Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox book/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Cover artist

The cover artist field is not showing up at The Great Gatsby. Is there a reason for this? — MusicMaker5376 02:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the parameter is in the singular - fixed it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! — MusicMaker5376 20:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Publisher

{{editprotected}} Just minor, but since this is a template and used in many articles the links should be correct. [[Publisher]] needs to be changed to [[Publishing|Publisher]]. TJ Spyke 18:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This should not be piped. It is possible that publisher will one day have its own article. — RockMFR 18:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See WP:PIPING – I don't see what is incorrect about publisher.  Skomorokh  18:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Why does it need any link at all? For crying out loud, every book reader knows what a publisher is. The book articles are not about getting more clicks to the Publishing page, or any future Publisher page. They are about readers understanding the book and its effect. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Having been converted since my last comment, I agree. Any objections to removal?  Skomorokh  23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Not from me. I think it's WP:OVERLINKING. TJRC (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Object. I see no downside to having it. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
One of the downsides is that it will always give a false positive when an article is analyzed at the linkcount toolserver. The other problem is the one TJRC pointed out with overlinking, that the article should be there mainly for the reader to read about the book—the presence of every single blue wikilink should be balanced against the goal of having the prose be foremost rather than the connectedness. To me, this link fails the relevancy test. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The first problem is a non-problem. To the other one, it's relevant in the context of the infobox and providing tabular information. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be still discussing this so I have disabled the request for now. My personal opinion, however, is that linking "publisher" is excessive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

website

This template needs a website field.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - I can't think of a more undesirable parameter. Rather than focus on the notable bibligrpahic details of the book - and in its first edition this is pointing to probable fansites and publisher advertising. Bad idea.! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal. We manage not to fill other infoboxes with fansites; and many books now have an official website. Dismissing the latter as mere "advertising" is unhelpful - the same could be said for many of the other official website we link to. That doesn't reduce their usefulness or relevance, to our readers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Official website of what then? - surely you are talking about modern books with this one, which has a clear slant to recently published material, even just the last 10 or less. Very restricted and heading toward the least notable books statistically. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
So? It'll be an optional field; we can write guidance explaining when it should, or should not, be used. Besides, old books can have official websites, too: http://www.tcd.ie/Library/old-library/book-of-kells/ Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, but extremely rare! It raises the question of how it is "official". And yes I can see how in the case above you mention. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the request to link Encyclopedia of Chicago to http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/ in its infobox. Is this not a desirable thing to do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see no problem myself with that. Certainly the article should be linked. It is just that as soon as you add a parameter to the infobox people will start to populate it with all sorts of things that vaguely fit into the definition of "website". However much control we impose, the "cat is out of the bag" and all sorts of crud will get added. That is the type of inclusion that I am keen to avoid. Experience here tells me that once open the door will not get closed. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I've heard the same argument espoused about potential parameters in other templates; and have never been persuaded by it - we have to trust each other to use WP wisely, or we may as well all give up. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
So why are we not all administrators? Trust is earned, experience guide who you give it to. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Important

A far more important issue is the use of infoboxes at all. There are editor's primarily those who work on FA classification that tend between them to dislike and remove this template. They have an argument about "usage" that personally I should look into more - however so far it doesn't not convince. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the parameters of the infobox be amendend, such that the insertion of an OCLC no longer results in a direct link to the Worldcat website being created. I think the addition of direct links goes against the spirit of WP:LINKSPAM, not in the perjorative sense, but in the sense that alothough the link is well intentioned and possibly beneficial, it is not the business of Wikipedia to provide links to Worldcat or any other bookcataloging service. There are many other simiar catalging systems such as ISBN, LCCN and ASIN, but the infobox is not used to link directly to their websites. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no non-pejorative sense of WP:LINKSPAM. It refers to "the purpose of promoting a website or a product", which this is not -- it's helping readers to more-easily find books at their local libraries.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Since Worldcat is involved in cataloguing services, linking to its site is effectviely promoting its website over other cataloguing services and other catologuing systems. Which cataloges are more or less helpful than Worldcat, I could not say, but this does seem to be an example of adding direct links which "explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source". The template specifically avoids doing this with the ISBN, and I don't see why Worldcat should be treated differently in this regard. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
That's quoting out of context. The full sentence: "Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article." It's possible that it shouldn't be linking to Worldcat -- but as long as you keep trying to make WP:LINKSPAM fit the situation, you won't succeed in making your point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, there is no explicit solicitation, but readers are being implicitly directed to use a specific external source to expand an article. Is a subtle difference, granted, but the effect is the same. WP:LINKSPAM does say that "There is no hard rule on when this crosses over from being a legitimate attempt to improve the article into being internal spam", and this is the grey area where I am starting from. I think you now agree that it shouldn't be linking to Worldcat, the only difference between us is just that I am trying to articulate why it should not link. I appologise if I am labouring the point about linkspam, but I am trying to reach for the closest analogous approximation to what is wrong with the template. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The WorldCat site contains little more than basic bibliographic info and some user-created content sections transcluded from other sites. I don't see how the linked OCLC pages could reasonably be used to expand articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I do not agree that it should not be linking to Worldcat -- I don't see the same issues that you do. However, I also don't agree that it must be linking to Worldcat. The ease-of-use improvement isn't huge. If the template were tweaked to only link the OCLC in the absence of the ISBN, that might satisfy all concerned... -SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That seemed to be the solution most frequently brought up at the other discussion. For the record, I think it's the best idea going forward - in effect, it would provide an alternative search for items that a reader can't presently find through Special:BookSources, and only then. That ought to alleviate the spam concerns amongst everyone other than Gavin Collins, and I don't see any broad support for his proposal to never link OCLCs. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1) The link to Worldcat is not linkspam and should not be removed. 2) If it is not already clear, the guidance should be strengthened such that OCLC is only useful where there is not an ISBN number. 3) If 2 can be accomplished programmatically in the template, that'd be all the better. older ≠ wiser 17:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be an easy fix: I just tested it in a sandbox, and it appeared to link correctly. The changed version is:

|data18= {{#if:{{{isbn|}}}|{{{oclc}}}|{{#if:{{{oclc|}}}| [http://worldcat.org/oclc/{{urlencode:{{{oclc}}}}} {{{oclc}}}] }}}} It didn't link the OCLC on the book I tested with (using Preview), and when I deleted the ISBN, it linked as before.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the original proposal. The links to WorldCat are beneficial, and do not in any way constitute linkspam. The suggestion that they do strikes me as bizarre. As for the later proposal of only displaying the |oclc= parameter in the absence of the |isbn= parameter, this one actually makes sense but I still disagree with it. In fact, I do not see a need for any change. HairyWombat (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It displays the OCLC either way -- it only links it in the absence of an ISBN, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
While we're at it, could we change the title of the field to "OCLC Number"? --Cybercobra (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead & did this, as it is more accurate and should be non-controversial. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
That would need to be |oclc_number= or, better, |oclc#=. But see below. HairyWombat (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Or even |worldcat= or |worldcat#= as that is what it is. In the documentation, I changed "oclc: OCLC (prefer 1st edition)" to "oclc: OCLC/WorldCat (prefer 1st edition)", to try to clarify this, but was undone. HairyWombat (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the title displayed in the infobox, not the name of the template param. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Oops, got it now. Also, I have struck out what I wrote above. WorldCat calls it "OCLC Number", so that is what the {{Infobox Book}} should display. HairyWombat (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with with Cybercobra statement that "The WorldCat site contains little more than basic bibliographic info and some user-created content sections transcluded from other sites. I don't see how the linked OCLC pages could reasonably be used to expand articles". It also contiains advertising, and I don't understand why we should be feeding the advertisers with traffic from Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I was responding to your claims of "source solicitation"-type linkspam as you quoted that specific part of the policy above ("explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source"); as I said, given the limited data on the pages it cannot reasonably be deemed that type of linkspam, if one reads the surrounding subsection of that part of the policy. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Another view

I have, in the previous discussions, been one of the vocal opponents of the mass addition of OCLC links to this infobox when there is already an ISBN, but my reasons are rather different from Gavin's, and I don't find the term "linkspam" helpful. I understand that Gavin is using this term in good faith, and not as any sort of personal attack, but the pejorative connotations of "spam" mean that the issue gets rather too emotional.

I have no problem whatsoever with OCLC links where ISBNs are unavailable. Worldcat is a very useful resource for locating books, and the OCLC number is in clear second place as the best identifier for a book. My issue is simply that we have Special:booksources for a very good reason. The ISBN provides a link to Special:booksources, from where the reader can choose where to look for a book, including Worldcat, and navigating to Worldcat in this way will provide exactly the same information (including other editions with different ISBNs) as navigating via OCLC. Why, when we already have a mechanism that provides the flexibility to find a book from Worldcat as well as other catalogues, should we be adding a redundant link to Worldcat?

I'm not sure that automatically preventing an OCLC link when there is an ISBN is the best way to deal with this issue. There may be exceptional cases where it is valid to have both - one such possible situation is presented here. The solution here is simple. The current documentation says, "use OCLC when the book has no ISBN", which, by any reasonable interpretation, means that OCLC links should not be automatically added when there is an ISBN. One bot operator has had problems understanding this, so the documentation should be changed to say, "except in exceptional circumstances only use OCLC when the book has no ISBN", and the bot operator who has been adding these links in the absence of any documented consensus for them should revert the bot's edits. There is no reason to change the template at all - the only problem has been with the way it is being used. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You have equated ISBN and OCLC Number in terms of use, and I don't believe that they are the same. The difference is that the ISBN system is hierarchical. The first few digits specifies the publishing company, and it is the publishing company which then assigns the last digits. Hence, there cannot be a "global" catalogue containing every ISBN. That is to say, you cannot link directly from an ISBN number to a catalogue guaranteed to contain it. This explains why the Special:BookSources page is so ungainly; it has to be that way. WorldCat is different in that the OCLC Number is assigned by OCLC, and they also deploy the WorldCat catalogue. So it is possible to link directly from an OCLC Number to a catalogue guaranteed to contain it. It is this that makes the WorldCat link more directly useful than the Special:BookSources page. I believe it would be a retrograde step to subordinate the WorldCat link under the Special:BookSources page. To me, ISBN and OCLC Number are both useful in different ways, and both should be displayed. HairyWombat (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate to link directly to the OCLC site if there are other sites which can be used to access cataloguing information. For instance, the prime tool used for searching on OCLC numbers is FirstSearch], which requires registration. It is probably easier to obtain a particular record relating to an OCLC number by going through Google or another search engine, so that readers can make a choice of which information may be relevant to them, rather than making that decision for them by creating a direct link. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In the unlikely event that Worldcat would not be able to find via ISBN a book with an ISBN that is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article I would accept that this is is an exceptional circumstance where it would be appropriate to have an OCLC link. That still doesn't mean that the vast majority of articles should have both. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
At this point, WorldCat offers the best general purpose interface for linking to other resources, both non-commercial and commercial resources. While I do not like some of the choice they have made in what to display in their interface (and I have spoken to them about it, though I do not expect action, especially rapid action), there might be a good reason for using direct links to it ,as well as through booksources. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
We have also to consider whether it is part of the purpose of a Wikipedia article about a book, as opposed to a reference to a book source, to provide information about where to obtain the book. Articles about other consumer products, such as cameras, cars or cat food, don't tell you where you can buy or borrow them, so why treat books differently? When it comes to book sources I routinely provide OCLC numbers when I can't find ISBNs, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]—in fact I would be willing to accept a (small) wager that a higher percentage of my citations include an OCLC number than any other Wikipedia editor—so I don't need any convincing of the value of Worldcat as a resource. I just don't see why we have direct links to it when the established method of linking to external catalogues, Special:BookSources, provides the same link. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Why would a Wikipedia article about a book not provide information about libraries from where the book can be borrowed? This is information which a Wikipedia user might find useful. A link to WorldCat is not the same as a link to a commercial company, say to Amazon.com. We have direct links to WorldCat because linking to it via the Special:BookSources page is ungainly. In the case of WorldCat, we can do better (and so we should do better). HairyWombat (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Why should we give the Worldcat website special preference, say of the cataloguing service of the Library of Congress, whose catagoling system, based on the Library of Congress Control Number is much more widely used? This move does not stand up to scruitany - we have one rule for Worldcat, and another for more widely used and cited cataloguing sytems. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see the section immediately below, #Classifications. In it, Cybercobra proposed adding Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Classification fields to the Infobox (with no linking), and I supported those and proposed adding Library of Congress Control Number (with linking). See you down below. HairyWombat (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone besides HairyWombat actively object to implementing the conditional linking code Sarek came up with? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Change:

|data18= {{#if:{{{oclc|}}}| [http://worldcat.org/oclc/{{urlencode:{{{oclc}}}}} {{{oclc}}}] }}

To:

|data18= {{#if:{{{isbn|}}}|{{{oclc}}}|{{#if:{{{oclc|}}}| [http://worldcat.org/oclc/{{urlencode:{{{oclc}}}}} {{{oclc}}}] }}}}

So as to not hyperlink the OCLC Number field when an ISBN is provided. With the exception of 1 discussant, no one seems to disagree with this, though some wish for more drastic changes, but this seems a good compromise if/until such measures get consensus. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that disabling OCLC links like this helps our readers. As a reader I never bother to use ISBN where both are provided.  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Now that there's a second active objector, request withdrawn. Further discussion merited. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Skomorokh, perhaps you could explain why you don't find the link redundant to the Special:BookSources link in the infobox? Or why you don't see anything wrong with the duplication? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Asking that is sort of like asking why we should link to a dmoz collection of links on a topic rather than the Google search results for it – I find that Worldcat consistently provides the best and most accurate metadata, and by not linking to it directly we are diluting the quality of information provided for the reader. Choice is great, but providing the reader with 29 different informational resources (not including the hundreds of library and booksellers sites) as a default, we are doing them no favours but more likely harming outcomes. The reason both OCLC and ISBN should be used is that the former can quickly and straightforwardly provide the definitive information, and the latter more options for the advanced/discerning user.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the argument that linking directly to Worldcat to save editors from having to lookup this information elsewhere is to ignore that the major benefit of good cataloguing numbering system, and that is it can be used by different editors for different purposes. What you are arguing is that "one size fits all" or "you can have any color you want, as long as its black". Special:booksources exists for this very reason. The ISBN provides a link to Special:booksources, from where the reader can choose where to look for a book, including Worldcat, and navigating to Worldcat in this way will provide exactly the same information (including other editions with different ISBNs) as navigating via OCLC. Why can't the OCLC number be linked to the OCLC equivalent of Special:booksources, rather than the Worlcat site itself? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not proposing replacing ISBN/booksources with OCLC/Worldcat. I'm proposing keeping both, for the benefits cited of both methods (choice & utility; authoritativeness) and the negatives of citing either alone (overwhelming, lack of guidance; lack of choice, limited info). Using a booksources method for OCLC would defeat the purpose of having OCLC in addition to ISBN. Featuring both is inexpensive (in terms of infobox real estate) and of maximum benefit to our readers.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I am with Skomorokh here. Why force Wikipedia users to navigate through the Special:booksources page when, with a single click, they can be there? It makes no sense to me to deliberately make life difficult for users. As Skomorokh points out, it is not "either/or"; users can be offered both a link to Special:booksources and a direct link to Worldcat. HairyWombat (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Classifications

Striking while the iron is still hot (and there's still a link here from the VP), what would people think of adding Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Classification fields to the box? (Note that the LOC Classification is quite distinct from the Library of Congress Control Number.) To my knowledge, these are the two most popular classification systems for English-language materials; between the two they can be used to locate a book at almost any library, they're useful and legitimate bibliographical information. What's more, I've already written a routine to do a programmatic lookup of these from ISBNs, so making it into a bot should be relatively easy. There would be absolutely no linking involved. Thoughts? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you are proposing that new parameters be added to the Template:Infobox Book. I see no problem with this. (Note, however, that the LCCN seems to be aimed at books published in the USA. It will therefore not pick-up all English language books.) LCCNs now have persistent URLs, called Permalinks, so you could link to a bibliographic record in the Library of Congress Online Catalog. I would include these Permalinks. HairyWombat (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please re-read my comment. I specifically said LCCNs are not part of what I'm suggesting. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I am suggesting it. Infoboxes are usually stuffed over on the right of the page, and are clearly delineated from the main text. I don't see any reason why many classifications can't be displayed in them, including LCCNs. They are all useful. HairyWombat (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I wouldn't oppose such a field (and in fact, my library routine could be modified to grab it too), but I didn't want further drama. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I did misread your post, but I still propose adding LCCN along with the others you suggested. As for drama, avoiding it is a form of self-censorship. This should not be done lightly. Better, I would suggest, to accept drama, and then handle it using Wikipedia:Shunning. This is a very low stress, low cost way to handle its repercussions. HairyWombat (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Shunning is not an appropriate response to editors who make good-faith objections. The way to avoid drama is to do exactly what is happening here, i.e. to discuss the issue and get consensus before unleashing a bot on thousands of articles. Ideally this should happen as part of the bot approval process, but in practice this does not happen. Bots seem to get approved based on a technical evaluation rather than on whether they conform to bot policy by only making edits that have consensus, as happened here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
So, do you have an opinion on the proposed new fields? --Cybercobra (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that "slippery slope" arguments often don't go down well, but if we have an LCCN then why not a British Library shelfmark, or the equivalent for the national libraries of Australia, France, China and Equatorial Guinea? The reason that we have Special:Booksources is to avoid having to have a plethora of identifiers in an article when the International Standard Book Number is present, and any cataloguing service worth its salt can be searched using this number. I'm as yet undecided about the Dewey Decimal Classification. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What about the Library of Congress Classification, which is quite different from the Library of Congress Catalog Number? The Classification is, like Dewey Decimal, a hierarchical topic-based way of organizing books; the Catalog Number on the other hand is just a unique sequential number assigned by the LOC. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm undecided on that too. As a Brit I'm more familiar with Dewey, as it's almost universally used here in public libraries. I would need to look more into how widespread the use of these classifications is before expressing an opinion. I understand the point that classifications are a different issue from catalogue numbers. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
On how widespread the Library of Congress Classification is, with books published in the USA I often see it printed on the "Copyright" page in the prelims of the book (along with the ISBN). I live in Canada, and here we see lots of books from both the UK and USA. I can only remember ever seeing Dewey in a book once or twice, although it is widely used inside libraries (including my local ones). HairyWombat (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, having proposed Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN), I now take it back. I found Phil's "slippery slope" argument convincing. The other four (ISBN, OCLC Number, Dewey, LC Classification) still look good to me. HairyWombat (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
To give a personal take, the public libraries in my area of California all use Dewey, but the local university's libraries use LC Classification; and as Wombat said, the LC is given in most US books alongside the ISBN. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

After playing around in the sandbox, here's what the code would look like: 

|label19= [[Dewey Decimal Classification|Dewey Decimal]]
|data19= {{{dewey|}}}
|label20= [[Library of Congress Classification|LC Classification]]
|data20= {{{congress|}}}
|label21= Preceded by
|data21= {{#if:{{{preceded_by|}}}|''{{{preceded_by}}}''}}
|label22= Followed by
|data22= {{#if:{{{followed_by|}}}|''{{{followed_by|}}}''}}

The parameters would be named dewey and congress and the field titles would be "Dewey Decimal" and "LC Classification" to avoid verbosity and the use of more than one line. They would go before the succession fields but after the ISBN/OCLC fields. Dewey would come before the LoC. Comments? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Replace: 

|label19= Preceded by
|data19= {{#if:{{{preceded_by|}}}|''{{{preceded_by}}}''}}
|label20= Followed by
|data20= {{#if:{{{followed_by|}}}|''{{{followed_by|}}}''}}

With: 

|label19= [[Dewey Decimal Classification|Dewey Decimal]]
|data19= {{{dewey|}}}
|label20= [[Library of Congress Classification|LC Classification]]
|data20= {{{congress|}}}
|label21= Preceded by
|data21= {{#if:{{{preceded_by|}}}|''{{{preceded_by}}}''}}
|label22= Followed by
|data22= {{#if:{{{followed_by|}}}|''{{{followed_by|}}}''}}

So as to add fields for two very widely used bibliographical categorization systems. It's been 9 days, and no one has stated opposition to the addition. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, you can take my non-opposition here to mean that I do not oppose the addition of such classification numbers. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I supported these above, and that hasn't changed. My concern is with the proposed template code. I do not speak template, but will the text "Dewey Decimal" be displayed in the Infobox even when |dewey= is blank? Obviously we don't want that. (And same for "LC Classification".) HairyWombat (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it won't. That's what the bar in {{{foo|}}} does vs. {{{foo}}}. Look at the code for the rest of the template and note that only "author" field is displayed on the default preview. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done. I have made the edit according to the consensus on this page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So that it gets proper scrutiny and those interested may comment: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot 2 --Cybercobra (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth putting in either a slot for a google books link or other url, or allowing linking in one of the titles? I put in an external link at Trick or Treatment, but it seems weird to have it at the bottom. I see the preview as pretty useful, even wildly appropriat as an EL per WP:ELYES point 2, unless you see ELNO 4 (external links promoting a website) as applying. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a URL field for a book's official website (which some have) might be good; don't know about GBooks specifically. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Google books is tricky. Google is commercial. On the other hand, access to the full content (as in the case of Trick or Treatment) is really useful. Perhaps that is the way to play it; a link to Google books only if it gives access to the full content of the book. HairyWombat (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The specific case of TorT isn't full access, it's only a partial preview (I'm not sure how much is actually available). But even that partial preview is extremely helpful, especially with the "search inside" feature if you're looking for verification of something. The google books overview page also has good information - usually a cover image, ISBN, publisher, reviews and some other stuff. However, though these things are useful for editors who are adding or verifying content, it doesn't necessarily speak to the encyclopedic value. Is there encyclopedic value to the link if it's a full preview? I would say that's an inarguable "yes". If it's a partial preview? Still a pretty firm "yes". If it's just the overview page and no preview? Uncertain. And should the google books go in the infobox, or in the external links section? This seems to be supported by WP:ELYES. If it's just in the EL section, then this is a question for either WT:EL or WT:BOOK. And a related consideration - I have a gmail account, and it seems to treat me as a new person each time I access the page. The implications are, if I'm not signed in or didn't have an account, then I hit the preview limit much faster because it is the IP address I share with many other readers that limits my preview. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt Text

Does this need an alt text parameter adding, or is there a way to add alt text already? ϢereSpielChequers 18:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All information contained in the Infobox should also be in the main article. The Infobox is just a convenient itemised summary. Hence, I see no need for an alt text. HairyWombat (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I think images are an exception. If an image is in the infobox it is unlikely to be repeated elsewhere in the article, and images need alt text ϢereSpielChequers 10:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Images can have a caption using the |image_caption= parameter. This can perform the function of alt text. Also, the image will always be of the book the article is about. Could you suggest an example of what you would include as alt text? (I should have asked this earlier.) HairyWombat (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Captions are for explaining the relevance of the image to the article, wp:alt text is for describing what the image is to those who can't see it (the blind and anyone using a text only interface). It's now in MOS and is a requirement for images in featured articles. I was reviewing The Historian at FAC and added alt text for all the images, except the one in the infobox as I couldn't see how to do it. I've now learned there is an easy way, but I would request that an alt text option line be added to the template. I think it is a fairly new requirement at FA so I can understand that it wasn't considered when the template was written. ϢereSpielChequers 08:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
But the alt text you are describing does not apply to the template; it applies to only the image. You have now discovered that alt text can be added to the image (which I wasn't aware of) so it looks like your need is covered. HairyWombat (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a workaround, but what I'd like to see is a |image_alt_text= for alt text just as we have |image_caption= for captions. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
With respect, that is not what you want. For alt text to function the way it is intended, it must be invisible when the image is visible and vice versa. In contrast, a new parameter |image_alt_text= would always be visible (if populated). I believe you are stuck with using the workaround you have discovered. HairyWombat (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Later. Also, your suggestion doesn't just apply to the template {{Infobox book}}, but to all Infobox templates. Therefore, this is probably not the best place to propose your idea. However, for the reason described immediately above, I don't believe it's gonna fly anyway. HairyWombat (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It is "going to fly" and has begun being deployed pretty widely. The problem is that it can't be done centrally due to the way {{infobox}} handles the syntax for media files: that's not fixable at this point, so it has to be worked around on individual templates. I imagine one of the more active alt-texters will eventually add proper support for alt text here: it's an a11y gain with no drawbacks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OCLC outside linkage to worldcat website

Is this linkage desired? Should wikipedia articles with the infobox book have the OCLC number linked to the worldcat website? The template is set up so that when the OCLC number is included in the infobox it links out to the worldcat website ([6]). The ISBN takes the reader to a wikipedia page with information. The Dewey Decimal and LC Classifications are not linked in the example book (The Color Purple), possible someone more knowledgeable can add information to clear this up.

Is this functionality desired, the linking to the worldcat website? The OCLC number was filled in by a bot for most books with this template that had ISBNs in them according to the bot described at this RFBA. The question now is:

1. should the OCLC in the infobox for books be linked to the worldcat website?

If you do, note your support, and feel free to include your reasoning if you desire. If you don't, note your opposition and say if you want it removed by rolling back the bot, or by changing the template so it doesn't link to worldcat or by some other method, if you have a preference about that part of the issue?

Feel free to include information you feel is important to making this decision. I will notify a couple of projects, the bots boards, and members who posted in the discussions above. If there is any other place where I should post a notice, please do so.

Thanks.

--69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, I believe it should. I'll quote what I wrote above about providing OCLC in addition to ISBN: "I find that Worldcat consistently provides the best and most accurate metadata, and by not linking to it directly we are diluting the quality of information provided for the reader. Choice is great, but providing the reader with 29 different informational resources (not including the hundreds of library and booksellers sites) as a default, we are doing them no favours but more likely harming outcomes. The reason both OCLC and ISBN should be used is that the former can quickly and straightforwardly provide the definitive information, and the latter more options for the advanced/discerning user."  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Skomorokh. For books where there is not an ISBN, Worldcat is almost a necessary resource. Even where there is an ISBN, Worldcat provides a more useful directory of resources than the booksources page. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course it should be linked; it's the first step in going further. The booksources list probably needs a major rethinking. This first step is I would separate the book stores from the libraries. DGG ( talk ) 13:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's useful to link to Worldcat when we don't have an ISBN data for a particular book. In other cases it's best to send readers to Special:Booksources instead and not bypass it. If the Booksources page needs improvement, improve it. The conditional option is best. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • No links. I can see where the dividing line over this issue will lay, but I ask for a much broader consideration of the issues which is what is needed here. If we set aside the fact that Worldcat is a useful website, and that the OCLC is a useful cataloguing system for a moment, then perhaps it becomes clearer what the real issue is...independence.
    Links to other tertiary sources are very common in Wikipedia: many articles which link to their equivalent Wikimedia sites. The likes of Wikispecies and Wiktionary support article topics not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia (e.g. word definitions). However, linking to exernal sources outside the Wikimedia domain is considered to be linkspam, as no matter how useful or worthy a website is in terms of content or benefits which it may provide to the reader, it is not part of foundation's remit to support those sites by channelling webtraffic to them.
    The reason is that organisations and websites outside of the Wikimedia domain have different goals, values and standards from the Wikimedia foundation, even if they may themselves be non-profit. In the case of Worldcat, it too is a non-profit tertiary source, but unlike Wikipedia, its editorial policy is different, and the advertising that it carries means that it is may not be entirely independent of its advertisers. The key issue here is that if all of the infobox links are filled in, then Wikipedia is effectively acting as portal on a massive scale, feeding webtraffic to the Worldcat site as if it was part of the Wikimedia foundation. This is unprecedented, as the equivalent link for ISBN feeds to page Special:BookSources. By creating these links, that the independence of Wikimedia's [values are being subtly undermined. For this reason, we have to set a clear boundry between Wikimedia and non-Wikimedia sites and stop and rollback the linkspamming that has got underway.
    The good news is that there is a workaround: adapt the functionality of Special:BookSources, so that it can cater for OCLC links. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Systematic linking to external sites is hardly unprecedented. For example, consider the range of links in Template:CongLinks. I think there are other similar types of templates that have fields that when populated create links to specific external resources. older ≠ wiser 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
No doubt WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the same principal applies there as well. The boundry at which WP:LINKFARM is crossed is a grey area, but in my view, if a bald link is not supporting a citation, it does not need to be there: Bald is bad, content is king.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Or one could argue that quality is king. If the links are from a quality source and provide added value for readers, then prohibiting them based on some artificial standard seems counterproductive. older ≠ wiser 15:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't wish to get sidetracked here over the advantages or disadvantages of bald links. The issue is that we could end up with tens of thousands of direct links to the Worldcat website - the number of links could potentially be very large. The issue is bigger than just whether this is of benefit or not, the issue is whether Wikipedia should be linking itself to tertiary sources outside of the Wikimedia domain on such a large scale. We don't link directly to other tertiary sources, such as the ISO for ISBNs or Merriam-Webster on line, even though they offer quality source and provide added value for readers.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is actually a misleading way to recast the question. Linking to ISO would provide no (or vanishingly small) benefit to anyone looking for info on a particular ISBN. Worldcat is not simply a tertiary source. It is in effect a tool that helps users to find the referenced books. IMO, that benefit is primary. older ≠ wiser 17:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If it is a tool that you are after, then why not adapt Special:BookSources for this purpose? Let the reader decide you they want to link to. Another reason not to link directly and adopting this approach is the possibility of linkrot. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
But we don't link directly; we link via the template {{Infobox book}}. Linking via a template is, in fact, one of the techniques recommended at WP:Linkrot for preventing link rot. HairyWombat (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to post. I would like this to stay here briefly, as one more user expressed interest in posting on the topic. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment about subject in general It looks like there is strong advocacy for linking this particular variable in addition to discussing the issue here, such as, should it be discussed at WP:External links? I think this is the interested community, and I did post a notice at VPP. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You could certainly post a notice about this discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, but starting an independent, essentially identical discussion there would tend toward forum shopping (note: I don't intend this comment to be at all interpreted as having any relation to your WP:BN post, which I personally saw as legit and did not classify as forum shopping). --Cybercobra (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I think that asking specific issues to the interested audience is not forum shopping. The wiki tendency to do the opposite, to make every location and every discussion the place for all tangentially related issues is not a good thing, it detracts from specific resolutions for specific issues. There would be no point in asking specifically whether the OCLC number should be linked to the worldcat page, at external links, even if editors who monitor the external links page would be interested in this specific issue.
Yes, a notice could be posted there, so should one? I don't really know. I see my statement is not very clear though. The question I would ask at external links, would be about linking parameters in information boxes in general. It's different, imo, from linking, say, to the candidate's web page, when an information box contains an external link.
The real question I was trying to ask was do editors here see that there is a need to poll a larger community about using an outside linked parameter in an information box? I don't think it's relevant to this particular outcome, but I would like to know what some part of the wikipedia community feels about it. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
External links is one of the most contentious issues within Wikipedia. You lot can go over there and discuss such things if you like, but I am staying away. HairyWombat (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to start the discussion if other users have no stated interest. Yes, it's not likely to wind up with clear-cut consensus. It probably should be discussed, but my main purpose was finding some level of consensus for what a bot had already done. --69.225.2.24 (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Except that, as has been explained over and over and over, the bot didn't do it. Linking to the WorldCat site was built into the template when the |oclc= parameter was added in 2007. The bot merely populated this parameter. What the bot did was bring the parameter to prominence, and so the pre-existing linking to prominence. HairyWombat (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Except has been explained over and over I know that. --69.225.2.24 (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

english_pub_date documentation

The documentation for the english_pub_date parameter reads:

english_pub_date
Published in English (1st English edition)

I'm just wondering if a reword is warranted, along the lines of:

First published in English (1st English edition), if originally published in another language

The clarification is maybe not strictly necessary, but it might clear up any possible ambiguity about the parameter's intended use (I had to search the talk page archives for a precise definition of its function). --Muchness (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - put in as given - with slight modification to increase synergy with std pub_date text. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding a word count parameter

A discussion started in 2007 with two responses as late as 2008 asking for a word count parameter to be added. No opinions against it have been stated. I have added the word count to the Brave New World infobook (words = 64106, right underneath pages). Please add word count the template if no one has anything against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.41.165 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My only concern is how rarely it would be used. For how many books is the exact word count known? If it's a lot, then sounds like an awesome addition, but if not, I'm more wary. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
And what value would it add? Problem atic when novels are available on more editions are is often true with older material. Again I would ask the age old question Why? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with Kevin; I imagine this information would be of little use (and indeed may be indigestible) to the majority of our readers.  Skomorokh  16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Some pro arguments would be if someone is looking for a short or long book to read by browsing wikipedia, or someone is doing some personal research on the relationship between book quality/famousness and book length. For these purposes it's not the exact word count that is relevant (and therefore the edition), but the approximate one (approx 65000 for Brave New World, approx 645000 for Atlas Shrugged gives one an idea about the relative length of these novels (the first number is my own personal counting from www.huxley.net, the latter number from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_novels)). In addition, the number of pages is already given for novels, yet is less informative: Brave New World has 288, Atlas Shrugged has 1368 (according to the respective articles on Wikipedia), which would suggest a ~4.75:1 ratio, as opposed to a ~10:1 ratio according to the word counts. So a response to the "why" question would be: it serves the same purpose as the 'pages' field which already passed the relevance judgement, but more accurate. Anyway, I brought it up since there were no con- arguments the last time the proposal appeared. I would be happy to do the word count for 100-200 novels if that would increase the chances that you would include the word count. (Sorry, I should have probably logged in before posting here -- it's me the same guy who posted the proposal) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.41.165 (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Pages is a regular feature of bibliographic details provided by publishers etc. and is very easily verifiable. Word count is less easily verified (and a stong point of wikipedia) and rarely considered an importance part of bibliographic information. I see your points about accuracy but only where a count has been made (verifiably) and comparison relies on a second verifiable count. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Country"

{{editprotected}} Could we please change the display text of the "country" parameter to "Country of origin" or similar? Currently it's ambiguous where used on article pages: country of origin, country of setting or what? -- 22:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smjg (talk • contribs)

Agree that this is a bit vague - but would like to see some consensus on what this should be changed to... "Country of original publication" is in the description, but 'tis a bit too long for the infobox. Skier Dude (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"Published in" is short and descriptive. However, I personally prefer "Country". HairyWombat (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please replace the request when you have come to a conclusion. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"Published in" to me says everywhere where it's been published, not just the original place. "Originally published in"? "First published in"? Hmm.... -- Smjg (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"First published country" seems about as good as we can get - anyone else improve on this.? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
"First published country" is accurate, but too wide. It will widen the entire Infobox and make it look unbalanced. Rather than do that I would prefer it was left alone as "Country". HairyWombat (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I tested in the sandbox and can confirm that the proposed rephrasing is long enough to interfere with the infobox's alignment. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
For the reason mentioned I would agree with "HairyWombat". Perhaps the way to deal with the issue would be to add an overall descriptive to show that the content relates to "First publication" information. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Cybercobra - which proposed rephrasing are you talking about here? Moreover, if a certain rephrasing makes the layout too wide, can't we fix it with a hard line break? -- Smjg (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The one in my comment immediately above that by Cybercobra, "First published country". Personally, I prefer "Country". HairyWombat (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should we be giving the country of publication, when all catalogues and citation systems with which I am familiar provide the location of publication by city rather than by country? Aren't we supposed to follow what happens in the world outside of Wikipedia rather than make up our own criteria for what should be included in articles? I would suggest changing the parameter to "location=" (with of course, backwards compatibility to cover existing articles), with the wording something on the lines of "first published in", or something shorter if someone can come up with it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Now this makes sense. It also brings this template into line with {{cite book}} which also has a parameter |location=. My recollection of the relevant British Standard (which I no longer have access to) is that the location should be either of the form "City" or "City:Country", the former being more usual. The description over on {{cite book}} just says "Geographical place of publication". Following their lead, a description of "Geographical place of first publication" would be excellent. A display text in the Infobox of "Published in" or "First published in" would be OK. HairyWombat (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
And while we are making changes .... In the displayed Infobox, parameter |country= (or |location=) should be moved down so that it is immediately after |publisher=. HairyWombat (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

From the example (Anne of Green Gables) provided on the template page as an illustration of its use, it would appear that the "Country" parameter is not necessarily meant to be the country of publication. The country given for Anne of Green Gables is Canada, whereas its country of publication was the USA (viz. Boston).
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that the documentation says specifically that the "Country" parameter is meant to be for the "country of original publication". I have changed the documentation page so that the country given for Anne of Green Gables is the USA.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_book/Archive_5&oldid=1145580806"