Template talk:Wikipedia books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Wikipedia-Books (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia-Books a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wikipedia:Books.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Too wide[edit]

Currently the template typically displays with two lines of text, per (hopefully as can be seen) in the upper mbox.

This is too wide for the common case of "See also" sections with two columns. Changing it to be a narrower box with three lines would improve the appearance for many of these see also lists, per lower mbox.

Two suggestions, of which I favour the latter: either have a narrow version of this template, to allow choice, or change this template . — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The existing template code uses {{Side box}} and follows the standard size/convention used for {{Wiktionary}}, {{Wikinews}}, {{Commons}}, and other templates used for Wikimedia sister projects. We could look at passing a size parameter, although that may be somewhat nonstandard. Tothwolf (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Five years later, and it is still far too wide for a "see also" section with 4 or even 3 columns! Whroll (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Final look?[edit]

Option 1
Book:Wikipedia books
Books are collections of articles which
can be downloaded or ordered in print.
Option 2
Book:Wikipedia books
Books are collections of articles which
can be downloaded or ordered in print.
Option 3
Option 4
Book:Wikipedia books
A Wikipedia-Book
Option 5
Option 6
Book:Wikipedia books
A Wikipedia-Book
  • The current version is kinda bulky, so I devised incrementally smaller versions, some with the message, others without. Which do you feel is best? (Forget that the links don't make sense, focus on the appearance.) Option 5 is identical to {{Portal}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
How not to focus on a red link? --He!ko (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I created them, now they are blue. :) Gigs (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Red again. No need to create these pages just so the links are blue. (I've updated the links so they makes more sense now.) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What about something more like the sister project boxes?:

(obviously needs tweaking to allow for multiple books & piping). Failing that, Option 5 personally. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the current version is based on those sister project boxes ({{side box}}), and it drew some complaints about being too big and have too much associated whitespace if the see also section doesn't have a ton of links in it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should have this template at all. We shouldn't be linking to our "books" from our articles, nor should we have these books in the first place. I have opposed this concept from day one and I will continue to oppose it because these books are WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PROMOTION by their very nature and their pretense in our articles, and on an encyclopedia with a policy against original research and advertising, is deceiving. ThemFromSpace 23:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • BTW, I'm personally in favour of Option 5, since it's the minimalist option. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm really late to this debate, but I prefer Option 3, Option 5, or User:Cybercobra's suggestion; I do not like the current form that describes what a Wikipedia book is (but prefer Option 2 if that text is desired). I think this template should look similar to navigation boxes to portals, commons, or wiktionary, and their templates don't describe the namespace or project. —Ost (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I understand if I get reverted since this conversation is limited and stale, but I boldly removed the descriptor text as no one above seemed to want it. I saw the extra whitespace as another issue, so it is still using {{sidebox}} unless someone rewrites it. —Ost (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for presenting links to books[edit]

I have posted a proposal at the village pump on how books (and portals and interWikis) are displayed in an article. Please comment there. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The new combined template is now completely coded. It is a solid bar intended for the end of the article, just after "External Links." It supports portals, books, and interWikis. I have put in the main space at {{Subject bar}} for testing and comments. I also made a post about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout). There is a sandbox version for more major edits. Everyone is encouraged to stop by there to learn more and make comments. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)