From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents
Documentation - Discussion

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Template	This article has been rated as Template-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Template	This page is a Template and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject • (Novels, Novellas, Novelettes & Short stories) Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! Critique (Featured Article): no candidates currently - "10 achieved" Wikipedia wide peer reviews: Original Stories from Real Life Novels WikiProject Peer reviews : Master and Commander Improve: The Body in the Library • Furies of Calderon • Wolf Brother • The Monk • The English Patient • Bones of the Moon • More... Create: Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title The_History_of_Tom_Jones,_a_Foundling for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. The new article Fictional locations now exists - as a companion article to Fictional characters - but it is still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. Another new article A Taste for Death (P.D. James novel)‎ now exists - but it is also still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. A new Infobox exists to support the growing number of "Short Story" articles that are tagged as part of the project - take a look at it and comment on it's talk page. I would suggest we use it for "Short Stories and "Novelettes" and leave the main "Book infobox" for "Novels" and "Novellas". New hitlists added to the main worklist. List of literary works with eponymous heroes List of literary works with eponymous heroines Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

	Children and Young Adult Literature Portal This article is part of WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to children's and young adult literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project.
???	This article has not yet received a type classification.
Template	This page is a Template and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Tasks you can do: WikiProject Children's Literature Open Tasks Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to Children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Update: Author Biography articles and write about new books written for children Expand: Subsections of articles relating to Children's Literature Create new articles relating to Children's Literature Add this template ( {{Children'sLiteratureWikiProject}} ) to the talk pages of articles relating to Children's Literature. Expand and Edit Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature Cooperate with Wikipedians belonged to similar WikiProjects Discuss matters involving Children's literature on this wikiproject's talk page Cleanup the Philip Ardagh article. edit

[edit] Documentation

[edit] Purpose

{{Infobox Book}} —

[edit] Usage

{{Infobox Book 
  | name           =  BOOK NAME
  | title_orig     =  ORIGINAL TITLE IF NOT IN ENGLISH
  | translator     =  TRANSLATOR IF ORIGINAL NOT IN ENGLISH (OR TRANSLATORS)
  | image          =  IMAGE (prefer 1st edition - where permitted)
  | image_caption  =  IMAGE CAPTION (should describe the edition used)
  | author         =  AUTHOR (or AUTHORS)
  | illustrator    =  ILLUSTRATOR USED CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT (where illustrations are a major feature)
  | cover_artist   =  COVER ARTIST
  | country        =  COUNTRY OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATION
  | language       =  LANGUAGE OF ORIGINAL BOOK (see note below)
  | series         =  SERIES IF THERE IS ONE
  | subject        =  SUBJECT (ONLY USE FOR NON-FICTION) (or SUBJECTS)
  | genre          =  GENRE (ONLY USE FOR FICTION) (or GENRES)
  | publisher      =  PUBLISHER OF MAIN PUBLICATION (prefer 1st edition)
  | release_date   =  RELEASE DATE (1st edition)
  | english_release_date = RELEASE DATE (1st English language edition)
  | media_type     =  MEDIA TYPE (PAPERBACK, HARDBACK)
  | pages          =  PAGES (prefer 1st edition)
  | isbn           =  ISBN (prefer 1st edition)
  | preceded_by    =  TITLE OF PRIOR BOOK IN SERIES
  | followed_by    =  TITLE OF SUBSEQUENT BOOK IN SERIES
}}

• Be sure to replace all of the all-caps words.
• Any of the items above can be safely left blank. Note that you may include an image with no caption, but a caption will not be shown if there is no image.
• Wiki links [[]] are fine in any of the Infobox fields.
• Include the HTML comments before and following the template; they help inexperienced editors.
• Please spend some time at the Books WikiProject article and its talk page for standards on presenting names and other data.
• In the "language" field, please be sure that you link to an article that is actually about the language; for example, use [[English language|English]], not [[English]])
• The preceded_by and followed_by fields both apply to books in a series and to sequels. They should not connect separate books chronologically.

[edit] Example

Code

Result

{{Infobox Book | name = Anne of Green Gables | title_orig = | translator = | image = [[Image:Montgomery Anne of Green Gables cover.jpg|200px]] | image = Anne of Green Gables first edition cover. | author = [[Lucy Maud Montgomery]] | illustrator = M. A. and W. A. J. Claus | cover_artist = | country = [[Canada]] | language = [[English language|English]] | series = | subject = | genre = [[Children's literature|Children's novel]] | publisher = [[L. C. Page & Co.]] | release_date = April 1908 | media_type = Print ([[Hardcover]]) | pages = 429 pp ''(first edition)'' | isbn = NA | preceded_by = | followed_by = [[Anne of Avonlea]] }}

Title Anne of Green Gables Anne of Green Gables first edition cover. Author Lucy Maud Montgomery Illustrator M. A. and W. A. J. Claus Country Canada Language English Genre(s) Children's novel Publisher L. C. Page & Co. Released April 1908 Media type Print (Hardcover) Pages 429 pp (first edition) ISBN NA Followed by Anne of Avonlea

[edit] See also

[edit] Discussion

Contents 1 Documentation 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Usage 1.3 Example 1.4 See also 2 Discussion 2.1 Articles using this template 2.2 Ideas 2.3 Other Topics 2.4 Genre 2.5 Series 2.6 Translatation 2.7 Fields related to printed volumes/editions 2.8 Publisher flag idea 2.9 Recommend removal of Size and Weight data 2.10 Another field is needed 2.11 Award field 2.12 Is the template primarily for first editions? 2.13 Image Caption field 2.14 'Illustrator' field addition 2.15 New field for translated titles: First English edition 2.16 New field: Cover art by 2.17 ISBN number 2.18 Discussion of two extra fields 2.19 Proposed new field: Photographer 2.20 ISBN linkage 2.21 Original title 2.22 Why is the title outside of the box? 2.23 Media type 2.24 Publisher and release date 2.25 Mandatory fields (Publisher and ISBN) 2.26 Adding link to free text of book 2.27 Preceded and followed by fields 2.28 ISBN 2.29 english release date 2.30 country = COUNTRY OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATION 2.31 Disambiguation linking 2.32 Short story infobox 2.33 Explanation 2.34 ISBN question 2.35 Please... 2.36 If not in English 2.37 Proposed new field: Website 2.38 Relase Date 2.39 Proposed field: Wikiquote 2.40 How's my first use 2.41 Without CSS 2.42 Microformat for citations 2.43 Editors & foreword-contributors 2.44 Serialized books and release date?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Other Topics

Release date is good, but the book itself will almost always contain the copyright date. How can this be made a part of the template? PeregrineV 17:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

We need to be sure that each novel has the genre explicitly stated in the info box. This will help with categorization and stub sorting. Trust me when you are sorting stubs the last thing you want to do is read through half the article, just to find that the novel is a horror, romance, sci fi, classic, ect novel. Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. just look at my edit history and you will see that my last 1000 edits have been categorization and stub sorting, I know what I am talking about. What I mentioned above is one MAJOR fault of the music wikiproject. 50% of the articles in there do not inform the reader (sorter), what genre an article is in. Please for the sake of this project add this to the mandatory part of the info-box template!!

Sorry about that, but I have about had it with article that don't say what genre or category they are in.Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A bonus if this is done, regexing becomes easier for when the project needs maintanence

(I see you've done a lot of stub-sorting of books and albums, Eagle101, but those stubs still haven't been assigned categories.) I support this proposal, but caution that more than one genre can be applied to a novel. There are a lot of science-fiction-romances and mystery-thrillers to say the least; some novels have elements of many genres, to say nothing of trying to pigeonhole them as either children's, tweens, young adult or adult literature. Either leave plenty of room, or set a limit to the number of adjectives in the infobox, and leave the rest for the categories and the text. GUllman 03:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This would only require one parameter, "Genre = " and when data is passed to it you could for these examples above pass "[[Science-Fiction]]</br>[[Romance]]" or "[[Mystery]]<br/>[[Thrillers]]" this is often done on the Template:Album infobox. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 08:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As no one seemed to take an interest I have done the work to add this field. As it didn't seems appropriate to non-fiction books to have "genre" appear I have made it optional and also for the non-fiction titles I have added another optional parameter "subject". These should be used interchangably, in other words not both on the same book. I would very much encourage the use of these fields for the reasons mentioned by Eagle above. I have amended to documentation related as well. Good hunting. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 10:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Has someone taken on the task of maintaining the canonical collection (advisory) of genres? It would be most unfortunate to have some books classified as "SF" and others as "Science Fiction", although there will always be fights about whether some specific books are "Fantasy" or "Medieval romance", I guess.... if there is such a list, it should be linked early under "guidelines for use"... --Alvestrand 11:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

very good point. Personally I have been using the list at Literary genre but a formal policy might be in order here. I'll certainly give this some thought. Anyone else want to contribute to this one. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 21:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

please see the central debate on this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Novel_categorization. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 12:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Series

One idea that has been used in another book related template that I think has merit if that of "Series". Can I propose that we include a new optional parameter for this. I don't believe it will be used that frequently as few books belong in a series with a title. But some do and this could be a valuable inclusion. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 10:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Due to lack of comment I have gone ahead and added the extra field. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 17:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The series section doesn't seem to work anymore. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It started working once I reverted to Cryptic's version. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translatation

Many books (especially classics and so on) are necessarily translations from languages other than English. So I would strongly urge including an optional translation parameter. Anyone who has ever done translation will recognize how underappreciated this work is. --Lacatosias 10:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Other than that, there are many books which are compilations of, e.g., philosophical essays and hence don't really have a main author but an editor. Some way of indicating this with an optional paramter might aslo be helpful. Also, original title if in foreign language is an idea. Just a proposal. The template shouldn't be cluttered with too much info.--Lacatosias 11:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think that two optional parameters "like yours"

title_orig = original title if not in English

translator = translator(s) if original not in English

would do the job, For the "editor" I would think that the Author should be left but documented to be annotated with the data passed like so "A. N. Other (Editor)" which would save on adding another parameter. I don't think we would need to add editors and well as authors. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 11:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, fine by me. --Lacatosias 11:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fields related to printed volumes/editions

I've removed optional parameters which describe physical details about specific volumes (cover_artist, publisher, release_date, media_type, pages, size_weight, isbn). It's my feeling that these fields are not important to the "title" of the work, and at best can only document one single printed version. I propose moving any such information to a "Editions" section within the article that can list out the various printings, if such information is important. Even newly-released bboks often have two editions (hardcover/paperback), and so we already exceed the practical limits of these template fields. When talking about classic books, which are public domain, it makes very little sense to list any volume information - to do so is just advertising one publisher of many. We should keep this template about the "work", not any one set of physical attributes. -- Netoholic @ 15:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Such changes on a widely used template such as this should really be discussed first "before" change. Just as the documentation on this template requests. Please do not make more such changes without discussion first. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 16:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Making a positive change to the wiki does not need any explanation initially. When I was reverted, I posted here. Looking over this page, I see only a passing mention of ISBN being added, and no comments about the "physical" attributes. It seems those changes were made without discussion. -- Netoholic @ 17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

ISBN included long time ago, probably original (I hav'n't checked!). I see no prolem with using edition details and would myself only use these field to record firest edition details. Or if not change them to 1st edition details at the first opportunity. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 08:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on Kevinalewis's succinct statement of what should be obvious. As to the issue at hand - yes there is sometimes confusion with multiple editions, but the fact is that most books are ever only put out by a single publisher. Even when there are multiple publishers / editions I don't think it hurts to list one over another. If the article contains references to page numbers (as are sometimes demanded by the citation police) then it is important to know which edition those page numbers pertain to. Having a separate 'editions' section could also get extremely convoluted for some texts... you could do an entire article, and a large article at that, on different editions of The Lord of the Rings. --CBDunkerson 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's incorrect that "most books are ever only put out by a single publisher" - when you think on a global scale. Even so, there is wide difference even between printings by a single publisher that can change the size/weight, number of pages, ISBN, etc. -- Netoholic @ 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again not if 1st edition is kept to. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 08:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Um no, on a 'global' scale... most books are still only printed in one country by one publisher. English language books are the primary exception - with a fair number (possibly even a majority) being printed separately in the US, UK and Australia. Even when a publisher does issue a reprint or the same text is printed by a different publisher it is fairly common for the layout to be duplicated as closely as possible. --CBDunkerson 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if a book is printed in one country by one publisher, the various printings will differ over time in cover_artist, pages, size_weight, and isbn. Even information on single printings can be documented in article prose. -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how we at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels tend to work. With the lists of editions as a section in the article for "formidible" texts it has to be restricted to just the most notable ones. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 16:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So I see. The WikiProject already supports listing (some) editions in the article in it's own section. I think that's an excellent way to handle this, and so there is no need for us to pick only one of those to put in the infobox. -- Netoholic @ 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, if page numbers are included in citations then the particular edition those numbers apply to needs to be specified. --CBDunkerson 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That would only be necessary in the "References" sections where, of course, a particular edition would be given explicitely. That has no bearing on what information an infobox on a page about a book should contain. We've already seen that the WikiProject's article guidelines include a setion for listing various printings - the infobox need not hold that information, particularly where only one edition of many possible is used. -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also if we are illusrating to cover it is valuable to give appropriate details of the edition shown, ideally the 1st edition. (or at least first in English). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 08:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publisher flag idea

Perhaps using little flags in the infobox then listing the publisher after (like quite a few anime/manga articles do, such as Fruits Basket) would help in adding information to the infobox. Also, I haven't really come across many book articles with the infobox, should I start adding it to articles I see mimssing it? Tartan 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Short answer if you know what information to add and it is truly a novel article then yes add the infobox. Please use the pattern on WikiProject Novels

do you mean like

   Bantam &  Penguin

or some such similar layout. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is. It might be easier to use in giving information about publishers of different versions of books in certain countries. And release dates too. I was actually thinking more like the anime/manga pages such as ->

Title BOOK NAME

Author	{{{author}}}
Publisher	Penguin Bantam
Released	{{{release_date}}}

In this format there would be less liklihood of running over to other lines in the middle of a link and make things easier to understand. Tartan 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommend removal of Size and Weight data

I know librarians for some reason have a thing for recording the dimensions and weight of books, but I don't believe that this is practical for Wikipedia articles, since books go through many different editions, and therefore the dimensions change all the time. Plus who weighs their books these days? Do we use pounds or grams? What edition gets weighed and measured? Paperback? Hardcover? Y'see? It's completely unworkable. 23skidoo 01:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree 100%, not really needed in an encyclopedia. feydey 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete agreement. EVula 21:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree its not really needed. The template I was directed to use was on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate page, which doesn't include the size and weight information. Tartan 21:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed size and weight from the instructions, it is still in the template for those articles that have that data in their infobox . feydey 21:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of work, but I'd recommend that the articles that still have size and weight be examined to see if this information is really needed or notable. For example my attention was drawn to the use of this in Shogun (novel). The data only applies to the paperback, and I have seen varying sizes of paperback editions of this book -- thinner, thicker, large format, regular paperback ... so to which version does it apply? 23skidoo 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another field is needed

I just spotted a weakness in the infobox. Go to Shogun (novel) and you'll see someone has added the name of the artist who drew the cover of the edition shown. That's great -- but the infobox implies that the edition shown is the original first edition from 1975. In reality it was a much later paperback edition from the 1990s. I believe a field should be added to indicate which edition is being illustrated, especially if we're going to credit the artist; otherwise if someone were to come along and replace the cover with another one -- as I considered doing as I have an early paperback version of Shogun -- it could create some confusion. At the very least, space should be given for a caption to be added. Thoughts? 23skidoo 14:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have modified the example given to include a caption in the way usually used for this infobox. This is within the image reference. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Where abouts is this? If you mean the Shogun infobox it doesn't appear to look any different. 23skidoo 21:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As with all images such an entry comes up as a "tooltip" when you move your mouse over the image, ie. register and interest in it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award field

Instead of having a tiny section in an article, let's have a field in the infobox.

Award(s) YYYY Award Name (win or nom)

Lady Aleena 12:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have thought on the format of these "Award" listings. I would still prefer to see these, albeit reformated perhaps in the article. Mainly as some novels have received mnay awards. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a single book out there that has won more than one award, and the ones which have won an award are rare. If a book has won more than two awards, the Awards field could simply have a link to the Awards section of the article. Also, how would you format the awards listing? Lady Aleena 13:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Once a book has won a single award - chances are it will win more than one. Tere are numerous case - to many ot cite.

==Awards and Nominations==
* 1995 – SF World Award (nom)
* 1996 – Nigel Writer's notable Medal (win)
* 1996 – Jubilation Medal - Honorable mention (win)

Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It was just a thought for those books with no awards or only one award. That way a section in the body would not have to be added. (I got thinking about this with the suggested headings you gave me for the Xanth series. None of those books ever received an award.) Lady Aleena 18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not excited about this field, but for books with 1-2 awards this would be ok. So it would be an optional field. If the book receives more awards - put them in the article and not in the box. feydey 18:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the template primarily for first editions?

I've read through the discussion above, including "Fields related to printed volumes/editions", which touches on this, but I didn't see anything that seemed an unequivocal statement of intent. Is the intention for the infobox to give data for the first edition, wherever possible, and use later edition data only where necessary? Or is it intended primarily to give data about the book itself, with data specific to some particular edition being secondary? At the moment I am hesitating over an update or two because I'm not quite clear on the difference. For example, at Who? (novel) there is a picture of a modern edition. I've updated the box to have info regarding the first edition, but I notice on the template example that multiple media are given -- paperback, hardback and CD -- so it appears the infobox is for all editions. In that case, though, some of the fields seem too specific, bibliographically -- publisher and ISBN and so on. That would make sense if the intention was for this box to be used for the first edition where possible, but as I said I can't find a clear statement of that and thought I'd check here before running around editing articles. Thanks for any info. Mike Christie 17:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that primarily You'd put info about the 1st edition, if not available then from the other editions. The media_type should have the media that the book is and was released in. If the cover picture is from a later edition You just add it as a tooltip like image = [[Image:cover.jpg|Cover to a later paperback edition]]. feydey 17:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Caption field

I have been reconsidering the request made earlier and one or two others are questioning this. What I propose is the a "image_caption" field is added as mentioned above and this be inserted as an optional field and implemented as the image_caption on the Template:Infobox Biography infobox. If no one object straightaway I will insert the field and mock this up on one novel so people can see what it looks like. How does that sound. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree a caption field would be handy. I am currently engaging in a project to create articles on the complete Simon Templar (The Saint) book series and the illustrated cover examples in many cases have different titles than the original publications, and this sort of info needs to be explained in a caption. 23skidoo 11:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, just like Infobox_Film has a caption for posters/DVD covers. feydey 14:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Illustrator' field addition

For the picture books, this is a must. New field? Burns flipper 07:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Cautious Support - I can see the logic of this inclusion. However I have a few reservations. The numer of fields are growing, needs caution. For books that are clearly "picture books" of one kind or another this makes reasonable sense. However books that have illustrations that are no central to the publication rationale, there are likely to be numbers of variations edition to edition; what should we recommend in the field usage guidelines then? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe for books the idea is to use the original publication information? So the guidelines would be for the first edition in the country of first publication. If later versions were illustrated (or illustrated by someone else), this would be noted in the article or potentially have a different ISBN. Burns flipper 09:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I was tending to that thought myself, others views please :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support, I see no big problems either with picture books, strange that there is no category for those. feydey 12:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. There have been enough novels published with illustrations over the years (i.e. Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, and even Dr. Who and the Daleks) that having an illustrator field probably is a good idea. 23skidoo 14:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. But, it should be for real illustrations, not chapter number graphics or somthing similar. Does consistently illustrated throughout make sense? PeregrineV 16:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "consistently illustrated throughout" as Chapter number graphics could be so described, and I agree those should not count as illustrations in and of themselves. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A single illustration at the begining of the novel makes it illustrated by definition, but not "consistently throughout" like a picutre book or illustrated book. Also, a map or 2 at the begining of the novel are a single illustration, multiple maps would be consistently illustrated. PeregrineV 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your thought then is to use this phrase to indicate that the "illustrator" should have been responsible for illustrations used "consistently throught" the novel.?? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 06:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, once the field is there, then the illustrator for even single illustrations could be named, as it would no make a difference. But, when researching novels as opposed to articles on novels in my possession, finding the illustrator name may be difficult. For a picture book, the illustrator is like the author, key information. For a book with an illustration or two (even 1st editions), that infromation would be much less vital. PeregrineV 15:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Implemented - for trial - documentation to follow. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I'd also add info on 'cover art by'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New field for translated titles: First English edition

We have fields related to orginal title and translator, as well as publication date - but the publication date is the 1st editon (non English), while the article usually described the English edition. I'd suggested either adding the new field of 'first English edition' or adding that info to the 'published in' field.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I also wondered that while doing an infobox. So I would also like to see a separate field for the first English edition, to distinguish it from the original. feydey 08:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a major subject and warrants considerable thought. The way this type of thing is being handle currently is to say something like, "Publisher = French Pub co. (orig.) & HarperCollins (Eng. trans. first edition, hardback)". Does that answer the enquiry. Otherwise there are so many different details that could be included that the infobox would begin to get very packed! Also the "Release details" section later in the article pattern can be used to detail any particular editions and the origin and language of those. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the question is not about Publishers, but just adding a "| eng_release_date = "? feydey 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'd go with that, but would prefer "| english_release_date = " as a clearer form. Most will cut and past a pattern to get this so a few extra characters won't matter too much. Needs careful documentatino though! Placing I would propose after the "| release_date = " parameter. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the new field ("| english_release_date = "), let's see how it works out. Please report any problems. feydey 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New field: Cover art by

Considering we are often adding covers, I think it is important to note who the cover we display was made by.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is and we do try to - It requires we know the information. Also please note there is a field for this information, it is just a matter of placing it. If you know some, please do add them. Bear in mind this will change if the cover is changed and will need to be modified in tandem. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately cover artists are often not given credit, especially on paperback editions. It's a shame there isn't some sort of covers database that could be accessed for this information. 23skidoo 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Even if there isn't a field for it, you can put that information in the image's wikitag, which will in turn show up in the image's alt tag in the generated HTML. EVula 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISBN number

I'm presently undergoing a project to catalog my library (I'm at 1900 books and counting) and as part of this project I'm recording ISBN numbers. I have learned, however, that ISBN refers only to a specific edition of the book and not to the book itself. Having an ISBN field in the template I think is asking for the same sort of problem as having a cover artist field. Someone will enter an ISBN number, but it may only be applicable to a certain edition of the book. For example, at least in the 1970s, it was common for books published in the UK to carry a different ISBN if they were imported to the US (not republished - I mean imported). So how do we decide which ISBN to use in the infobox? 23skidoo 14:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The guidance says: "prefer 1st edition" (of the first release country, i assume). feydey 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume folks who add ISBNs will remember to indicate if the number used is for another edition. As an aside question, I know Wikipedia is set up to create an automatic link when ISBNs are used, and presumably it works with the new ISBN13, but what about first-generation ISBNs from 66-67 that used fewer numbers, or sometimes even more numbers (thinking here of the many ISBN numbers from the 1970s that incorporated the price of the book)? 23skidoo 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of two extra fields

Two more field have been proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Two new fields to infobox which warrent everyone's attention. Please get over there and place you views. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new field: Photographer

For photographicly illustrated books. I noticed the lack of a photographer field when my daughter and I created A Moose for Jessica. -Hanuman Das 02:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No field is needed for this info, just add it to the article itself. Not many books have photos and rarely are they by only one person. feydey 08:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

Title Sounder (the book) Author William H. Armstrong Country United States Language English Genre(s) Novel Publisher {{{publisher}}} Released 1970 Media type Print (Hardback & Paperback) ISBN 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

Title Sounder (the book) Author William H. Armstrong Country United States Language English Genre(s) Novel Publisher Released 1970 Media type Print (Hardback & Paperback) ISBN 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)
| image         = [[Image:Sounder.jpg]]
| author        = [[William H. Armstrong]]
| country       = [[United States]]
| language      = [[English language|English]]
| genre         = [[Novel]]
| publisher     =
| release_date  = 1970
| media_type    = Print ([[Hardcover|Hardback]] & [[Paperback]])
| isbn          = 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)