoid needing to do that. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, how would this affect the boxes having multiple ISBNs f.ex. in Oryx_and_Crake? feydey 15:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good point, I would hope the coding would be able to tell that the first characters were "ISBN" and thus the processing should continue as now. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Size of image

What size is the image of the cover displayed at? I am about to resize some scanned images of book covers, and would like to know the size. Say the displayed size was 200 px wide (like album covers) then I would produce images exactly 400 px wide. This would make the rendering easier. 216.123.197.27 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

COinS

Any chance that this template uses COinS, in the same way as {{cite book}}? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have had a look at COinS but you might need to expain a bit more - must be being a bit dense this morning. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats/COinS. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, not sure how {{cite book}} etc actually do the necessary though. To me it looks as though the template documentation just asserts that id does. I see nothing obvious in the code that gives a clue as to "how" it does it. So how to know whether this template complies? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[Belated response - apologies] you need a coins aware browser tool, such as Zotero or OpenURL Referrer extensions for Firefox. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected request

{{edit protected}}

On the final line, Please replace {{/doc}} with {{Template doc}}. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The doc page has the code

<includeonly>{{Template doc page transcluded}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{template doc page viewed directly}}</noinclude>

which I prefer, as it is not as garish as the big icon and green box. I usually leave templates with whichever system was put in place first, since I doubt there is complete agreement about which system is better. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Title color

I recently had a look at the Book infobox on FR and frankly, I think it's more aesthetically pleasing. Take a look at fr:L'Assommoir and en:L'Assommoir to see what I mean. I would like to bring FR's color scheme and grid into EN; what do the rest of you think? Our template's look seems to have come from another time, when Wikipedia's templates were generally boxy and black and white. The changes I'm proposing would bring our template up-to-date, visually. See here for the source on FR. --Zantastik talk 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

FR's white-on-pale-blue is too low-contrast to be read by people with some visual disabilities. Accessibility should come before aesthetics. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. You're probably right. --Zantastik talk 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit-protected request: COinS metadata

{{editprotected}}

Please add the necessary mark-up for COinS metadata, modelled on these edits to add COinS to the similar {{infobox journal}} template. See the source-code of {{cite book}} for the specific fields. I'll be happy to check a "sandbox" version if preferred.. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected requests are for immediate changes. If you write the code, I'd be happy to implement it for you, after checking it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK; done at User:Pigsonthewing/scratchpad2 (examples on that page's talk page). The only issue is the date, which expects wither a year (or ISO8601 format), but I don't think it breaks anything. Also, it would be better if the infobox had "first" and "last" parameters for author name. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also the issue that the square brackets from linked items are passed as part of the parameter values :-( Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Does anyone have any idea what we can do about the issues I raised? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nudge. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no way to automatically 'split' a name in Wikipedia... there are no string functions. Thus, the only way to get the names into separate first and last parameters would be to build a bot, or do it manually for every page. The #time: parserfunction can change date formats around. For example, {{#time: c|10 June 2007}} produces 2007-06-10T00:00:00+00:00. The 'c' indicates that ISO8601 format should be used. A 'Y' instead of 'c' would return just the four digit year. However, this might run into trouble with the date parameter values on some templates. For instance, if a range (e.g. 1954-1955) were used in the date parameter {{#time: c|1954-1955}} would return . --CBD 12:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I'll copy the latter point to WP:UF. Is it supported in al WikiMedia instances (and since which version) or just Wikipedia? 13:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett

The #time option was added last August and works in MediaWiki version 1.6 and higher. It is installed on all the WikiMedia sites and various external wikis. --CBD 13:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Code cleanup

Would anyone have an objection to me re-writing this template in wiki markup and moving the top title inside to the inside of the box, very much similar to Template:Infobox Officeholder? Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just got back after a weekend off and now find that this is inconsistent with most other book related infoboxes, so yes I object. Personally think this should have been more widely discussed, more time given for people to comment and some consistency gained with Short Story infobox at least. Can you revert this element of the change please. Now that this is a protected template there is more onous on those with the ability to be more cautious as others are unable to directly get their points included. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the name parameter back to using <caption>. It should be noted that a lot of high-use templates are no longer using <caption>, including Template:Infobox Officeholder, Template:Infobox Album, and Template:Infobox Film. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All I would say is that any stylistic changes like this would need to be made to {{infobox short story}}, {{Infobox SW Books}}, {{Doctorwhobook}} & {{infobox character}} as well. Maybe including {{Book Series infobox}}. Although some other interested projects might need to be consulted. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually be more inclined to merge some of those infoboxes into this one. I'll look at this later. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Only of course the ones that are "Books" (short stories and characters are not) . :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And of course Books Series which is by nature a set of something rather than an individual. It probably need the most work or at least a better replacement. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ISBN-10 vs ISBN-13

Should the template be updated to offer different fields for ISBN-10 and ISBN-13? Since the beginning of this year, all new ISBNs are 13 digits. -Paul1337 16:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need. The wikimedia code allow for either form just after the "ISBN" characters that are needed first in this field. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be having problems with ISBN-13. When I use "ISBN" and then a 13 digit ISBN group, the initial 10 digits are hyperlinked, but the balance remain in normal text. Suggestions? AusTerrapin 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If your problems were with 978-0972222006 then all that is needed is to add the ISBN 978-0972222006 before it. if it is with 0972222006 then ISBN 0972222006 applies. However when I found it it had 097222206 which is one digit short so ISBN 097222206 would not work. All this applies with or without hyphens. The linking only works if there are 10 digits or 13, and by the way no check is made beyond that as far as I can see. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That explains it, although it doesn't fix the problem in this case. You have correctly picked me up on using the wrong ISBN-10 code (0-072222-0-6), however the substitute isn't quite right either. The codes supplied on the back of the book are "ISBN-10: 0-9722220-0-6" and "ISBN-13: 978-0-972222-0-6". While the former is ten digits plus dashes, the latter is 12 digits plus dashes. While my understanding is that technically this should be given a leading "0" to make it 13 digits, my intent was to preserve the form used on the book (including dashes). It would seem that the underlying code does not like this real world practice, but I will happily defer to your greater experience in matters Wikipedia. Given that there are differences in the ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 numbers allocated for some books, perhaps the infobox template should be modified to provide both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 fields where available - thus assisting readers to search by whichever best suits their needs. Cheers. AusTerrapin 11:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This a really interesting example. Bear in mind that the wikicode here is not the one at fault. The fault is with either the publishers or printers (or both). ISBNs have a strict formal structure and can only be 10 or 13 characters. Also the "last" digit in each case is a check digit which is meant to verify the accuracy of the keyed or scanned number. You need to bear in mind that the EAN bar coded version may well be correct and the printed (visible version) may be incorrect. All that the wikicode does is to check for 10 digits or 13 digits it doesn't check the "check digit". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by 10 and 13 numbers being different, of course they are different. Firstly one has 10 chars and the other 13 (obvious you say). However this means that the check digit calculation varies and the resultant "check digit" may vary. Not always but mostly will be different. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

See article Check digit for more on this subject :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I wasn't quite clear enough when I said they were different and yes I have previously read up on the methodology behind the two codes (although a while ago now). My understanding is that, in principle, ISBN-13 and ISBN-10 vary only in that ISBN-13 has a 3 digit prefix before the ISBN-10 number and that the check digit is updated to reflect this. In the specific example I cited for Sharpe's Skirmish (revised extended edition), the difference is in the third last digit (0-9722220-0-6 vs 978-0-972222-0-6). Having run a quick google search, it would appear that this discrepancy is in fact a publication error and that the extra 0 is what is missing from the ISBN-13. Notwithstanding, I still think there is relevance in providing both, particularly since the check digit is likely to vary and while this can be calculated, the average person is unlikely to go to this trouble. A coding guru might even contemplate a check for the ISBN template to verify that the number parsed into the template computes to the supplied check digit - although maybe I am being to ambitious now. :) Cheers. AusTerrapin 11:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think those responsible for the wikicode would baulk at this one. But also I see what you mean about the faulty numeric code I would think that a note in a "publication history" section toward the end of the article is all that is needed, just giving the wrong code and noting that in publication an error was made. Wikipeida is meant to describe the real world not provide an ordering mechanism. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Book (form)

I'm not sure if this is needed - if it already exists.

I'm a novice to this Template. So I ask this: What are the Steps, on Order, of creating a Infobox Book Template from scratch for a particulat book? Do I simply do this:

Infobox book/Archive 3

? --Ludvikus 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

---

That clearly doesn't work. My point is that I do not wish to type over & over what belongs in a Form. Is there not a Boiler plate Infobox Book Template in which I just fill in the required information, Compulsory, or not? --Ludvikus 17:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Here's an experiment:

Infobox book/Archive 3

? --Ludvikus 17:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

---

That didn't work. So mhere's another experiment:

COMPULSORY

Author	COMPULSORY
Publisher	COMPULSORY
Publication date	COMPULSORY

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Well, at least I'm finally getting somewhere. I'll create in myself, I think, as follows (if it works I can come here and Copy & Paste it.):

Infobox Book (Template form)

Infobox book/Archive 3

The Book (2007)
Original title	The Book: It's Elements
Translator	John Doe
Illustrator	Mary Doe
Cover artist	None
Language	English
Series	First
Subject	Book collecting
Genre	?
Publication place	USA
Published in English	2007
Media type	softcover
Pages	xvi, 567
OCLC	987654321
Preceded by	a
Followed by	b

Now I just need to come to this Discussion page, Open it, & Copy & Paste this Template. A bit tedious, but it will do until some expert(s) come(s) and improves upon it. Best, --Ludvikus 17:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be very nice if we had it in a easily accessible place like the Wiki "toolbox." --Ludvikus 17:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the WP:NOVELS wikiproject where we have a lot of support for people writing prose related articles. What you might be after is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxCode. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but actually my interest lies, regarding Books, in all Nonfiction items>

Furthermore, what I'm asking for is something like this:

    {{Template (books)}}

When I type that on a page I'd like the above Form, with Blanks, to be automatically generated. Ludvikus 13:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please replace {{/doc}} by {{template doc}}. 16@r 11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ISBN (prefer 1st edition)

Why isn't it "ISBN (prefer latest edition)"? The articles should be about the books and not about their ISBNs. Why even making it a link if it's more likely to have no search results in book stores (the more editions, the less chance older editions would be kept)? -Lwc4life 10:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

numbers of side issues linked in here. Basically the article "is" about the "novel", "book" (or other prose work) and the most significant edition of this work is "normally" the first. That is the most notable and wikipedia is all about notability. The link is not actively made, it almost just a feature of the WikiMedia software, and some people like it. Also Wikipedia is not a shopping portal and should resist all efforts to make it anything like one. Older titles, certainly all the "classic" are available in multiple versions and by multiple publishers so the ISBN would become one of arbitrary choice. Then of course national preferences come in. All in all the "only" reasonable ISBN to include in the infobox would "normally" be the true 1st edition. Also this isn't a topical fansite, it is a repository in information of note. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

{Editprotected} width overrides (2)

{{editprotected}}

Please substitute the common Infobox width overrides (2 changes) following for the one preceding in the templates first line. This gives the editors better page by page control when excessive width is unsightly, and is a common thing in many infobox templates, particularly in geography/political entities/history.

Template:Infobox Book(edit talk links history)

For this (1st Template line):  
style= "width:20em;
Put this (cut N paste ready):  
style= "width:{{{infoboxwidth|{{{width|20em}}}}}};

and

For this (a few lines lower):

      (<!-- --> added in the one source line, for wrapping "nice" here)
{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" {{!}}<!-- 
-->{{{image}}}{{#if:{{{caption|}}}|<br/>{{{caption}}}}}
Put this (cut N paste ready, the comments are NBD): 

Add "{{#if:{{{imagewidth|}}}|{{{imagewidth}}|auto}}; inside the style="...", to get:

{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align:center; width=<!-- 
-->{{#if:{{{imagewidth|}}}|{{{imagewidth}}|auto}}; " {{!}} {{{image}}}<!-- 
-->{{#if:{{{caption|}}}|<br/>{{{caption}}}}}

which changes, will both have same default size, affecting no articles but those that specify the parameter call like: example: |infoboxwidth = 200px

Thanks // FrankB 15:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Please update the documentation accordingly. --ais523 09:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

my bad

{{Editprotected}} re: current code has missing '}' in the 'if code':

|{{{imagewidth}}} |auto}}

in the section

{{#if:{{{image|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align:center; width=<!-- 
-->{{#if:{{{imagewidth|}}}|{{{imagewidth}}|auto}}; " {{!}} {{{image}}}<!-- 
-->{{#if:{{{caption|}}}|<br/>{{{caption}}}}}

Please insert one,

and check list of templates on page bottom that there are no other redlinked "psuedo templates" on the page. Thanks // FrankB 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, although I'm not sure if the imagewidth field does anything. In this template, the image widths seem to be given in the image field, eg Animal Farm. Also, I was wondering why this used

width={{#if:{{{imagewidth|}}}|{{{imagewidth}}}|auto}};

rather than

width={{{imagewidth|auto}}};

which should be almost the same thing. Gimmetrow 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

how to link ISBN?

I see ISBN links from the infobox have been discussed above, but having just created my first ever book article I'm still not clear whether it's possible to link the isbn, and, if so, how to do it! Could someone please advise... and maybe the documentation page about the template could include any guidance you can offer? I expected it to just link automatically as in {{cite book}}, but obviously it's not so simple! Thanks. PamD (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Like with anywhere in wikipedia all it needs is an "ISBN" before the number. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the field is only used for ISBN why make people write ISBN xxx, why not just write xxx and have the template put in whatever it needs to to make it into an ISBN link. The way it is the template ends up saying ISBN ISBN xxx. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone knows you how to code this it would perhaps be helpful. But is would need to be backwards compatible with all the infoboxes that currently contain "ISBN" already. Don't forget it would need to link as if the ISBN text was present. i.e. as if the editor had included it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this change too. Currently, the reader sees "ISBN ISBN 1234567890", which looks silly, (e.g. Anthem (novella)). Further, the {{cite book}} template has a field called "isbn" that creates a link without needing an "ISBN" keyword. --Jtir (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:Placeholder Image

{{editprotected}}

A placeholder image has been created for book infoboxes, and so could you replace the following code

{| class="infobox" style="width:20em; font-size:90%; text-align:left;" |+ colspan="2" style="text-align:center; font-size:140%;" | '''''{{{name}}}''''' |- {{#if:{{{image|}}}|

for

{| class="infobox" style="width:20em; font-size:90%; text-align:left;" |+ colspan="2" style="text-align:center; font-size:140%;" | '''''{{{name}}}''''' |- {{#if:{{{image|[[Image:Placeholder book.svg]]}}}|

This will mean that when no image is specified, it will show this.

> Rugby471 ^talk ⚔ 08:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing editprotected for now. I don't think this code does what you want, since it only adds the placeholder to the if test rather than putting it somewhere it would display. Second, the placeholder link generates a wikipedia error for me. Finally, I personally dislike the person placeholder image, and suspect some others do to. Assuming this image is similar, having it appear by default would need some discussion. Gimmetrow 05:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about this either, certainly not by default. It would an expraordinary amount of image cruft on articles that "may" not really need them or at least will not get a rapid resolution. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, sorry you guys > Rugby471 ^talk ⚔ 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding a word count parameter?

I think a parameter for word count should be added. That's a pretty useful statistic to have on a book. For instance, The Great Gatsby is short as novels go, but War and Peace is long. You wouldn't know at first glance as things are now, however. --Cyde Weys 04:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea, my only concern is that, especially for translations, word count could differ quite a bit. If it were used, it should probably state that its an approximate word count or it should tell which version of the book was used. --MZMcBride 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the word count could apply only to the first published edition? I agree with the translation problem. There's an additional problem with many books of whether or not to include information on introductions, epilogues, etc (for example, if it's a biography, should the word count include the book's references section?). -Elizabennet | talk 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image glitch

There's an error. On most infoboxes, you need only put "Example.jpg". On this template, you must put in "[[Image:Example.jpg]]". You may want to fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 December 2007

It's not a "glitch". It's a valid way of constructing infoboxes, and it reduces the amount of syntax an editor has to know to add an image to an unfamiliar infobox. Regardless, it's a bit late in the day to fix this now. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also you would have to code for things like image size separately - no error - just different. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Country field

The appearance of the country field high up in the infobox, after the author's name, leads to confusion. See discussion here and here.

As the field is meant to call for the country of first publication, it would make sense to move it down to appear after the publication date. The field should not merely say Country but Country of publication or First published in, or something similar. Kablammo (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an archived suggestion that it be changed to city of publication, which is consistent with how publication information is shown in books and citations. Kablammo (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If that were ever changed bear in mind that not all publishers work out of cities (most do I know). Also most would not appreciate where some of these "cites" are unless "country" is also given. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Where it is unclear the country could be given. By specifying the city we would be doing no more than following convention. And there really is no need for the little flag icons. Kablammo (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Certianly agree about the flag Icons (unnecessary). although I wouldn't advocate leaving off country for too many cities as that asumes knowledge that the reader of the wiki may well no have. e.g. how many English speakers appear to think New York is the Capitol of the USA. In other words we can't assume knowledge. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I rather like the small flag icons, personally - I think that they look nice and are a good addition to the box (just as far aesthetics goes) - it breaks up the text a bit. I'm a fan of always including a visual to text whenever possible, though - but isn't that why we include book covers for all books, rather than just the ones with famous artists/covers?  :) -Elizabennet | talk 18:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While adding the state, province, or country would be not needed for cities such as New York, Toronto, London, Paris, etc., adding them would do no harm and would be helpful where there is a possibility of confusion. Kablammo (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)