Template talk:Infobox Book

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Infobox Book page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Template:Infobox Book is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents

[edit] Dedicated to/In memoriam

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

Interesting idea - not sure what to think on it myself, it is such a large template already. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't people dedicate books just using the first name of the person? IMO, doesn't sound too useful. --MarsRover 19:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Amazon

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

Because if you list an ISBN Wikipedia does that already. --P3d0 18:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
And if you did this outside that mechanism that would be essentially advertising. Which is not what wikipedia is about. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISBN

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

{{editprotected}}

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

Not they didn't, they just were aiming at a different end result. Be kind! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I was being kind by assuming they were just confused and not intentionally choosing to come up with an end result which was impractical for no good reason. If they did that on purpose then they really ought to rethink their priorities. DreamGuy 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's how to fix it:

Remove the line

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


Add the line:

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

I can see how this would work for the lazier editor - BUT it would break ALL the existing template usage article pages. The change aim could be achieved I'm sure but it needs to take account of pages the currently include the "= ISBN 9-999-99999-2" style format and those that attempt to use the "= 9-999-99999-9" style format. All editors currently need to do is precede the number with "ISBN" which is easy. I can see the value in allowing both but any change needs to work for both formats. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Preceding the number with anything nowiki is completely impractical -- the whole point is to have the template do the grunt work, and if it doesn;t there's no point to even using the template in the first place, as you could just hand code the whole thing each time. And I don't understand how the two different ISBN formats would not just automatically work the way I suggest. DreamGuy 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
In actual fact this also alters the tidy alignment of columns which we currently have so we need some concensus on whether that is desirable. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't alter any tidy alignment of columns in that we already have image captions centered so can have something else up there centered, AND give it the visibility it needs. Alleged tidiness shouldn't destroy the practical function of the template. And, honestly, this particular template is rather ugly to begin with, so certainly can be reworked.
We already had several people above say the ISBN link should work, and that's what this change would do. There's your consensus right there. DreamGuy 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No, actually you have had a number of people express a desire for the same result you are pushing for, which I have no problem with. What we are actually debating to the best way to deliver what is requested. The agreement is that the "= ISBN" with the extra "ISBN" should not be necessary. I don't know that anyone disputes that. The concensus we need to on the eventual infobox appearance or layout and secondly on the technical method of coding. This second part ideally should take account of the "vast" majority of articles that make use of the "= ISBN" article coding. I think we should debate the resultant appearance first and then consider if this can be technically achieved second (with or without Bot mass changes to existing articles.) Once initial point on layout, what ever we do on ISBN we should do also with OCLC. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Size of image

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

[edit] COinS

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

I have had a look at COinS but you might need to expain a bit more - must be being a bit dense this morning. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats/COinS. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, not sure how {{cite book}} etc actually do the necessary though. To me it looks as though the template documentation just asserts that id does. I see nothing obvious in the code that gives a clue as to "how" it does it. So how to know whether this template complies? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[Belated response - apologies] you need a coins aware browser tool, such as Zotero or OpenURL Referrer extensions for Firefox. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit protected request

{{edit protected}}

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

The doc page has the code
<includeonly>{{Template doc page transcluded}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{template doc page viewed directly}}</noinclude>
which I prefer, as it is not as garish as the big icon and green box. I usually leave templates with whichever system was put in place first, since I doubt there is complete agreement about which system is better. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title color

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

FR's white-on-pale-blue is too low-contrast to be read by people with some visual disabilities. Accessibility should come before aesthetics. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think of that. You're probably right. --Zantastik talk 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit-protected request: COinS metadata

{{editprotected}}

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

Editprotected requests are for immediate changes. If you write the code, I'd be happy to implement it for you, after checking it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
OK; done at User:Pigsonthewing/scratchpad2 (examples on that page's talk page). The only issue is the date, which expects wither a year (or ISO8601 format), but I don't think it breaks anything. Also, it would be better if the infobox had "first" and "last" parameters for author name. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
There's also the issue that the square brackets from linked items are passed as part of the parameter values :-( Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Does anyone have any idea what we can do about the issues I raised? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Nudge. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no way to automatically 'split' a name in Wikipedia... there are no string functions. Thus, the only way to get the names into separate first and last parameters would be to build a bot, or do it manually for every page. The #time: parserfunction can change date formats around. For example, {{#time: c|10 June 2007}} produces 2007-06-10T00:00:00+00:00. The 'c' indicates that ISO8601 format should be used. A 'Y' instead of 'c' would return just the four digit year. However, this might run into trouble with the date parameter values on some templates. For instance, if a range (e.g. 1954-1955) were used in the date parameter {{#time: c|1954-1955}} would return Error: invalid time. --CBD 12:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I'll copy the latter point to WP:UF. Is it supported in al WikiMedia instances (and since which version) or just Wikipedia? 13:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett
The #time option was added last August and works in MediaWiki version 1.6 and higher. It is installed on all the WikiMedia sites and various external wikis. --CBD 13:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Code cleanup

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

Just got back after a weekend off and now find that this is inconsistent with most other book related infoboxes, so yes I object. Personally think this should have been more widely discussed, more time given for people to comment and some consistency gained with Short Story infobox at least. Can you revert this element of the change please. Now that this is a protected template there is more onous on those with the ability to be more cautious as others are unable to directly get their points included. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the name parameter back to using <caption>. It should be noted that a lot of high-use templates are no longer using <caption>, including Template:Infobox Officeholder, Template:Infobox Album, and Template:Infobox Film. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I'd actually be more inclined to merge some of those infoboxes into this one. I'll look at this later. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Only of course the ones that are "Books" (short stories and characters are not) . :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
And of course Books Series which is by nature a set of something rather than an individual. It probably need the most work or at least a better replacement. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISBN-10 vs ISBN-13

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

There is absolutely no need. The wikimedia code allow for either form just after the "ISBN" characters that are needed first in this field. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I seem to be having problems with ISBN-13. When I use "ISBN" and then a 13 digit ISBN group, the initial 10 digits are hyperlinked, but the balance remain in normal text. Suggestions? AusTerrapin 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If your problems were with 978-0972222006 then all that is needed is to add the ISBN 978-0972222006 before it. if it is with 0972222006 then ISBN 0972222006 applies. However when I found it it had 097222206 which is one digit short so ISBN 097222206 would not work. All this applies with or without hyphens. The linking only works if there are 10 digits or 13, and by the way no check is made beyond that as far as I can see. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That explains it, although it doesn't fix the problem in this case. You have correctly picked me up on using the wrong ISBN-10 code (0-072222-0-6), however the substitute isn't quite right either. The codes supplied on the back of the book are "ISBN-10: 0-9722220-0-6" and "ISBN-13: 978-0-972222-0-6". While the former is ten digits plus dashes, the latter is 12 digits plus dashes. While my understanding is that technically this should be given a leading "0" to make it 13 digits, my intent was to preserve the form used on the book (including dashes). It would seem that the underlying code does not like this real world practice, but I will happily defer to your greater experience in matters Wikipedia. Given that there are differences in the ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 numbers allocated for some books, perhaps the infobox template should be modified to provide both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 fields where available - thus assisting readers to search by whichever best suits their needs. Cheers. AusTerrapin 11:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This a really interesting example. Bear in mind that the wikicode here is not the one at fault. The fault is with either the publishers or printers (or both). ISBNs have a strict formal structure and can only be 10 or 13 characters. Also the "last" digit in each case is a check digit which is meant to verify the accuracy of the keyed or scanned number. You need to bear in mind that the EAN bar coded version may well be correct and the printed (visible version) may be incorrect. All that the wikicode does is to check for 10 digits or 13 digits it doesn't check the "check digit". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean by 10 and 13 numbers being different, of course they are different. Firstly one has 10 chars and the other 13 (obvious you say). However this means that the check digit calculation varies and the resultant "check digit" may vary. Not always but mostly will be different. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
See article Check digit for more on this subject :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I wasn't quite clear enough when I said they were different and yes I have previously read up on the methodology behind the two codes (although a while ago now). My understanding is that, in principle, ISBN-13 and ISBN-10 vary only in that ISBN-13 has a 3 digit prefix before the ISBN-10 number and that the check digit is updated to reflect this. In the specific example I cited for Sharpe's Skirmish (revised extended edition), the difference is in the third last digit (0-9722220-0-6 vs 978-0-972222-0-6). Having run a quick google search, it would appear that this discrepancy is in fact a publication error and that the extra 0 is what is missing from the ISBN-13. Notwithstanding, I still think there is relevance in providing both, particularly since the check digit is likely to vary and while this can be calculated, the average person is unlikely to go to this trouble. A coding guru might even contemplate a check for the ISBN template to verify that the number parsed into the template computes to the supplied check digit - although maybe I am being to ambitious now. :) Cheers. AusTerrapin 11:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I would think those responsible for the wikicode would baulk at this one. But also I see what you mean about the faulty numeric code I would think that a note in a "publication history" section toward the end of the article is all that is needed, just giving the wrong code and noting that in publication an error was made. Wikipeida is meant to describe the real world not provide an ordering mechanism. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Book (form)

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

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

Infobox Book
Author {{{author}}}
Publisher {{{publisher}}}

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

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

Here's an experiment:

Infobox Book
Author {{{author}}}
Publisher {{{publisher}}}

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

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

COMPULSORY
Author COMPULSORY
Publisher COMPULSORY
Publication date COMPULSORY
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Infobox Book (Template form)

Infobox Book
Image:The Book.jpg
The Book (2007)
Author {{{author}}}
Original title The Book: It's Elements
Translator John Doe
Illustrator Mary Doe
Cover artist None
Country USA
Language English
Series First
Subject(s) Book collecting
Genre(s) ?
Publisher {{{publisher}}}
Published in
English		 2007
Media type softcover
Pages xvi, 567
ISBN 123456789
OCLC 987654321
Preceded by a
Followed by b
Now I just need to come to this Discussion page, Open it, & Copy & Paste this Template. A bit tedious, but it will do until some expert(s) come(s) and improves upon it. Best, --Ludvikus 17:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be very nice if we had it in a easily accessible place like the Wiki "toolbox." --Ludvikus 17:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at the WP:NOVELS wikiproject where we have a lot of support for people writing prose related articles. What you might be after is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxCode. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but actually my interest lies, regarding Books, in all Nonfiction items>
Furthermore, what I'm asking for is something like this:
    {{Template (books)}}

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

[edit] Edit request

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

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

[edit] ISBN (prefer 1st edition)

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

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

[edit] {Editprotected} width overrides (2)

{{editprotected}}

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

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

and

For this (a few lines lower):

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] my bad

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

|{{{imagewidth}}} |auto}}
in the section
{{#if:{{{image|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align:center; width=<!-- 
-->{{#if:{{{imagewidth|}}}|{{{imagewidth}}|auto}}; " {{!}} {{{image}}}<!-- 
-->{{#if:{{{image_caption|}}}|<br/>{{{image_caption}}}}}
Please insert one,
and check list of templates on page bottom that there are no other redlinked "psuedo templates" on the page. Thanks // FrankB 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Done, although I'm not sure if the imagewidth field does anything. In this template, the image widths seem to be given in the image field, eg Animal Farm. Also, I was wondering why this used
width={{#if:{{{imagewidth|}}}|{{{imagewidth}}}|auto}};

rather than

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

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

[edit] how to link ISBN?

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

Like with anywhere in wikipedia all it needs is an "ISBN" before the number. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the field is only used for ISBN why make people write ISBN xxx, why not just write xxx and have the template put in whatever it needs to to make it into an ISBN link. The way it is the template ends up saying ISBN ISBN xxx. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If anyone knows you how to code this it would perhaps be helpful. But is would need to be backwards compatible with all the infoboxes that currently contain "ISBN" already. Don't forget it would need to link as if the ISBN text was present. i.e. as if the editor had included it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like this change too. Currently, the reader sees "ISBN ISBN 1234567890", which looks silly, (e.g. Anthem (novella)). Further, the {{cite book}} template has a field called "isbn" that creates a link without needing an "ISBN" keyword. --Jtir (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Placeholder Image

{{editprotected}}

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


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

for

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


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

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

Removing editprotected for now. I don't think this code does what you want, since it only adds the placeholder to the if test rather than putting it somewhere it would display. Second, the placeholder link generates a wikipedia error for me. Finally, I personally dislike the person placeholder image, and suspect some others do to. Assuming this image is similar, having it appear by default would need some discussion. Gimmetrow 05:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about this either, certainly not by default. It would an expraordinary amount of image cruft on articles that "may" not really need them or at least will not get a rapid resolution. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, sorry you guys > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a word count parameter?

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

Probably not a bad idea, my only concern is that, especially for translations, word count could differ quite a bit. If it were used, it should probably state that its an approximate word count or it should tell which version of the book was used. --MZMcBride 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the word count could apply only to the first published edition? I agree with the translation problem. There's an additional problem with many books of whether or not to include information on introductions, epilogues, etc (for example, if it's a biography, should the word count include the book's references section?). -Elizabennet | talk 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image glitch

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

It's not a "glitch". It's a valid way of constructing infoboxes, and it reduces the amount of syntax an editor has to know to add an image to an unfamiliar infobox. Regardless, it's a bit late in the day to fix this now. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Also you would have to code for things like image size separately - no error - just different. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Country field

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

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

There is an archived suggestion that it be changed to city of publication, which is consistent with how publication information is shown in books and citations. Kablammo (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If that were ever changed bear in mind that not all publishers work out of cities (most do I know). Also most would not appreciate where some of these "cites" are unless "country" is also given. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Where it is unclear the country could be given. By specifying the city we would be doing no more than following convention. And there really is no need for the little flag icons. Kablammo (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Certianly agree about the flag Icons (unnecessary). although I wouldn't advocate leaving off country for too many cities as that asumes knowledge that the reader of the wiki may well no have. e.g. how many English speakers appear to think New York is the Capitol of the USA. In other words we can't assume knowledge. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I rather like the small flag icons, personally - I think that they look nice and are a good addition to the box (just as far aesthetics goes) - it breaks up the text a bit. I'm a fan of always including a visual to text whenever possible, though - but isn't that why we include book covers for all books, rather than just the ones with famous artists/covers?  :) -Elizabennet | talk 18:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
While adding the state, province, or country would be not needed for cities such as New York, Toronto, London, Paris, etc., adding them would do no harm and would be helpful where there is a possibility of confusion. Kablammo (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox questions

Please forgive me as a newcomer if I find the book infobox procedure confusing/confused. Yesterday, I was trying to work on the infobox for Nausea.

  • The infobox template primarily emphasizes the original, rather than the translation. Therefore shouldn't the title of this article (and of the infobox too) be "La Nausée," which would agree with the grammatical subject of the lead opening? Of, if not, then shouldn't the infobox emphasize the translation?
  • The infobox template has date fields both for the original and for the translation. Shouldn't it also have publisher (and place?) fields for both? Right now the American publisher for Nausea is awkwardly placed in the picture caption.
  • There are many novels, especially by Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Chekhov, that have several notable, controversial, translations. Shouldn't the infobox allow for more than one? Or should there perhaps be a separate translation infobox for each? The infobox for The Brothers Karamazov currently copes with this by not listing any translations at all. I feel this is unacceptable.
  • Referring now to the article itself, rather than just the infobox, shouldn't we be encouraged by the suggested format to discuss the translation quality? Although authoritative critical sources may be scarce, there are often book reviews. Also, we could select a sentence or two to quote and then give the corresponding translation(s). Let readers decide for themselves whether they prefer the contemporaneous Edwardian eloquence of Constance Garnett or the anachronistic but streamlined prose of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. In this respect, the The Brothers Karamazov article is better than its infobox, since it has a section discussing this alternative. (Although it could be criticized for ignoring other notable translations and for bias against Constance Garnett that does not take into account the kind of mitigating factors mentioned at the end of her article.) Even in cases where there is only one popular translation, it may be a better or worse one. (I personally feel the translations of The Counterfeiters and of Adolphe, while not too bad literally, fail seriously to convey the style and spirit of the originals. I would search for references that say -- or refute -- this, or would give brief sample excerpts.)

William P. Coleman (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All kinds of implications here; this deserves more discussion but much of this relates more to general article issues than to just infobox. You might like to propose a few solutions to the problems you pose; bear in mind that often solutions to one problem causes other problems. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language

The description for the "Language" field is "Language of original book," which I'm afraid is a bit ambiguous. Is that the language of the author's manuscript, or the language in which it was first published? Doctor Zhivago, for instance, was written in Russian, but as it was first published in Italy it was done so simultaneously in Italian and Russian--so if it's the language of the author's manuscript then the "original book" was in Russian, but if it's the language of the first publication then the "original book" was in both Italian and Russian. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting case. Not one that would appear many times I'm sure. I would go with the manuscript idea however we tend to emphasize the "first publication" with the infobox gen. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compulsory Name proposal

Shouldn't this be optional, when the book cover itself clearly shows the title? See for example: Tom Brown's Schooldays. I suggest an optional "title=off" parameter in such instances. JGHowes talk - 16:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. All books have titles; it's consistent. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with MZMcBride. Also I think COinS is supported by a clear input of the Title field. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move title into infobox?

I've just noticed that every other infobox I've seen- {{Infobox VG}} to {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox Celebrity}} and even {{Infobox album}} stick the headers inside. For consistency's sake, shouldn't the books infobox follow suit? David Fuchs (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

All I would say about this is that any change should include both this and the "infobox short story" as well. both are "consistent" with each other. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly! You made no change to make sure the two infoboxes changed in tandem / consistent form. I have made an attempt at the same change in the "Short story" one and I trust it works well enough. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titles aren't wrapping

Instead of wrapping within the width of the infobox, my browser is showing them on one line, which for long titles is bad, pushing the box to the left. See, e.g., Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Maybe this is just a problem with my browser (Firefox 3.b3/OSX)?

See also Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software. I'm using Conkeror. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Should be fixed. See section directly above. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest: Award(s)

Suggest adding Awards= davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Which awards would we put in the Infobox? Limit it to Nobels and Pulitzers? Hugos and Nebulas? Geisel, Carnegie, Newberry? Or open it up to any award? Awards can be too varied for inclusion in the Infobox. It's better to leave treatment of them to the body of the article itself. If the work's award status isn't clear in the Lead, then perhaps that needs to be rewritten.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
A simple list of notable awards is sufficient, e.g. "Awards=Newberry, Caldecott." I didn't know a Nobel was an award for literary work but I guess it could be for a scientific paper. The criteria would be "if the award has a Wikipedia entry, it's presumed notable, otherwise, it's presumed not notable." The ones you mentioned and many more would qualify, the "Ms. James 3rd Grade Class Favorite Book Award, John Jones Elementary School, Anytown, USA" would not. The award list itself can free-form not intended to be parsed by a computer. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can't get the darn Infobox Book to display

I have the code correct and I just can't get the Infobox Book to display on my mediawiki. I am 2 days into this problem and I am pulling my hair out over this issue. HELP!!! Alpinevp (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Alpinevp

[edit] Make {{{name}}} inherit from page name if unspecified

{{editprotected}}

No-brainer here. If an article's title matches that of the book in question, it should be possible to omit the {{{name}}} attribute and have it be inherited. Requested edit:

|above= {{{name}}}

becomes

|above= {{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}

If {{{name}}} is specified it'll still be preferred. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done – certainly a no-brainer. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linking of 'Country' and 'Language' headers

Is there any point in this? No reader of an article about a book is likely to have to have the concept of a country or a language explained to them. This just creates a huge number of valueless links. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Please remove the wikilinking of the 'Country' and 'Language' headers. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  22:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)