Template talk:Infobox book

Lower case for media_type parameter

{{editprotected}} For media_type, is it possible to remove the lowercase template? It makes the formatting look bad in articles where we've placed capitals. (such as the first letter) If it's left that way for a reason, can someone please explain? ^blurred_peace ☮ 23:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree - this is a cavalier way of imposing stylistic and subjective ideas on all infoboxes regardless of a majority of editors work. No substantive debate had. Also restricted to just one field make the whole look like the work of amateurs. Please change back to the way it used to be. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I also strongly agree. Apparently it was done by request because people were finding things like "Print (Hardcover)" and didn't like the capital H (which I also believe to be incorrect). But forcing the very first letter in an infobox item to be lowercase is highly irregular, and reason not to use a blunt instrument like the {lc} template, but to correct capitalization problems as they're found. Even the person that made the original request later said "The standard in infoboxes is for the first word to be capitalised, and the others uncapitalised...". Is this enuf consensus yet to add the editprotected flag? 76.121.3.85 (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have said so - added as mentioned. An independant admin can check! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

{{editprotected}}

• please add arabic interwiki to this templeate ar:قالب:معلومات كتاب --Heshamdiab116 (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Please add it to the documentation page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Code cleanup

Requesting sync with the sandbox for some minor code cleanup. This is preliminary work before getting on with merging {{infobox book in series}} into here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Worldcat Weblink

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)

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)

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)

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)