Template talk:Infobox book

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Infobox Book)
Jump to: navigation, search

Use of preceded by / followed by in infobox book[edit]

I have seen the feature used on articles about books by one author that are not a series (e.g. some of the novels by Charles Dickens). I find it helpful, even when the article has a template with all the articles on the books written by the author down at the end of the article, and never thought it was for series only, rather to link to the next book published by that author. Now that I use a mobile phone on occasion to read articles, the feature in the infobox shows up and can be used to navigate to the prior or next book by that author. Those handy author templates do not appear on the mobile version. A point for discussion. If the rules stay as they are, then it seems to me that preceded by / followed by should not be allowed unless series= is filled in. We discussed this briefly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Make more use in infobox of preceded by.2Ffollowed by for authors with multiple books, where one wants to stick with the series concept, another suggests adding a feature for the chronological order of the books by an author who has published many, if nothing else can be worked out. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This feature is used in all the articles on novels and short stories by Agatha Christie. The articles are linked by year, not by each of her many fictional detectives. I believe this was set up long ago by the editor who worked to bring a standard approach to the articles on Christie's works. At any rate, if the template is changed to require a series, all the articles about Christie's novels will need attention, and a decision whether to link them by fictional character or some other method. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I get that it's good to be consistent across articles on how previous/next is used, but how about across infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox album)? If it helps readers it seems like a good idea to me, and personally I don't reckon that having two different sets of previous/next parameters for series/author would be a problem. One question when it comes to consistency though Prairieplant: would you include short stories in the author chronological previous/next infobox sections? If you do, what happens if their next short story (or novel for that matter) isn't notable? Also, for multi-media artists, where would you draw the line, if they produced a film next, say (e.g. Guillermo del Toro: film, TV and books)? ‑‑YodinT 01:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Yodin Oh, in my own editing, I have not dealt with anyone who both wrote books and made movies! Books and short stories in chronological order seems fine to me, as I am used to it from the Agatha Christie publications and it seems quite logical. Her author templates sort them by novel or short story or short story collection, and preceded by / followed by is clearly chronological. If the next book is not notable, then it does not have an article written about it, right? Is that too glib? So that is skipped in the infobox in my way of thinking, as this feature goes from article to article -- oh I see, you are thinking of an author's total oeuvre in a filmography or bibliography, even if not all of it is notable for an article. Linking from article to article is fine with me, accepting the judgments on notability and for this feature ignoring a bibliography or filmography list. I like the simple notion of having two sorts of preceded by / followed by, one tied to a series, and the other the chronology through one author's works. And I would keep it to one author, when it is author. The Agatha Christie estate gave another author permission to use Hercule Poirot (a fictional character created by Christie) in two novels, published 2014 and 2016. I would make that a new series. I just fixed the stub of an article on the 2014 novel by the new author (Sophie Hannah) to make it clear she is a new author, even if authorized by Christie's estate. No one has put her two books in the Agatha Christie template, which I find logical, thus I deleted those templates from the article on that 2014 novel by Hannah.
I suppose for a multi-media artist, either way is workable, that is, way one, in chronological order regardless of medium, or way two, a series for each medium in which this talented and prolific person worked. The author template includes all the author's works (I just looked at Guillermo del Toro's article in Wikipedia, multi-talented man). I like chronological, all the person's works, but I would hear other views on sorting by medium, each way has an appealing logic. I suppose the main conflict would arise with an author who had both series and non-series books. But that describes Ellis Peters, with her notable series The Cadfael Chronicles. There is an article for each novel on Wikipedia and they are linked, oddly using the article on the character as the series name rather than the article on the series (but the series article is named and linked in each lead), and there are not articles on any of her other books, listed fully at the article on the author -- the author template is really a series template. So that problem may solve itself by the articles written by editors who find notability for some and not other books. I looked at one musician who made albums, Judy Collins, and I see her infobox albums links from one the next by chronology. Then I looked at Elton John, lots of albums, and those albums with no article are not in the linking by chronology. That seems logical to me. John Lennon gets one chronology of albums as a solo performer, and there are two (at least) chronology links for the Beatles, the albums and the singles. No article, no link in the preceded by / followed by feature. That is a teeny sample of Wikipedia articles, but it educated me a bit. I imagine there are artists with more complications that I did not encounter. There is always more to Wikipedia than comes to my mind for one issue I think is so specific. Thanks for a thoughtful reply. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it might be better to simply deprecate and remove this parameter altogether. I think we tend to stick too much into infoboxes. If we make this next/previous in the list of the author's published works, many readers will expect that it is giving next/previous in a series. If we make it strictly for series, some will try to use it for all publications regardless of series. Also if we make it for series, in some cases we get in to significant complexities. Often for fiction series, internal chronology and publication order differ. In some cases there is not even a clear linear internal chronology -- i can think off hand of at least 2 series where one work is completely contained within another chronologically, and I am sure there are quite a few more. For publication order, revised works can also mean that there is not a single linear order. i understand that Template:Infobox film and Template:Infobox video game used to have similar parameters and have deprecated them over such issues. This seems to me something that might better be handled in the article body, or perhaps in a navbox. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Word Count Parameter[edit]

I would like to add a parameter to the infobox for word count. The topic was previously discussed with a complaint that there may be an issue of verifiability, but I've found many authors and publishers have been stating word counts more and more, and Amazon (example Harry Potter) and AR BookFinder both maintain databases which include word counts for countless books. I believe the parameter would provide information of use to readers in assessing the length of a book and for comparing the lengths of books despite differences in page layout and binding. It also offers comparison to List of longest novels which provides word counts. I believe the parameter would be at least as useful/popular as some of the other lesser-used but still useful parameters in the infobox. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree - in addition to the issues of verifiability and variance between editions, word counts mean less than page counts to the average reader. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Page numbers often vary between editions, so that doesn't seem like a problem. Much like with page numbers, we can specify what edition if it's important. As to the meaning to readers, I don't disagree that page numbers are more sought after by a majority of readers, but I don't think that fact should restrict us from offering either or both. Most readers probably find the ISBN most meaningful, but we have parameters for Dewey Decimal, OCLC, and LC class. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
But per MOS:INFOBOX, the more parameters you add, the less effective the box becomes. I'm sure we could add any number of other facts that someone might find interesting, but that doesn't mean we should. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe the value of parameter is significant for the reasons I've stated. MOS:INFOBOX is a good point. If a single infobox became excessive in contents, the parameter can be left off, as the individual catalog numbers are often left off (namely OCLC). Per WP:INFOBOXUSE, the decision on the use of the parameter can be left to the consensus of an individual article, taking into account MOS:INFOBOX as you said (to ensure the infobox does not become excessive in length). --Odie5533 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
And I don't think the reasons you've stated are sufficiently strong to warrant the addition of such a parameter. Do others have thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Should I make an RFC? I have never done so before. It feels like the sort of addition where it'd be nice to have the input of more than just a few editors though. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think word count is completely trivial in this context, it only works for List of longest novels because the length is the point of the list and page count could vary enough to compromise the accuracy of the list. I would wait and see if you get any more support here before you seek an RFC, I believe the proposal would not be widely supported.— TAnthonyTalk 22:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would oppose adding this, as per Nikkimaria above, and also because amazon, at least, is notoriously inaccurate with their bibliographic data, so they would not be a reliable source for this. Indend they are known to be inaccurate for page counts on physical printed books. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Narrator & recording length parameters[edit]

I'm keen to use this infobox for audiobook editions, and wanted to add the distinct characteristics which they bear. There's any number of additional parameters which can be used, but the most obvious ones are Narrator and Recording Length. Other potentially valuable ones are abridgements, additional colloquy, cast recordings, live recordings (perhaps the nomenclature could be tweaked for the latter). As the page is locked, I don't have the authority to be so bold as to make the change myself. Are there any objections or collaborative suggestions? I would also be open to creating a wholly new infobox for Audiobooks, but am loathe to the efforts when an easier option is mere to include in this infobox the necessary additions. --rm 'w avu 00:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The template already includes |audio_read_by=. I wouldn't object to a parameter for recording length (the audio equivalent of pages numbers), but beyond that things may get trivial. Some info may be conveyed with parentheticals (as in The White Queen (novel), which notes the narrators of both the abridged and unabridged versions), but we typically stick to basic info on first editions only. Extended details about notable reprint editions and alternate recordings should be dealt with in the body of the article.— TAnthonyTalk 00:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with TAnthony on these points. The audio books are read from print books, so the information belongs in the text of the article. If people start making books that are only audio, then we would have a new situation with which to deal. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
With the proliferation of audiobooks, it wouldn't entirely surprise me to see publications exclusive to that domain, but I do see that it's perhaps a question for when that happens, and not for now. I wasn't aware of the |audio_read_by= parameter. That's good to know. @ User:TAnthony, you've been co-editing the article I've been at the last few days, The Book of Swords (anthology), I've created a faux Infobox for the audiobook in its own setting there. Would that be worthy of being its own creation? Thoughts? --rm 'w avu 22:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

title_orig (Original title) field[edit]

This field needs to incorporate Template:Infobox name module, like the "native_name" field in Template:Infobox television and the "film name" field in Template:Infobox film. Right now if you use Template:Infobox name module there's an additional line without data. Timmyshin (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Error shows in example image of an infobox at ISBN[edit]

In the example image of the Infobox book, on the right side of ISBN, it says there is a parameter error, in bold red letters. I do not try to edit the Infobox book page, so I hope someone who does will change the error to what is wanted there, either an example ISBN or a few words on Number for books published since 1970, or whatever was there before the error popped up. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Added test for required orig_lang_code parameter[edit]

I have added a test for the |orig_lang_code= parameter, which is listed as "required if using |title_orig=, |native_wikisource= or |native_external_url=" in the documentation. It was not actually required by the template code, and when it was missing, it was causing errors generated by the lang template (e.g. in Atlas linguistique de la France).

This change will cause some previously working links in infoboxes to disappear. Someone might want to add an error-tracking category to track pages that have one of the three parameters but are missing the required |orig_lang_code= parameter. If you want that tracking category but can't figure out how to add it, ping me here or drop a note on my talk page and I will see if I can make it work for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)