Template talk:Infobox book/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

ISBN linkage

Shouldn't the ISBN be linked similar to how they are linked for refs and sources? Just my 2¢ --Storkk 16:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

not quite sure I understand the comment, how are ISBNs not link currently. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the text ISBN should be put in automatically by the template. Superm401 - Talk 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I might agree if it could be implemented in such a way as to not upset existing template usage the byt far the majority of occasions includes the "ISBN" clause. I maybe that the ISBN-13 element might cause some confusion as well though. Currently I would suggest we leave this well alone. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Original title

Does any one oppose the removal of "(if not in English)" under the Original title field? It is kind of self-referential and to someone not familar with editing on the wikipedia it's be confusing.—Mitaphane _talk 09:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Only for use when there is a foreign language original, not when the title has changed for other reasons. So, keep as is thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is the title outside of the box?

I believe it's standard to put the title at the top of the inside of the infobox, although I could be wrong. For example. Should we bring this infobox into line? - Peregrinefisher 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but where do you find the idea the "inside is standard". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess book isn't the only one, but it looks to be very rare. At Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Arts_&_Entertainment, there are about 20 with the info inside the box, book and golfer are the only ones outside. - Peregrinefisher 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

*shrug* I happen to like having the title outside the box. EVula 19:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Media type

I am seeing a lot of classic works, published before paperbacks were invented, listed as "paperback". Any book published before paperbacks were invented (America 1939) should not list a media type at all, leave it blank - it is assumed hardcover. What else could it be? It also makes no sense to list it as paperback because of modern reprints, I mean, books now are being "re-printed" in any number of formats: Project Gutenberg ASCII text versions, Google Books format, PDF formats. etc.. it is redundant and confusing to list the physical formats of public domain works, or really anything before WWII - it was all hardcover. -- Stbalbach 15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Publisher and release date

I found a couple of articles not specifying these. Kevinalewis, seems to insist showing these empty slots. I wonder for what. --Ligulem 12:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As there was no reason besides "no discussion" given by Kevinalewis, I've reverted back to my last version. I don't think making publisher and release date optional is a major change that needs prior discussing. Simply reverting based on "no discussion" is inappropriate. --Ligulem 13:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

These are treated as very basic bits of information for very nearly all Books, publishers for all but the very earliest and some obscure overseas publications. ISBN for virtually anything since 1966, these are basic information for all title released since then and it the practice to use a "NA" (not applicable) tag for the ISBN field for earlier than that. Aside from that you just made the change with no consultation - this is particlularly to be avoided for such a widely used template. A "couple of articles" does really sway the issue, let me know what the articles are and I can probably find the information to fill the gaps. Thank you . :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have an ownership problem here. There are enough articles that simply don't specify these fields. What's the purpose of showing empty slots in these cases? I wonder how you manage to enforce users specifying these dates by showing these slots as empty. Ridiculous, really. --Ligulem 13:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No ownership problem that I am aware of there only two of us discussing this at present.

Next these field have been this way for at least a year, if not more. The purpose of which is to point out (when missing) that more information is needed in an infobox and particularly basic bibliographic information on titles such as this. Do you have a particular interest in a literature basic wikiproject that has a problem with this or is this a personal view. There is no major problem with the content being missing for a small number of "important" fields. By the way it is not a matter of enforcing anything here, however it is one of mild encouragement to include the information. The Novels WikiProject has a work list with attempts to work trough articles that have missing details, (which includes Publisher and ISBN) so we are getting to it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

So, please explain to me why you need to display {{{publisher}}} on articles where this was not specifed. Are you incapable to spot these cases without that {{{}}} salad on articles? Plus I don't need to be a "member" of anything to disagree with displaying crappy infoboxes. --Ligulem 13:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Again please try to be civil, the original editor's are trying to place as much information as thay are able I am sure however often they don't have the information to hand. It is is a slight reminder to them that this information would be expected. I don't claim this is perfect or infallible, just if a change is to be made there should be some measure of agreement about it. Maybe I didn't get into the talk pages quickly enough myself, but I was trying to defend the "status quo" with a short "change comment" that more often than not is sufficient. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also hardly rediculous - largely a "different" way of looking at things, and the usefulness of the odd empty field. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The silliness comes from the fact that you seem to insist in displaying {{{publisher}}} on articles where editors didn't specify this parameter. Ridiculous is your revert warring about this. --Ligulem 13:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on please stay civil about this, I was the one who actually stopped the reverting. This is partly about the principle of making this type of change without any amount of concensus. I don't necessarily disagree with the change, however what I was trying to say was that there were reasons for the way it was which you appear not to be prepared to consider. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Actually, you were the one who deemed this silly in the first place [1]. Which I agree with. No need to invoke WP:CIVIL here per my taste. --Ligulem 19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinions pro or against. Although, as the fields have been mandatory for a long time, then changing their status should require some discussion before changing them (how small the change may seem). I suggest perhaps starting a new thread and giving the reasons for change (optional fields) and status quo (mandatory fields) and waiting for comments from others. Maybe other improvements/changes are proposed as well. Best, feydey 13:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Approach taken on board. See below. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mandatory fields (Publisher and ISBN)

These fields have been mandatory for at least a year or more and have recently been changed with no prior discussion. A change like this should be discussed and implemented based on the best argumentation and opinion expressed. The reason for these being mandatory as far as I can tell is to encourage original editors to supply this information, or if this is not possible leave these visible to prompt subsequent editors to contribute this information. Obviously such fields need to be kept to an absolute minimum. Do people believe these field should be mandated by the template in this way or should the list of these fields include different fields. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, displaying for example {{{publisher}}} on articles where this is not (yet) specified is suboptimal and outside my understanding why people would insist in keeping this. For obvious reasons something like this:

Sounder (the book) Author William H. Armstrong Language English Genre Novel Publication date 1970 Publication place United States Media type Print (Hardback & Paperback) ISBN 0-06-440020-4

looks bad. And I really don't understand why Kevinalewis can take such great lengths to even revert a change twice that makes these {{{}}} chars disappear on articles ([2], [3]). Requesting other wikipedians to provide empty param definitions ([4], [[5]) is a bad idea as well as that potentially creates more work if a template migration should be needed in the future (renaming parameters), as there would be a lot of unused dangling parameters. Sorry for being a bit obnoxious here, but I don't understand why it should be needed to display {{{publisher}}} on articles or requesting to specify "parameter=|" on calls to have an empty field. Your intention to make these parameters mandatory might be noble but displaying {{{publisher}}} on articles doesn't help in that direction. It rather discourages editors from using this template. Kevinalewis repeatedly reverted a change that actually improved the display of current articles. --Ligulem 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

On a second note, I changed "publisher" and "release_date" to not display anything when these are empty. Nothing is to be changed on the ISBN. So your section title is wrong. --Ligulem 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct, my mistake, trying to work too hard I think, sorry. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, a publisher isn't as necessary to the infobox as, say, the title or the ISBN. Coupled with the fact that it looks really really bad when the information is missing (like Ligulem pointed out), I don't see what the problem is. EVula 19:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Parameter isbn is already optional (and has been before my reverted change). Which is good, as the ISBN can be supplied later if the original editor doesn't know the ISBN at first. Plus, there are some rare cases of books that don't even have an ISBN. I totally agree that parameter "title" is so fundamental that displaying {{{title}}} on articles if it is missing is justified. --Ligulem 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking about importance to the infobox, not whether it is required or not (the ISBN is very important, but not required, as you noted). Poor wording on my part.

As for {{{title}}} missing, it simply can't, otherwise the article just plain wouldn't exist. :-) EVula 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the "factual but slightly missleading" impression given above the vast majority of articles without a publisher would have it like below

Sounder (the book) Author William H. Armstrong Language English Genre Novel Publication date 1970 Publication place United States Media type Print (Hardback & Paperback) ISBN 0-06-440020-4

I have edited thousands of article on books (novels) and as far as I can recall I have found the "problem" and unfortunate appearance that is so objected to "once". The issue to be discussed should focus round the value "or not" of seeing the publisher field displayed as above as an aid or prompt to editors to supply that information as being highly desirable and "basic" information for the infobox.

By the way I will support and defend any decision this debate arrives at, this is the debate as is should have occured first off. Thanks one and all. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently you are defending nothing but your own opinion. As already noted, I find it ridiculous to have to discuss all this, but well, it seems like this is needed on this template here. The problem with your above example is that the call has to include "| publisher =" (defining parameter "publisher" empty) in order not to have {{{publisher}}} on the article. The template call of your example looks like this (note the line "| publisher ="):

{{Infobox book 
| name          = Sounder (the book)
<!-- Commented out: | image         = Sounder.jpg -->
| author        = [[William H. Armstrong]]
| country       = United States
| language      = English
| genre         = [[Novel]]
| publisher     =
| release_date  = 1970
| media_type    = Print ([[Hardcover|Hardback]] & [[Paperback]])
| isbn =  0-06-440020-4
}}

In order to try to end this wasteful discussion (time and talk page space) I have an offer for a compromise: Would it be possible to at least insert two "|" chars in the template code? I mean to change

<tr><th>Publisher</th><td>{{{publisher}}}</td></tr>
<tr><th>Released</th><td>{{{release_date}}}</td></tr>

to

<tr><th>Publisher</th><td>{{{publisher|}}}</td></tr>
<tr><th>Released</th><td>{{{release_date|}}}</td></tr>

which would at least not produce {{{publisher}}} or {{{release_date}}} on articles? --Ligulem 09:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding link to free text of book

I thought it might be useful to add a section to the infobox if there is a link to a copy of the work in the public domain. What do others think? Remember 21:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not completely adverse to this, we will be mainly talking of older (out of copyright), classic works here I think, the only real objection I can think of is the likelyhood of having multiple sources to link to. Most articles for which this sort of thing applies currently put this sort of thing (gutenburg for instance) in an "External links" section at the end of the article. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles using this template

• From Pieces to Weight: Once Upon a Time in Southside Queens
• Eldest

For a complete list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_Book ShotokanTuning 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ideas

• The use of colors is basicly a no/no because everybody has a favourite.
• This should be a infobox.
• There are few book in Wikipedia using a infobox template, while it's quite useful.

ShotokanTuning 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Adding the ISBN Link --Chalko 17:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I second that. --Heron 22:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the books do not use this template yet. Can we extend the template a now while it is easy? I think a few good fileds would be listing a previous and subsequent book in a series if it exists. Also this template is not listed on the main page of info boxe templates. Jabencarsey 23:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• How about accommodation for sequels and other related books? (similar to the chronology feature in the WikiProject Albums infobox) Tredanse 14:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

How about linking ISBN numbers in the same way as Template:Cite book? I would have done it myself but I couldn't figure out how it was done. Kc4 21:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I just spotted all the other bits of discussion about this. Kc4 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Preceded and followed by fields

Are these two fields for a book series (e.g., Harry Potter) or chronological order of books published by author(s)? Or is it for whatever makes sense for the book? I can't find an explanation of what these fields mean... Cburnett 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Series, I would assume. Other books that an author has written have very little to do with each other, so there's no reason to link to them in the infobox. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither do albums, but {{Infobox Album}} does it chronologically. Hence the ambiguity and my confusion. Cburnett 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For Albums there is no normal need for "series" support, so no ambiguity there. Here these are mainly for supporting series, although they can be used for chronological support. The ambiguity is a bit problematic, can anyone see an obvious solution. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest basically a copy/paste from Infobox Album that includes "artist chronology" with previous and next. So there would be two sets of parameters: one for series and one for chronological order. I would find both worthy and useful. Cburnett 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. There is an additional problem of some authors who write more than one series at once (so that a book from one series comes out, then one from another, then one from the first...). Right now, at least, I think we should make it clear that the current preceded_by and followed_by spaces are for series, not chronology. I'll make a note in the usage section accordingly, with more to come later. -User:Elizabennet | talk 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ISBN

Why doesn't/how could the ISBN field provide a link typing ISBN ________ normally would without having to repeat "ISBN"? That just looks kind of silly. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to type ISBN ____ for the wiki engine to recognize it and create the appropriate link behind-the-scenes. Cburnett 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't you create an external-style link such as at User:Mohrr/ISBN. — Mohrr 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

english release date

Can we continue this on the next line:

    | english_release_date =

Namely as follows:

    | english
    _release_date =

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 05:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 05:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge you can't "wrap" a single parameter but others may know differently. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

country = COUNTRY OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATION

It has always been a practice in the USA, or English language world, among bibliographers, etc.

to give - not the county - but the city of publication!!!

Accordingly, please change this Infobox books template.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 05:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the intention behind this idea, but have two questions how do we maintain the country as well as often publisher are these days based in smaller less well known towns and cities and how would we best implement this is we agree with it. A new parameter might be easier, but a revised parameter "town_country" might be more meaningful and "trimmer". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation linking

Should there be a note to specify the genre? Instead of just horror, use the fiction in general horror or film horror? -FMF|contact 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean I have added our usual cause in the sample above but "horror fiction" as a term dues not preclude "horror film" and semantically. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Short story infobox

Am creating an infobox for short stories at {{infobox short story}}. It seems like an overdue move, as there are a lot of short stories that could do with appropriate infoboxes, and the book infobox doesn't quite apply. I thought it would be appropriate to post here about the new infobox. -User:Elizabennet | talk 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

I've removed the forced italicisation of the original title, as it is Wikipedia style not to italicise Cyrillic.--Hadžija 02:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ISBN question

So if an ISBN is to be used, it should be from the original publishing it seems, but what is the procedure for books printed before the ISBN came around? I have been looking at Hermann Hesse's Gertrud (novel) and since it was first published in 1910, it has an "NA" in this field. But on the talk page it has been given an "incomplete infobox" designation, presumably because there is no real ISBN. Tarc 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your observations are all accurate. The only difference being that the "incomplete" tag was the "old" way of indicating something major missing from the infobox, in this can a "first edition cover". I have corrected the tag to the more up to date format. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For books without an ISBN, it is now possible to add an OCLC identifier. (On the book referenced above, Gertrud (novel), I already added the "oclc" parameter.) — Bellhalla 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please...

...add es:Plantilla:Infobox Libro. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.227.34.56 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

If not in English

This text looks stilted in the Template; it tells the reader nothing useful -- obviously whatever follows is going to be not-English. I'm commenting it out if no one objects. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But how else do you say - input this information only if the original title is not in English!? which is the intentino of the message. If it can be reworded them please do - but remove! please don't Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It just seems like the field should be named for editors but labeled for readers. Right now it is backwards. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but the parameter name is inherited and would take a lot of work to change - unless someone had access to a bot that could make a change. Could you proposed a change that would leave the usage meaning intact? both for editors and readers. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The editors are supposed to read the documentation, which spells it out clearly enough. There's no point in bothering readers with something which is after all obvious. --Malyctenar 10:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

P. S. KevinaLewis, please optimize your sig as I've done above; it is less bloated and makes the discussion easier to read.

Ok, I'll change it - but we'll see how it goes - actually it is not obvious we have had so many editor put in English alternate titles (sometime in plural) that it is clearly not obvious. However I will change it and see if people follwo the instructions as you suggest. Sig changed per suggestion by the way. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new field: Website

{{Infobox software}} has a Website: field. Since many new books, especially about technology topics, have official sites now, would it make sense to add an optional Website: field to {{Infobox Book}}, like the one in {{Infobox software}}? Often the official site gives the book's complete table of contents, along with sample pages and chapters, errata, and so on, adding lots of value to the book's article. --Teratornis 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine with me. An option to compare with is {{Infobox zoo}} which displays the link differently. See, for example, Henry Doorly Zoo. Instead of "Website: foo.org/bar" it's just "Website" that is an external link. Cburnett 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Such links are currently considered spam. See also Wikipedia talk:External links#Official book site?. --Ronz 21:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By that token then we should pretty much remove every external link involving a product of any kind. Microsoft Windows links to http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/ and that website exists to sell the OS. http://www.leisterpro.com/ exists to sell Reunion (genealogy software). I could go on and on for days listing such examples. The link to a book's website is no different. No matter which way you dice it, they all are "official" links and I, personally, have no problem with any of them existing.

And, frankly, your generalization about book sites is wrong. [6] is the official book site and offers information I would bet would be striken from WP. Not to mention it include code samples and a free PDF of the entire book. The former is definitely not uncommon for technical books.

In short, what makes books different from every other form of product on wikipedia? Cburnett 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Such links to book sites are currently considered spam. Until they are considered otherwise, it is completely inappropriate to change Infobox Book. This is not the venue to discuss why and if they should be considered spam. --Ronz 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion you linked is your opinion and one person saying they agree. That is not even close to a consensus. I find nothing in WP:EXT specifically singling out books from any other product. The only example about books is avoiding a direct link to a commercial seller (ISBN link should be used instead). So I find neither discussion nor consensus to back up your "this is a waste of time" assertion. Nevermind WP:EXT is a MoS guideline. You need to provide a bit more to go so far as to say call adding website "inappropriate." Cburnett 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was consensus (note I wrote "See also" meaning "in addition, I've asked about this too"). Still, this is not the place to discuss this nor determine consensus. I've started a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Spam#Links_to_official_book_sites --Ronz 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's put that debate to one side - for the moment. What about the advisability of the new field? I agree many modern sites have such "official pages", however many do not. Also the vast majority of older books do not and those are predominantly the books that have had smoe chance to demonstrate "notability" and thus are clearly eligable to bt present here at wikipedia. I have no way of knowing how prevelant such site would be, but my "guess" would be on the low side of 10%. If that is true I see little rationale in adding this to the standard infobox. The other aspect is that the focus of the infobox is the literary significant "first edition" currently, this may dilute this focus. My personal view is that there is no real reason to promote this type of link from a "highlighted" item in the ==External links== section. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kevinalewis. The official website can be mentioned in ==External links==. Apple•_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)