Template talk:Infobox author bibliography

This template is modeled after Template:Infobox Artist Discography.

Is this infobox a good thing?

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies#Is Infobox bibliography a good thing? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Book chapters

May I suggest the addition of a "Book chapters" field to the infobox? I must admit, I am not overly experienced in template creation or modification, otherwise I would do so myself. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes

This infobox violates the following style guidelines:

1. "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function" (Purpose of an infobox).
2. "... infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative" (Style, color and formatting).

The rainbow of colors make the infoboxes look like something a middle school student designed, and the only purpose they serve is to help the user see which number lines up with which label. But the color scheme probably doesn't meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color, and their job can be done more effectively with a single color.

I have designed a replacement template, {{Infobox bibliography/sandbox}}, which builds on the standard {{Infobox}} template instead of a custom-made table format. The syntax is much simpler and a comparison with the existing template can be seen at Template:Infobox bibliography/testcases. It fixes the above problems and looks more in keeping with the style of an encyclopedia. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that in the replacement template I have also removed the pointless table header "Releases". RockMagnetist(talk) 18:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There being no discussion in over a week, I have implemented the changes. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reverted. There is no consensus for such a change, as you well know. – SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

O.k., I have two questions: Where do you propose that I achieve such consensus, if not on this page, and with a notice at WikiProject Bibliographies and WikiProject Books? And what precisely is your objection to these changes? Without answers to these questions, your revert is not very constructive. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have said that I will answer these shortly (variations on the theme of answers to you at the FLC you had so little impact on). Suffice to say there was no discussion here and you do not have a consensus: a fuller answer to your points will follow, as I have said three times. – SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have posted notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

MS, I am now back from my travel, where I have had to edit on a mobile recently, and am able to respond more fully, as promised. Thanks you also for your note to my talk page. In relation to the main points of concern, my comments are below, one of which is close to resolution, and other much further apart:

Colour

I'm not overly fussed about the colours, (especially as some of them were not good) although having different colours does help when reading across from one subject to the number of publications. For long lists that may well be a problem. Your version is also a little wider than the original, which adds to that problem. Maybe slimming the box down to the previous width would help.

Navigation

I am extremely keen on retaining the navigation aspect. There are a number of lists which will have navigation from the box which just isn't possible from the ToC. For example, you commented previously on my FLC for Agatha Christie bibliography. The ToC there has five subtitles to sections:

1. Novels
2. Short story collections
3. Miscellany
4. Broadcast works
5. Stage works

The Infobox has seven links, because if makes sense to have a table of Miscellany, containing poems, works as editor and autobiographical publications. These would be lost if we lose the navigation aspect. The IB also provides further details in the number of those works published, which are not mentioned in the lead or body (because it's mostly too unimportant to mention outside one brief table at the top of the page). This is just one example, and others lists will have the same issue as this. – SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

O.k., let's look at color first. I think that bars of the same color with white lines between them does a pretty good job of guiding the eye. I think making it narrower is a good idea, though. I have added the line bodystyle = width:20em; in Template:Infobox author bibliography/sandbox, and you can see the result in Template:Infobox author bibliography/testcases. Experiment with different widths, if you like. One thing I tried that doesn't work well is a plain white background like you see in most infoboxes. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The slightly narrowed version makes a big difference to my eye in reading across. I agree that a plain white background wouldn't be right – I think it would be too difficult to line up the words and numbers, particularly in a longer list. This would be a positive step as far as I am concerned. – SchroCat (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back. As for navigation - my template design can accommodate it. Instead of having a link field for each entry and a slanted arrow, you could add links to the numbers: see Template:Infobox_author_bibliography/testcases#Sandbox version with links (one red). I have changed the background color so the links are easier to see. This is the usual way of linking things on Wikipedia, so probably more intuitive for most people than the arrows. Also, it means that the design of the template does not encourage a departure from the guidelines for templates, but if an editor feels it is justified they can implement it with a modest amount of effort. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way - if you look under the hood you'll see that my design uses the standard infobox template instead of a custom-made table. I think that is also an improvement. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Any reason why it shows up as "GO discography"? I can't seem to see what generates that

I'm not entirely convinced by the new linking method. The previous version had the benefit of being very easy to set up:

| Novel = 6

| NovelLink = Novels

The above is easy compared to having to sort out

| Novel = [[George_Orwell_bibliography#Books:_non-fiction_and_novels|6]]

| NovelLink = Novels

I also think that the extant version (with the arrow pointing down) is more obvious than having the number hyperlinked. It also has the advantage of helping with the read across from topic to number.

I certainly think we can go ahead with the colour change (as long as it's not labelled as a discography!) and mull on the navigation point from that improved version, so we won't have to flick between three versions. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Fixed the discography thing. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I think the purpose of the arrow is obvious to you because you have set up a few infoboxes with it. When I first saw it, I had no idea what it was for. Also, we do wikilinks all the time, so adding another hardly seems onerous. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change of name

This is a template for author bibliographies, not general bibliographies. It should redirect to Template:Infobox author bibliography, not the other way round. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There being no discussion, I have moved it. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Colors

@Zackmann08: in what way did the colors violate MOS:COLOR? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: it served no purpose except to be decorative. Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: If it conveyed information, it wasn't purely decorative. And the background color was always accompanied by a title ("Books", "Novels", etc.) so it wasn't the only method to convey that information. Using color like that is standard practice in many other infoboxes as well. I see no violation of MOS:COLOR and would like to see the feature returned as has been consensus. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

"Collections" parameter is too broad

The term "Collection" in this infobox is suggested for "works that compile several other pieces by the author, such as short story collections or a compilation of poetry"—but that's potentially incompatible or misleading in certain contexts. I'm mainly thinking of bibliographies of writers who are primarily known as poets. It usually doesn't really make sense to lump all "compilations of poetry" together within one section, and it's even stranger to lump collections of poetry in the same category with collections of prose. Overall, this has the weird effect of prioritizing writers like novelists, who can have their major works sorted and counted distinctly. The "Option" parameters could be used to make a "Poetry collection" section, but that would always list these works at the very bottom, even below letters, which again would be odd for a writer whose most significant works are their poetry collections.

Stepping back to define my terms: In either fiction or nonfiction, "Collection" means a compilation of stories or other works (or maybe something like a collection of several novels published as a single volume); these kinds of books are generally understood as compilations, distinct from self-contained "major works" like novels. However, "poetry collections"—which might also be called "books of poetry"—complicate the divide between "self-contained work" and "compilation".

It's technically true that poetry collections are compilations, in much the same sense that a studio album is technically a "collection" of songs. However, like albums, poetry collections are different than most other types of "collections" in that they are almost always regarded as self-contained "major works" in their own right, rather than as compilations. Further complicating things, poets often have volumes of Selected Poems or Collected Poems, which actually are regarded as compilations. Selected Poems are like "greatest hits" or "best of" collections, while Collected Poems typically compile all of writer's poems (or at least all of their poems over a set period of time).

To give an example: If this template were used for an Allen Ginsberg bibliography, the term "Collections" would lump Howl and Other Poems in the same group as his Collected Poems 1947–1997. That by itself is strange but, even stranger, it would lump both of those books together with Deliberate Prose: Essays 1952 to 1995, which of course isn't the same thing at all. Note that The Selected Letters of Allen Ginsberg and Gary Snyder would be filed under "Letters", so the template already foresees that some types of collections should be sorted separately from others.

• Proposed solution: add a parameter for "Poetry collections", and possibly for other categories like "Short story collections" and "Collected works" (which would include books like Selected Poems or "The Complete Works"-type collections). All of these are too distinct to be lumped together under "collections". —BLZ · talk 22:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)