Template talk:Infobox book/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox book. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ->

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Other Topics