Template talk:Infobox book/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Preceded_by, followed_by for a series of revisions or editions

The articles Sixtine Vulgate and Sixto-Clementine Vulgate use these parameters to refer to the preceding and following books in a series of differently named Latin translations of the Bible. Is this acceptable? It differs from the currently documented use to indicate (different?) books published as a series. {cc: Veverve) Jmar67 (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not the intended use of those parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe it does the job very well for those pages. Also, they are less a revision than two separate editions of the Vulgate used officialy one after the other by the Catholic Church. Veverve (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It might be better to introduce |previous_edition= and |subsequent_edition=. Jmar67 (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Other articles use the Preceded by, followed by parameters in the info box for chronological order of works by an author (e. g., Charles Dickens works, all the writings by Agatha Christie) that are not in a series as defined for the parameter. In my view, it is a handy way to learn the next relevant publication, even if the novels were not written as part of a recognized series. That is, various editors found other logical uses for the parameters. My suggestion is to broaden the intended uses of the parameter.As I use a smart phone more often in reading Wikipedia articles, I like the many ways it is used, in particular because those handy navigation boxes at the bottom of an article are not present in the mobile Wikipedia. Plus what you are describing sounds like a series. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The more different things you try to shove into a parameter, the less useful it becomes. If you want to address the non-display of navboxes on mobile I'd be quite happy to support that; this isn't a good solution for that particular problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The template documentation states "do not use to connect separate books chronologically". No reason is given, but this conflicts with the usage noted above. Does anyone know why this is prohibited? Jmar67 (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The note was added to clarify that the parameter is intended to be used for series rather than for chronological publications. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2020

There is a lot of confusion, as many editors don't read the documentation and don't realise that the |preceded_by= and |followed_by= should not be used to connect separate books chronologically. This repeatedly comes up, and having parameters with multiple inconsistent uses is not ideal. I'd suggest the following:

• Add |previous_edition= and |subsequent_edition= to cover separate editions/versions
• Add |previous_chronological= and |subsequent_chronological= to cover books published by the same author that are not in a specific series
• For clarity, change |preceded_by= and |followed_by= to |previous_in_series= and |subsequent_in_series=. (Perhaps the new parameters could be added immediately, and |preceded_by= and |followed_by= in due course deprecated and re-named by bot).

How could one would go about doing this? Is it enough to get consensus on this page? @RexxS: any thoughts? MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Michael: Consensus on this page is sufficient to make changes to this template, as long as they don't violate broader consensuses, such as policy and guidelines. Nevertheless, I'm not keen on adding extra parameters to suit a small number of exceptions. How many times would the new parameters be used? What is the reason why |preceded_by= can't be used to show previous books not in a series? If that's useful information, then it should be included. Is it just that it's considered "inconsistent uses"? It would need a bot to change the 29,632 instances of |preceded_by= to |previous_in_series=, but unfortunately that wouldn't allow checking that the book mentioned would actually be the previous one in a series. What you suggest is feasible, but there's a lot of work involved. --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd definitely expect regular use for the second two, as there's often a conflict between next in series and next publication chronologically. They would apply (at least) to any author who has published both series and non-series books, which would include the majority of established genre authors such as crime, historical fiction, science fiction, popular fiction. It's not either/or as both would often be used. Not sure about |previous_edition=, but perhaps others could jump in with comments. I wouldn't expect any bot rename (if decided upon at a later stage) to fix existing errors, of course, such as |preceded_by= used in a way that's contrary to the template documentation, and I don't think that should be an issue. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. So if we implemented |previous_chronological= and |subsequent_chronological=, we'd have to also implement |previous_chronological_quotation_marks= and |subsequent_chronological_quotation_marks= for consistency with the current parameters. If consensus is reached for adding |preceded_by_plain= above, then we'd also need |previous_chronological_plain= and |subsequent_chronological_plain=. We can do it of course, but I'm getting a bit overwhelmed with requests right now, especially when there's been virtually no support for even the italic title so far. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: @MichaelMaggs: Any news? Veverve (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. A consensus to change whould be needed, and although you and I think that change would be useful we don't have a consensus at the moment. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Photographer category

Is there a way to create a new category for this template? I want to add the photographer for a book to the infobox, but I'm not sure how. --Kaodigua (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible workaround: "illustrator=John Smith (photographs)". Jmar67 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Infobox book" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Infobox book. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 29#Infobox book until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gaioa (T C L) 12:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Alternative image

Is there anyway to use this template to add an alternative book image to an article ? Such as if the hardcover is different to the paperback image ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No, because two non-free images for the same book is considered excessive under WP:NFCC #3A. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 14:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If you simply want to add a non-free paperback image, I agree that that would probably not be allowed under WP:NFCC. But that will not always be the case: Section 3A says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", which does not necessarily ban multiple cover images. Sometimes the images may be free-use or out of copyright; an alternative cover may have been used for a significant noteworthy publication event in its own right; or the article may cover several books in a linked series. In any event, the technical answer is "no": the infobox can't handle multiple images. Any additional image, if allowed, would need to be added outside the box. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Optionally, you could create a compound image (or I could do that for you) and use that. If you wanted to modify the infobox to take two images, I could do that, but you'd need to get consensus first, and I suspect that the general applicability of NFCC#3 would be a concern. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we outlawed this; it's still two separate images and an obvious attempt to subvert NFCC. I think there are very few instances where using two images of the same thing is appropriate.— TAnthony^Talk 16:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to read my suggestion in the light of the previous comment. --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Two cover images are included in several of the articles on novels by Agatha Christie. The image in the infobox is the first cover, whether published in the US or the UK first. The second image is placed in Publication history, when the cover or even the title in the other nation was different. Two examples are here and here, where title and images differed in the US and UK publications. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Author entry for pseudonym books

Is there a consensus that books published under a pseudonym should like the actual author? For example, Agnes Grey lists Anne Brontë even though it was published under Acton Bell. The Plague Ship article listed Andrew North, which is a redirect to Andre Norton. (I just updated Plague Ship article.) If there is a consensus, we should update the documentation to say that. NE Ent 11:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Autogeneration

Any chance that this can be autogenerated from google books. Talpedia (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge the current sandbox

Template:Infobox book/sandbox should be merged I believe, because it has more options than the current infobox. Please have a look at the conversation which took place one year ago. I ping @Jmar67:, @Nikkimaria: @MichaelMaggs:, @RexxS:. Veverve (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Doing anything about the discussion is outside my capabities I'm afraid. But isn't consenus still lacking anyway? MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you linking to the intended discussion? The new parameters proposed there don't appear in the sandbox linked AFAICT. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: indeed, however the sandbox version allows for having a non italic title inside the infobox, e.g. at Sixtine Vulgate. Veverve (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, it has "preceded_by_plain" and "followed_by_plain" Veverve (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Work identifiers

We should allow an OCLC work ID (obsolete) (P5331) parameter and pull from Wikidata if not specified. ISBN-13 (P212) and OCLC control number (P243) are for specific versions of a book, are they not? Wikipedia should not be curating book editions in place of libraries, which use e.g. OCLC work ID to identify their curated works. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Location

The |location= parameter and its value do not display in the resulting infobox. Kindly fix the issue. Idell (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in the template's documentation to suggest there is a location field. I suppose you mean "location of publication". If you think it is important to be displayed, please start a discussion about it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Module

Hi

Would there be a possibility of adding a module to this infobox so that you can merge two infoboxes into one? I'm thinking of the module in Template:Infobox officeholder. In the Kim Il (politician) the Infobox Officeholder is merged with the Infobox Korean Name... Could we do something similar with this infobox? It looks like less clutter if its one infobox. --Ruling party (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that would be controversial at all. The other infobox will need to add support for the |embed=yes feature if it isn't already. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

OpenLibrary identifier

Can we add a 'OpenLibrary identifier' parameter? ShreyasMinocha (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Illustrated novellas

I have just changed the Infobox in Smith of Wootton Major from {{infobox novella}} to {{infobox book}}, because although an 'illustrator' parameter was supplied, it doesn't exist within the former template so was not being displayed. There appears to be very little difference between the templates; a change in the order of displayed items, and fractional changes in width seems to be all. Is there any significant difference between the two, other than novellas getting fewer items?

I placed this comment here, because {{infobox novella}} seems to be a derivative subset of {{infobox book}}, and there is no activity at Template talk:Infobox novella.--Verbarson (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Native Wikisource and MOS:BADITALICS

The |title_orig= parameter correctly avoids italics in the original title if |orig_lang_code=zh is set. However, the same treatment is missing for the Wikisource text. See Book of Southern Tang (Lu You book) for an example: the Chinese in the "original text" should not be typeset in italics, per MOS:BADITALICS. —Kusma (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

Change the tnfobox to add those changes. I would need them for Sixto-Clementine Vulgate and Sixtine Vulgate. Veverve (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what changes you want to be made and for what reason. The diff you linked to is between older revisions of /sandbox. Nardog (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nardog: I need a "followed by" and ad "preceded by" which will not italicise the data. I need that, because the titles of the official Latin Catholic Bibles should not be italicised. I also need a new parameter for the title of the infobox not to be italicised, as the titles of the official Latin Catholic Bibles do not need to be italicized. See the articles in my first post for examples. Veverve (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you use {{noitalic}}. I for one find removing the automatic italicization to be a more sensible option, but either way we need a consensus to implement any change. Nardog (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

Add a short description of the form Book by X or something similar. - Qwerfjkltalk 09:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Open the edit request when you have consensus for the change and the code ready. Nardog (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nardog The code would be something like {{Short description|2=noreplace|Book by {{{author}}}}}. Why does this need consensus? ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl From this second post it looks like your request is not about the infobox for books. Rather you want to create a new Wikipedia:Short description. You might try posting there or at the WP:VPT. If I am missing something my apologies. MarnetteD|Talk 11:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarnetteD I am asking about adding an automatic short description. ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I see Qwerfjkl. Thanks for clarifying. If you don't get any responses here you might still try the VPT. MarnetteD|Talk 11:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Because bold changes to such a widely used template could have unintended consequences and other users could have objections you didn't anticipate. That's the whole point of template protection. You don't necessarily need other people to explicitly support the change you want to make, but just propose it and let it sit for at least a few days. And thoroughly test your code on the sandbox and testcases before opening a request. As for the code example you gave specifically, it doesn't account for the need for delinking or for when |author= isn't specified or includes a list. Nardog (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Add a comment about series to the template?

After a conversation at Wide Sargasso Sea, I was thinking about how often I see the wrong kinds of links put in the "preceded by" and "followed by" fields. These are intended to link works in a series, but I often see links to unrelated books by the same author. Since the parameter name is unclear about this distinction, I think the template would encourage more consistency if a comment was added to the template itself, like so:

| preceded_by = <!-- for works in a series -->

| followed_by = <!-- for works in a series -->

Would this be an improvement of the template worth making? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The documentation is not protected, so you are welcome to add this guidance to the blank example that is provided there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! I am not familiar with template editing and wanted to err on the side of caution. In the absence of objections for now, I've added the comment to the documentation. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Automatic Wikisource link via Wikidata sitelink

I have attempted an automatic addition of the Wikisource link based on the presence of an English Wikisource sitelink: sandbox diff: Special:Diff/1049724504. This can still be overridden by the |wikisource= parameter. {{Wikidata sitelink}} returns empty string if the sitelink is not found, so it will default to omitting the field for pages without a Wikisource sitelink.

Does this seem acceptable, and if so, could it be implemented? Inductiveload (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any instances in the testcases; how have you tested this addition? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I'm not sure how it could be integrated into testcases, since it depends on the page itself to provide the entity. I tested it by changing the template in Jane Eyre to {{Infobox book/sandbox}}, removing the |wikisource= parameter and seeing that the link still appeared. And also for some other books, including books that do not have WS links (like Harry Potter), which showed no WS link, as expected. Inductiveload (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: I do support such addition. However, the Wikisource text is not always directly linked to the work's item in WD. Sometimes it is linked to the item of a particular edition which is linked to the item of the work, while the article in Wikipedia is linked only to the item of the work. This should imo also be taken into account. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be, but that will require a much more complex template. For a first step, just using {{wikidata sitelink}} will be a start. Eventually, the template used should follow the "has edition" property if a WS sitelink is not found. Inductiveload (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: This has been tested by using in in other infoboxes and it works. Can this code be merged? Languageseeker (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

What others? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: {{Infobox medieval text}}, {{Infobox poem}}, {{Infobox short story}}, see The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle for an example. Languageseeker (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That example demonstrates an error - doubled "at". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Sorry about that. Fixed. Languageseeker (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Problem with foreign-language works linked with "native_wikisource" parameter

There seems to be an issue with the native_wikisource parameter in that whenever title_orig is marked with a particular language using {{lang}}, the autogenerated link does not display correctly: compare Special:Diff/1074309169 with Special:Diff/1074339152, for instance. Would someone be able to look into this? Shells-shells (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit was correct. Because |orig_lang_code=pt and |title_orig=Os Lusíadas, {{infobox book}} calls {{lang}} internally. Hover your mouse-pointer over the title in the infobox and you should see the tool tip: 'Portuguese-language text'. When you write |title_orig={{lang|pt|Os Lusíadas}}, |title_orig= gets the rendering produced by {{lang}} which contains html and category wikilinks. That rendering is given to the code that creates the link to wikisource. When you do that, the template creates this kind of a mess:

''<span title="Portuguese-language text"><i lang="pt">[[s:pt:Os Lusíadas|<span title="Portuguese-language text"><i lang="pt">Os Lusíadas</i></span>[[Category:Articles containing Portuguese-language text]]]]</i></span>[[Category:Articles containing Portuguese-language text]]'' at Portuguese [[Wikisource]][[Category:Articles that link to foreign-language Wikisources]]

And MediaWiki just doesn't know what to do with that.

So, don't wrap non-English titles assigned to |title_orig= in {{lang}} templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you for the quick assistance! :) Shells-shells (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

italic title = no should affect infobox header the same as title

That’s the comment. —Michael Z. 23:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Academic articles

Is this template supposed to be used for articles about academic articles? It does not seem completely suitable, but not sure if a template fork would be appropriate. One might want an attribute named "journal" instead of publisher, because journals themselves also tend to have a publisher. 'pages' might be ambiguous, since it can refer to the total number of pages of the article or the page numbers within the journal. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have examples of academic articles that have Wikipedia articles in which infoboxes are needed? "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" doesn't have an infobox and may not need one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 For example, The Use of Knowledge in Society, where I added the "short story" infobox, but that one is even less appropriate than the book one. I started a draft in my namespace at User:PhotographyEdits/sandbox#Template. Currently Petty's Place in the History of Economic Theory is using the book template and The Complexity of Songs could make use of one. See also Category:Academic journal articles, there are quite a lot of articles about papers. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like {{Infobox journal article}} (I chose this wording to match {{Cite journal}}) would be useful in these cases. I agree that there does not appear to be an appropriate infobox yet. If you create it, or a sandbox version of it, let me know and I will help you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Short description

The infobox should provide a default Short description. The basic pattern would/could be "<year from {{{pub_date}}}> <lowercase {{{genre}}} plus space (if genre is set)> book by <{{{author}}}>" — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Genre is not a particularly good choice for an automated short description - <year> book by <author> is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:SDEXAMPLES recommends "[year] [type of publication] by [author or director]" (Example: "1983 novel by John Irving"), but that's not easy to create from an infobox. Novel genres can be quite variable, sometimes including the word "novel" (eg Whose Body?) and sometimes not (eg The Buried Giant). "Book" alone would be safer. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

See this previous discussion, in which changes were implemented and then rolled back, and this discussion for another attempt. Anyone adding proposed SD code to the sandbox is advised to account for the situations noted in those discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Well spotted. To me, this one seems more suitable for a bot. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Italic title and name parameter conflict?

If both the italic title and name parameters are filled in with the title of the article, it renders the article title unitalicised. It feels somewhat counter-intuitive the way these parameters are meant to be used... Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

See Module:Infobox#L-362 which says that if |italic title= is assigned nothing or assigned force or assigned yes, then the article title will be italicized. Any other value assigned to |italic title= will render the article title in an upright font. So, at Infamous Scribblers (permalink), |italic title=Infamous Scribblers disables italics. |name= plays no part in this.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying |name= is not involved. However, I'm coming from a concern over ease of using this template, for me, being aware of a line of Lua code doesn't make general use easier (and while I'm somewhat beyond a general editor after 15+ years, I'm at very best only vaguely familiar with Lua). This is a fairly widespread infobox; it should be relatively easy to use without counter-intuitive parameters. The intuitive reading of |italic title= would be, "what should appear italicised in the title". Do you think there is use in {{Auto italic title}} clearly indicating that |italic title=Foo will disable italics from the article titled Foo? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I only intended my post to explain why you were seeing what you were seeing. What is done with that information is up to you and other editors.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Audio included in the infobox

Hi all, I was wondering if it was possible to include an audio reading of books within this infobox template? For example, something like: "Audio Republic at Wikicommons". There are a number of public domain readings of books that would help readers if placed alongside the text. This would help create a central and uniform space for audio recordings of public domain books to be located for readers to wayfind consistently across articles Jamzze (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This seems like something that would be better placed in External links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

As I outlined above, it would be a audio recording based within the Wiki project, much like the text is based within Wikisource and linked there. This would help people with disabilities and better wayfind to resources within the Wiki project itself. Jamzze (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Links to sibling projects are usually placed at the end of the article. See Template:Commons#Location and Template:Sister project#Location and Template:Commons category#Location and Template:Wikinews#Location for examples. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Copyright / license parameter

I think this infobox should have some parameter for the license. Maybe listing it as 'copyrighted' is not very useful, but for works in the public domain or some Creative Commons variant I think that would be useful. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple ISBN

Many books have multiple ISBNs — hardcover, paperback, reprint, different countries, etc. For example:

• The Forbidden Game has "trade" vs "mass market"
• The Book of Night Women has North America publication and a UK/Australia/NZ publication

What people are doing now is tacking on extra stuff in the isbn_note field, but that's kinda messy. Could we get an isbn2 and isbn_note2 parameter, please? Eievie (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The documentation explains that the ISBN of the first edition goes in |isbn=. That instruction prevents infobox bloat. If it is important to list multiple ISBNs for a book, they can go in the body of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Template:Doctorwhoaudiobook" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Doctorwhoaudiobook and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 24 § Template:Doctorwhoaudiobook until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Doctowhoaudiobook" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Doctowhoaudiobook and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 24 § Template:Doctowhoaudiobook until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Doctor Who audio book" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Doctor Who audio book and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 24 § Template:Doctor Who audio book until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Torchwoodaudiobook" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Torchwoodaudiobook and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 24 § Template:Torchwoodaudiobook until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Torchwood audio book" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Torchwood audio book and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 24 § Template:Torchwood audio book until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

native_wikisource and italics

In The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing's infobox there is currently (permalink) a broken link for the Arabic Wikisource link. This seems to be due to the usage of the {{lang|ar|italic=unset|...}} wrapper. This wrapper (or equivalent) is needed for some languages, per the accurate code-comment in the page there ("non-Roman alphabets shouldn't use italics").

Another example of the problem was also mentioned (but not answered) in the archives here at Template talk:Infobox book/Archive 9#Native Wikisource and MOS:BADITALICS, and they appear to have resolved it by simply removing the wrapper, and thus displaying a non-optimum italicized title.

Does anyone know how to best resolve this general issue? Thanks. Quiddity (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

As |native_wikisource= (and |native_external_url=) requires |orig_lang_code=, the best way would probably be to use a module that checks whether this language code supports italics for its script or not. I don't know if any module like this currently exists; the folks at WP:VPT might be able to advise! ‑‑Yodin^T 14:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

From MOS:BADITALICS:

However, titles of major works that should be italicized are italicized in scripts that support that feature (including Latin, Greek and Cyrillic); do not apply italic markup to scripts that do not (including Chinese, Japanese, and Korean).

Because {{infobox book}} internally applies {{lang}} to the value assigned to |title_orig=, the assigned value at The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing is malformed; it should be:

|title_orig=كتاب المختصر في حساب الجبر والمقابلة

|title_orig= is also used in the rendering of the value assigned to |native_wikisource= this way:

[[s:{{{orig_lang_code|}}}:{{{native_wikisource|}}}|{{{title_orig|}}}]]

so you can see that assigning the rendering of a {{lang}} template to |title_orig= will confuse MediaWiki when it tries to render the value assigned to |native_wikisource=. In this example case, MediaWiki is further confused because the value assigned to |native_wikisource= has an extraneous language tag: |native_wikisource=ar:الكتاب المختصر في حساب الجبر والمقابلة.

The fix to all of this is to remove the {{lang}} template from |title_orig= and remove the extraneous language tag from |native_wikisource=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup. I'd tried that in a preview, but the problem remained.

I've now redone the edit and saved it (permalink), but the book's "original title" and the link to Wikisource are now improperly italicized.

How to fix that (for all infoboxes where this may be applicable), is the essential question. Quiddity (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BADITALICS only says that CJK scripts must not be italicized. Where does MOS say that book names written using Arabic script must not be italicized? I'm happy to adjust Module:Lang/utilities is there is such a proscription.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes reinstated after revert, contrary to WP:BRD

Bumm13 implemented an undiscussed change to bypass intentional redirect links in this template. I reverted those good-faith but erroneous changes, adding comments that explained why the redirects are there. Bumm13 then reinstated their erroneous change without discussion or an edit summary, contrary to WP:BRD and to good practice in template space. I am not interested in an edit war, but the original version, or my version with comments, should be restored. See this explanation (and this older discussion; there may be more) for why redirects are intentionally used in this and other templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

restored.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

ISBN

Is there ever an advantage in including both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13? If so, does the template support |ISBN1= and |ISBN2=? I ask because The Dream of Enlightenment includes a second ISBN as a value for |isbn_note=. This is flagged as an error by WP:WPCHECK. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, the 10-digit ISBN was completely redundant, since it was the same as the 13-digit ISBN, just without the prefix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely missed that! Thanks. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

image parameter: only bare file name?

The docs says to use bare file name, but example image file is given in square brackets. Which of the true:

• .djvu file extension, we can use various options within square brackets
• .jpg, .png file extensions; only bare file name?

రుద్రుడు చెచ్క్వికి (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

preceded_by/followed_by for prequels?

Are these parameters based on publication order or internal series chronology? If the former, can someone update the descriptions to 'Title of [prior/subsequent] book in series, by order of publication', or similar, for clarity? I became confused after seeing a debut novel 'preceded by' a book (prequel) published years later. Thanks! Random fixer upper (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Full name?

Should the |name= parameter be the book's common name or full name? Usually the book's subtitle isn't included in the article title so I've always removed it from the infobox title as well. If it's too much for the article title, I don't see why it would be needed atop the infobox. Looking to update the documentation after consensus. czar 17:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

preceded_by/followed_by for prequels?

Are these parameters based on publication order or internal series chronology? If the former, can someone update the descriptions to 'Title of [prior/subsequent] book in series, by order of publication', or similar, for clarity? I became confused after seeing a debut novel 'preceded by' a book (prequel) published years later. Thanks! Random fixer upper (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Full name?

Should the |name= parameter be the book's common name or full name? Usually the book's subtitle isn't included in the article title so I've always removed it from the infobox title as well. If it's too much for the article title, I don't see why it would be needed atop the infobox. Looking to update the documentation after consensus. czar 17:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"Infobox book" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Infobox book has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 25 § Infobox book until a consensus is reached. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Italicizing non-Latin original titles

Resolved

...is a no-no, as per MOS:FOREIGNITALICS, esp. for Chinese-character titles:

道德經 at Chinese Wikisource

There should be a flag that checks if the native-language uses a non-Latin script, and disables the relevant italicization if so. Remsense聊 02:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

When reporting a problem, always link to an example page where the problem can be observed. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my bad! I copied the above example directly from Tao Te Ching. Remsense聊 03:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Got it. I think I have fixed it after modifying the sandbox and checking a couple of variants on the testcases page. The infobox is wrapping the native title in the {{lang}} template, which applies italics intelligently, so I have removed redundant italic markup that was around the {{lang}} template. Everything appears to work properly at both Tao Te Ching (no italics around Chinese characters) and Don Quixote (italics around Spanish characters). Post here if I broke anything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

oh wow, that was quick @Jonesey95, thank you very much! i feel bad for not just doing it myself if it was that quick. Remsense聊 04:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding anchor tags to parameters in documentation

Template:Cite news#Parameters implements this nicely! I'd be happy to make the change, but don't want to proceed without checking whether this might be a disservice. – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Full name?

Should the |name= parameter be the book's common name or full name? Usually the book's subtitle isn't included in the article title so I've always removed it from the infobox title as well. If it's too much for the article title, I don't see why it would be needed atop the infobox. Looking to update the documentation after consensus. czar 17:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox title doesn't seem the right place for the full title/subtitle, etc. --Yodin^T 11:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

preceded_by/followed_by for prequels?

Are these parameters based on publication order or internal series chronology? If the former, can someone update the descriptions to 'Title of [prior/subsequent] book in series, by order of publication', or similar, for clarity? I became confused after seeing a debut novel 'preceded by' a book (prequel) published years later. Thanks! Random fixer upper (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure there's a consensus on this (beyond the fact that it is only for books in the same series, not across an author's works) but probably a good idea to establish one. The example you give makes sense, but I'd also be confused if the infobox of a prequel said it was "preceded by" a book that follows it chronologically (it might also be fighting an uphill battle to try to force it to be publication order only). There's a good case for the wording of the infobox itself to be changed to make it clearer which one is meant, maybe along the lines of {{Infobox album}}, which has a header over the preceded/followed by links, stating "{{{chronology}}} chronology" (or in our case, maybe something like "series name chronology" or "series name publication order"), in cases where the publication order differs from the series chronology (when they're the same, I don't think there's any need for a header). --Yodin^T 11:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Infobox television episode}} also has "Episode chronology" above the previous and next links. --Yodin^T 12:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Yodin. Yes, having something visible in the infobox to clarify would be better than changing only the documentation. Though perhaps the parameter should just be used when a publisher or reliable source clearly specifies that the book is part of a particular series and it's order within it...

For a specific example, see The Hate U Give -- Random fixer upper (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Index terms in subject parameter

The documentation says:

subject/subjects

(for non-fiction) See index term and library classification

It appears that Kevinalewis added the |subject= parameter in 2006 as a nonfiction analogue to |genre=.

I think the documentation should be changed, removing all notion of using formal index terms. Specifically, I don't think Library of Congress Subject Headings should be displayed to users. Rather, they're for librarians and computers. I think we should prefer "14th-century Europe" as a subject, rather than "Civilization, Medieval--14th century".

What do others think? Are their consumers of the information in subject field beyond article readers that we should consider? Daask (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that it specifically recommends LOC headings for that parameter? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The documentation doesn't specifically recommend Library of Congress Subject Headings, but that is the most widely used controlled vocabulary system listed at Index term § Examples. Perhaps what needs improvement is not so much the Template:Infobox book/doc documentation but rather the index term article. I understood the subject of that article to be a controlled vocabulary based on the statement "Index terms make up a controlled vocabulary for use in bibliographic records.", but later the in the article it says Index terms can either come from a controlled vocabulary or be freely assigned. Daask (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing anything in this parameter that was recognizably not freely assigned - my suspicion is that people are just following the general meaning of "subject" in going with free assignment. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

DOI?

After skipping through the The Reactionary Mind page, I was thinking about reading a passage from the full text and looked for the DOI of the book. After finding it, it wanted to make the life of future readers a bit more easy by adding the DOI to the infobox for the book. Thereby I discovered that DOI was currently not a parameter for the infobox book. Would that not be a helpful addition? And if others think so too - could this be made possible by someone with editing rights for this template? All the best! WatkynBassett (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, the DOI of most academic books is essentially the same as the ISBN; the ISBN link in the infobox provides plenty of links for people to find a book. What value does the DOI add? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@WatkynBassett: As I see it, a DOI field could serve two purposes:

1. A DOI is an identifier to specify which book we are discussing. Other Template:Infobox book parameters which serve this purpose include |isbn= and |oclc=. While most books have ISBNs and OCLC Control Numbers, only a minority of books have digital object identifiers. Furthermore, I suspect that nearly all books with DOIs also have ISBNs. Thus, as an identifier for books on Wikipedia, DOI is unsatisfactory and superfluous.
2. A DOI is a link to access the book. Other Template:Infobox book parameters which serve this purpose include |website=, |external_url=, and |wikisource=. What's the advantage of having a separate |doi= over putting the DOI in |website=? The infobox isn't intended to provide every possible related link, so if there are different web pages from the publisher for various editions or for the print edition vs. online access, I don't think we should make any effort to include all of these in the infobox.

I'm inclined to believe existing Template:Infobox book parameters are adequate. Daask (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Daask @Jonesey95 Hi, sorry for my late reply. I appreciate your considered objections which I will try to address in turn:

a) "What value does the DOI add?": In my opinion the doi-link is the quickest and surest way to find a non-pirated full text version of the book I want to access. Clicking the ISBN does not accomplish the same task, as it simply leads me other websites - many of them will not provide me with the full text but simply with an option to buy the print version.

b) "[A]s an identifier for books on Wikipedia, DOI is unsatisfactory and superfluous." I think the quickest way to disprove this objection is to look at the parallel: The - in principle - much more concise "cite book"-template. It has a doi-parameter which is used quite often because it fulfils one purpose very well. It provides a stable and usually quite well maintained full text version of the book. If it was superfluous, why is it commonly used in this other template (which also has an isbn-parameter)?

c) "What's the advantage of having a separate |doi= over putting the DOI in |website=?" The advantage is that the documentation for the website-parameter is different. The "website"-parameter advises to link "the publisher's or author's website about the book". It is thus not intended for the text of the book.

Thanks again for considering my idea in depth! Best regards, WatkynBassett (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If there were a single link which would be best way for readers to access an ebook, then I would wholeheartedly include such a link in the infobox. That's what |external_url= and |wikisource= provide for public domain works. However, accessing paid resources through libraries is a complicated task and the processes vary from institution to institution. In my experience, DOIs are often not helpful for accessing ebooks.

For example, let's consider the book: Exhibiting religion by John P. Burris. The most appropriate value for |website= is https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/1593/ , the publisher's webpage for the book, which provides no indication that an e-book exists, much less how to find it. The Handle System identifier (a superset of DOI) of https://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb40178.0001.001 redirects to an ebook at https://www.fulcrum.org/concern/monographs/6w924f72t . However, although I have institutional access to this book, there is no way for me to access it through that website, even through the "Log in with your Institution" page. I can only access it by first logging into my institutional portal and then using the institutional library website to search for the book or access Fulcrum ebooks. For me, this experience is not unusual. Other times, the book may be accessible to me through a different website entirely than the one that the DOI redirects to. I realize your experience may be different. Daask (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

There are few options for where in book articles DOIs could be placed:

• Infobox (the proposed |doi=)
• External links, eg. my recent edit to The Reactionary Mind
• List of editions, eg. Purity and Danger#Publication history

Is the infobox superior to these other options? Daask (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@DaaskThere are two points to consider here : 1) You are, of course, right that it is often a hassle to access paid or subscription-based versions of a book. In my personal opinion using a doi-link has often been the easiest way to find one, but it is still uncommon for non-academic books to have a doi. I would thus be open to a more generic parameter name. 2) Considering the positioning of such information I would strongly favour the infobox, as it is the usual place to search for structured information about the work the reader is interested in. Best regards and thanks for your time! WatkynBassett (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to not exclude nonfiction genres

It was brought to my attention that the current version of the template documentation (permanent link) specifies that the "genre/genres" parameter is "(for fiction)". I propose that this documentation be revised to remove this specification, as there are nonfiction genres, such as creative nonfiction, narrative history, biography, memoir, people's history, self-help book, etc. There is the "subject" parameter specified for nonfiction, but that is not the same as genre. A book's subject could be the American Revolution, but that subject could be treated in different manners depending on if the genre is creative nonfiction, narrative history, etc. And there are already examples on Wikipedia of articles about nonfiction books using the parameter to describe a genre: And the Walls Came Tumbling Down (permanent link) gives its genre a autobiography, and The Art of Cooking with Cannabis (permanent link) notes that its genre is cookbook. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The second of these is problematic: it gives the genre as "nonfiction - cooking" and the subject as cookbook. I'm sympathetic to the possibility of amending the current documentation, but that example is not what I'd want to encourage by doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough that The Art of Cooking with Cannabis is clunky and the subject should probably not be given at all, instead of given as "Cannabis cookbook", but I think that rather strengthens the case for not forbidding the application of nonfiction genres to this parameter. Because "subject" is indicated as a nonfiction parameter, "Cannabis cookbook" has been clunkily forced into that article instead of the genre simply being given as "cookbook". Additionally, all parameters have the potential to be used clunkily; this example being non-ideal doesn't strike me as reason enough to discourage ever describing in an infobox the genre of a nonfiction work.

In any case, I think the first example, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down is a good example. The subject is a person's participation in the civil rights movement, and the genre clarifies that this isn't an academic monograph or biography written by someone else but rather is an autobiography. Here's a few other examples:

• The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: the genre is self-help (permanent link)
• Before Night Falls: the genre is autobiography (permanent link)
• The Way of the Wiseguy: the genre is true crime (permanent link)
• The Eclipse: A Memoir of Suicide: the genre is memoir (permanent link)

Nikkimaria brought up this aspect of the documentation when removing narrative history as the genre from infoboxes in articles about volumes in the Oxford History of the United States (such as The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 and Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945), a book series for which a defining characteristic is the series editors' mandate that volumes be written as narrative history. These are additional examples for which noting the genre is suitable and relevant. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

What if we wrote something to the effect that these two parameters should in most cases not be used together (noting common exceptions) and should be specific and sourced? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that sounds like reasonable guidance for the documentation. I think in a good deal of cases, saying the genre obviates also noting the subject and vice versa (for example, the infobox in And the Walls Came Tumbling Down would probably read better if it only named the genre instead of also including that long and very specific subject). And I'm in favor of expecting such claims to be specific ("nonfiction" is less informative as a genre identification than, say, "biography"), verifiable, and sourced. That way we can achieve consensus that such descriptions are due. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you happy with that wording, or do you have exceptions you'd like to call out specifically? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure an exhaustive list of exceptions is possible without it getting not very concise. I might be happiest with a wording that parenthetically notes that exceptions are possible and can be agreed upon with consensus. What comes to my mind is that we want to discourage redundancy like this:

• Subject: Cooking
• Genre: Cookbook

But the latter strikes me as acceptable and informative:

• Subject: American Civil War
• Genre: Narrative history

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Does this work for you? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if some examples would help explain what we mean be "combined" and "specific"?

• (for subject): Should not generally be combined with genre/genres (i. e., cooking as the subject or cookbook as the genre, but not both simultaneously).
• (for genre): Should be specific (e. g., memoir rather than nonfiction) and reliably sourced. Should not generally be combined with subject/subjects (i. e., cooking as the subject or cookbook as the genre, but not both simultaneously).

I also wonder about leaving off the "specific consensus" clause for concision (and it avoids leaving an editor wondering what is a "specific consensus" as opposed to a "consensus"). "Should not generally" already provides guidance against combination that an editor could call on to justify removal, and restoration would in most cases hinge on an explanation of why a particular case isn't general (or an editor might include an invisible comment to explain it prior to such an editorial disagreement cropping up). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the openness to this revision and for the good thinking about not generally using both subject and genre parameters in a single infobox. Great to collaborate with you! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A proper short description plan/proposal

Checking the previous failed attempts to add a short description, I believe that we need a complete logic system for implementing a short description on a template as large as this before adding a generator. Here's a rough pseudo-code proposal I made for a potential implementation, based on WP:SDEXAMPLES:

Adding the templates main other should be used to prevent cluttering in non-main space articles, along with is infobox in lead to prevent incorrect short descriptions in articles where the book is not the main topic. As with any automatically generated short description, noreplace should be used. The main flaw is that lots of books that are novels say they are novels in the lead, but not in the infobox. Parsing the lead may be useful for fixing that, and some texts with the infobox are not considered strictly books, but texts. The generator should also reject anything that results in just "Book", since at that point the short description is so short it is borderline useless.

Update

I have created a module that works as a prototype for a short description generator at Module:Sandbox/1ctinus and a template at Template:infobox book/sandbox2. It needs lots of checking to see if everything works or are missing gaps. If you are not a noob at lua like me, feel free to improve my code for performance and readability! -1ctinus📝🗨 00:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What's the rationale for this approach to genre? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

using the genre parameter directly would be a bad idea since it sometimes includes "book" or "novel" and sometimes doesn’t, so it would read "2000 mystery novel book by John Done", or it has commas. -1ctinus📝🗨 10:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What would be the outcome for an anthology of short stories? A work of non-fiction? A non-novel with no genre provided? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

1. I would probably put anthology as a higher priority, so just anthology.

2. seeing other pages, it seems like non-fiction (outside of biographies and encyclopedias) just have “book”

3. I would probably just go with something generic (Literary Work) -1ctinus📝🗨 14:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I'd be comfortable with those assumptions - not everything that is not a novel is a literary work, and not everything that is non-fiction is best described as just "book". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you please give examples of both of those? Those would be beneficial for the program. If this helps clarifies things, the format would be (year) (type, such as novel or anthology) by (author) -1ctinus📝🗨 15:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

In the case of nonfiction, there are various genres beyond biography and encyclopedia, such as cookbook, narrative history, self-help book, memoir, and others. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are some specific cases to consider, which currently use this template: Columbia Encyclopedia, Macquarie Dictionary, Responsible Investment Brand Index, Dungeon Masters Screen, Official Congressional Directory. How would your proposal interact with these? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the list. I am really struggling for what to do with D&D stuff since I have absolutely nothing about what those books are called. I see "supplements" and "accessory" a lot of the time? Another problem has to do with books with multiple editions, such as the Columbia encyclopedia. Would it be really fair to call it a "1935" book? Looking to see how to fix that. For reference books such as dictionaries and encyclopedias I might change the format to "first published in" -1ctinus📝🗨 22:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

How many are there to do? This might be better done as a one-off script, especially if parsing the lead is required. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

12,000 😬 -1ctinus📝🗨 10:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this quite time-intensive code would run every time a reader looks at one of the 53,000 articles that use this template. Can you do some tests to check what additional delay is introduced every time that happens? With this complexity I would strongly prefer a one-off script; it could use essentially the same logic. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

1. the module should only run on articles without short description, so it would only be 15,000.

2. How would I go at measuring the performance of the template with and without the module? -1ctinus📝🗨 13:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I am working on a javascript script that can generate short descriptions, but it needs some work, especially with RPG stuff. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Update on the script: it is able to get enough information for ~80-90% of the pages to be able to generate a short description. I am going to make it so I can immediately weed out bad additions or bugs to comply with WP:MEATBOT. I also fixed the RPG issue -1ctinus📝🗨 18:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

An option to keep off to the side in case the above blows up

In case the above proves to be unworkable, another option is to create a temporary tracking category of articles using infobox book without a short description. Creating 12,000 manual SDs is actually not that bad of a task. You can usually copy/paste/edit something from the lead or use the SD helper gadget to import and edit the Wikidata SD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point, this is what I plan on doing. Ive created a really janky UI that lets me change the automatic ones in case of a parsing error. I’ve been sick so I haven’t finished it sooner than I wanted, but by tomorrow i should start publishing them. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I am starting to publish them. So far I have about ~500 done, including all that start with j, z, x, g, and q. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to deprecate "country" in favor of "location"

I would like to propose a change here to change the |country= parameter to |location= or |pub_location= to clear up confusion and match the usage in {{Cite book}}. In my wide experience of observing and editing book articles, there is a constant confusion and misuse of this parameter. Using |country= to mean country of original publication is confusing as books, nearly without exception, are published in specific locations. Usually a city, the city where the publisher is based. The standalone city name, not country, is THE standard in publishing. But |country= is endlessly used for the writer's nationality. Typically, the author's country of origin is indeed the country where their given book was published. However, that is not always the case. {{Infobox book}} favors the 1st edition publication of a book. First editions are periodically published first in countries that differ from the author's nationality or citizenships. Especially in today's globalized world. A book by an Indian-born writer first published in New York by Simon & Schuster should not have India in the country parameter. And yet, I cannot count how many these instances I have come across. This trend only seems to be getting worse. |location=, but especially |pub_location=, removes confusion here and more clearly states what that parameter is for. Οἶδα (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

|country= is indeed confusing, and for novels it often gets used for the country or countries in which the action takes place (should be |set_in=). I may have been guilty of that myself once or twice - oops. |pub_location= would be much clearer on all counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMaggs (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I note that Template:Citation uses |publication-place= (and synonymously, |place= or |location=) and defines it as "The city of publication. If more than one town/city is listed on the title page, give the first one or the location of the publisher's head office." Do we still want to refer to the country (not the city) of publication, and if so, should we draw a distinction in naming the default parameter? (|publication-country=?) TheFeds 19:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe location takes precedence over country as the latter is not present on title pages and is merely a practical extension of a location. However, realistically the longstanding country parameter will likely remain. As such, a distinction must be made because the ambiguity of "country" was a problem in the first place. Confusion has persisted despite the template documentation clearly delineating it as the "Country of original publication". Also, I suppose 'country' is needed because some books were published in cities that–at the time of publication–were located in countries that no longer exist (i.e. East Germany, USSR, Yugoslavia etc.) |pub_place= or |pub_location=, and |pub_country= should suffice. We already make the distinction for Date (|pub_date=). These should follow. Οἶδα (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned the citation template to provide an example of another thing the parameter could be called, and to point out the conventions that have arisen in that context, which may be instructive here.

An added wrinkle, I suppose is that it is theoretically possible for the publication to have been simultaneous in multiple places—e.g. coordinated releases of language versions on the same day by different publishers who specialize in their own markets and languages—so the parameter might more correctly allow for a list of places when required. (Infoboxes sometimes deal with this with a <br />-separated list.)

Given that the parameter contents might have to be a list, disambiguating with the form city, country doesn't seem unreasonable when necessary or desirable.

For cities that don't exist any longer, or whose name or country has changed, the name of the city should be linkable to the most correct placename at the time of publication. So if something was published in Danzig, Weimar Germany, which is modern Gdańsk, Poland (see Timeline of Gdańsk), we could link to Danzig and there would either be a redirect or a separate article there. (There are other considerations at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).)

I guess as a bottom line, if there is a consensus to change something, but existing usage is messy and inconsistent, the consensus can drive efforts to improve in the long term. For example a simple one would be to add |country=<!--of original publication--> to the copyable template example on the documentation page. This would induce a particular usage in new instances. More complex ones could involve manual or automated review via the bot process. TheFeds 00:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I would support disambiguating with the form city, country. Any change that would accommodate this standard in publishing is preferable. And I agree with changing the documentation page, which I predict is a particularly non-controversial change. Οἶδα (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree too. Bibliographically the publication place of (an edition of) a book is the city of its publisher and not the country. --Frognall (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Would be helpful to revive this discussion because it has not aged out of relevance. Οἶδα (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There seems to be general approval of the proposal, but not a lot of engagement so far. Sugegstions as to next steps? MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The proposal appears uncontroversial but more input is always helpful. Perhaps notifying relevant WikiProjects? Οἶδα (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Just chiming in here. For electronic literature, it would be helpful to have BOTH potential fields for country of origin as well as city, country for publication. Often works are published in digital form, with many people from all over the world collaborating on a single platform. Thus, country of origin for works would help as well. Is it not possible to have both fields? Thanks! LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the scope of that and I don't think it's particularly useful to this discussion. The country parameter has always been used for publication, not for "origin", the distinction of which you are making I am not entirely sure of. There has never been a country origin parameter. Regardless, as developed in the discussion above, I am more concerned with introducing a |pub_place= parameter than replacing |country= at this point. Sorry if the section header is now confusing. Οἶδα (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

So what is the status of this discussion? I came across an edit to Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Ishaq) where the "country" is listed as Medina" and an IP user changed the field to "city", which obviously broke the display. We can't set it to Saudi Arabia, as this work predates the existence of that by about 1,200 years. Zaathras (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how to generate more discussion short of forcing the addition. I would boldly edit the template myself but naturally it's protected for only template editors and administrators to edit. I also do not have enough technical knowledge to edit the source. Οἶδα (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggest asking one of the template editors who have edited this template in the past, as they may well have further advice, or may be willing just to do it if they agree there's a definite consensus about exactly what change is to be made. The most recent editor is Jonesey95 who I know to be friendly and helpful. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Based on my reading of the discussion above, it looks like adding |pub_location= as an alias of |country= would work from a technical standpoint. That would allow |country= to continue working unless |pub_location= had a value. The documentation could then be updated to read something like |pub_location=<!--location of original publication-->. Am I summarizing the consensus view? One unresolved issue is the text of the bold label "Country" that currently accompanies |country=. It will need to be changed, I think, but to what? "Publication location"? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is an important distinction between |pub_location= vs |pub_place=. Consistent with the CS1 style, they would be interchangeable. But I believe for the bold label that "Publication place" is more recognisable, natural and concise than the rhyming mouthful "Publication location". Οἶδα (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agree with you both. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, this became a bit more interesting when I went to make the change to the sandbox. Here is what I did:

• Moved the "Country" label to a more logical row, below "Publication date", and changed the label to "Publication place"
• Found that |location= was already in existence but not displayed. Since it was used in only 84 articles, I have removed it entirely, replacing it with the new |pub_place=/|country= combination.
• Added |pub_place= as an alias of |country= (|pub_place= is used if both are present)
• Marked |location= as unsupported, so 84 articles will have to be checked and modified to use |pub_place= or remove |location=, depending on what information is already present.

Please take a look at the sandbox versions in {{Infobox book/testcases}} and provide feedback. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the Cervantes example, would publication place more logically fit directly below publisher? Something about [Publisher>Date>Place>English date] looks confusing. Οἶδα (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Any updates on this? Οἶδα (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

F Οἶδα (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jonesey95, does that give you the feeedback you need? MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I have deployed this this change. Please report any problems. I did not change the order of the labels; they looked fine to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No problems on my end. Regardless of order, the addition is welcome and will be nice to finally make use of. Οἶδα (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks @Jonesey95. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)