Template talk:Infobox book/Archive 1

message: Release date is good, but the book itself will almost always contain the copyright date. How can this be made a part of the template? PeregrineV 17:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Topics

message: One idea that has been used in another book related template that I think has merit if that of "Series". Can I propose that we include a new optional parameter for this. I don't believe it will be used that frequently as few books belong in a series with a title. But some do and this could be a valuable inclusion. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 10:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to lack of comment I have gone ahead and added the extra field. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 17:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The series section doesn't seem to work anymore. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It started working once I reverted to Cryptic's version. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Series

message: I've removed optional parameters which describe physical details about specific volumes (cover_artist, publisher, release_date, media_type, pages, size_weight, isbn).  It's my feeling that these fields are not important to the "title" of the work, and at best can only document one single printed version.  I propose moving any such information to a "Editions" section within the article that can list out the various printings, if such information is important.  Even newly-released bboks often have two editions (hardcover/paperback), and so we already exceed the practical limits of these template fields.   When talking about classic books, which are public domain, it makes very little sense to list any volume information - to do so is just advertising one publisher of many.  We should keep this template about the "work", not any one set of physical attributes. -- Netoholic @ 15:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such changes on a widely used template such as this should really be discussed first "before"  change. Just as the documentation on this template requests. Please do not make more such changes without discussion first. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 16:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Making a positive change to the wiki does not need any explanation initially.  When I was reverted, I posted here.  Looking over this page, I see only a passing mention of ISBN being added, and no comments about the "physical" attributes.  It seems those changes were made without discussion. -- Netoholic @ 17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ISBN included long time ago, probably original (I hav'n't checked!). I see no prolem with using edition details and would myself only use these field to record firest edition details. Or if not change them to 1st edition details at the first opportunity. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 08:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto on Kevinalewis's succinct statement of what should be obvious. As to the issue at hand - yes there is sometimes confusion with multiple editions, but the fact is that most books are ever only put out by a single publisher. Even when there are multiple publishers / editions I don't think it hurts to list one over another. If the article contains references to page numbers (as are sometimes demanded by the citation police) then it is important to know which edition those page numbers pertain to. Having a separate 'editions' section could also get extremely convoluted for some texts... you could do an entire article, and a large article at that, on different editions of The Lord of the Rings. --CBDunkerson 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's incorrect that "most books are ever only put out by a single publisher" - when you think on a global scale.  Even so, there is wide difference even between printings by a single publisher that can change the size/weight, number of pages, ISBN, etc. -- Netoholic @ 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again not if 1st edition is kept to. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 08:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um no, on a 'global' scale... most books are still only printed in one country by one publisher. English language books are the primary exception - with a fair number (possibly even a majority) being printed separately in the US, UK and Australia. Even when a publisher does issue a reprint or the same text is printed by a different publisher it is fairly common for the layout to be duplicated as closely as possible. --CBDunkerson 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if a book is printed in one country by one publisher, the various printings will differ over time in cover_artist, pages, size_weight, and isbn.  Even information on single printings can be documented in article prose.  -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly how we at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels tend to work. With the lists of editions as a section in the article for "formidible" texts it has to be restricted to just the most notable ones. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 16:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I see.  The WikiProject already supports listing (some) editions in the article in it's own section.  I think that's an excellent way to handle this, and so there is no need for us to pick only one of those to put in the infobox. -- Netoholic @ 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, if page numbers are included in citations then the particular edition those numbers apply to needs to be specified. --CBDunkerson 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would only be necessary in the "References" sections where, of course, a particular edition would be given explicitely.  That has no bearing on what information an infobox on a page about a book should contain.  We've already seen that the WikiProject's article guidelines include a setion for listing various printings - the infobox need not hold that information, particularly where only one edition of many possible is used. -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also if we are illusrating to cover it is valuable to give appropriate details of the edition shown, ideally the 1st edition. (or at least first in English). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 08:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fields related to printed volumes/editions 

message: I know librarians for some reason have a thing for recording the dimensions and weight of books, but I don't believe that this is practical for Wikipedia articles, since books go through many different editions, and therefore the dimensions change all the time. Plus who weighs their books these days? Do we use pounds or grams? What edition gets weighed and measured? Paperback? Hardcover? Y'see? It's completely unworkable. 23skidoo 01:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%, not really needed in an encyclopedia. feydey 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Complete agreement. EVula 21:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree its not really needed. The template I was directed to use was on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate page, which doesn't include the size and weight information. Tartan 21:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a bit of work, but I'd recommend that the articles that still have size and weight be examined to see if this information is really needed or notable. For example my attention was drawn to the use of this in Shogun (novel). The data only applies to the paperback, and I have seen varying sizes of paperback editions of this book -- thinner, thicker, large format, regular paperback ... so to which version does it apply? 23skidoo 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommend removal of Size and Weight data

message: I just spotted a weakness in the infobox. Go to Shogun (novel) and you'll see someone has added the name of the artist who drew the cover of the edition shown. That's great -- but the infobox implies that the edition shown is the original first edition from 1975. In reality it was a much later paperback edition from the 1990s. I believe a field should be added to indicate which edition is being illustrated, especially if we're going to credit the artist; otherwise if someone were to come along and replace the cover with another one -- as I considered doing as I have an early paperback version of Shogun -- it could create some confusion. At the very least, space should be given for a caption to be added. Thoughts? 23skidoo 14:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified the example given to include a caption in the way usually used for this infobox. This is within the image reference. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where abouts is this? If you mean the Shogun infobox it doesn't appear to look any different. 23skidoo 21:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another field is needed

message: Instead of having a tiny section in an article, let's have a field in the infobox.
 Award(s) YYYY Award Name (win or nom)
Lady Aleena 12:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to have thought on the format of these "Award" listings. I would still prefer to see these, albeit reformated perhaps in the article. Mainly as some novels have received mnay awards. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know a single book out there that has won more than one award, and the ones which have won an award are rare. If a book has won more than two awards, the Awards field could simply have a link to the Awards section of the article. Also, how would you format the awards listing? Lady Aleena 13:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just a thought for those books with no awards or only one award. That way a section in the body would not have to be added. (I got thinking about this with the suggested headings you gave me for the Xanth series. None of those books ever received an award.) Lady Aleena 18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not excited about this field, but for books with 1-2 awards this would be ok. So it would be an optional field. If the book receives more awards - put them in the article and not in the box. feydey 18:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Award field

message: I've read through the discussion above, including "Fields related to printed volumes/editions", which touches on this, but I didn't see anything that seemed an unequivocal statement of intent.  Is the intention for the infobox to give data for the first edition, wherever possible, and use later edition data only where necessary?  Or is it intended primarily to give data about the book itself, with data specific to some particular edition being secondary?  At the moment I am hesitating over an update or two because I'm not quite clear on the difference.  For example, at Who? (novel) there is a picture of a modern edition.  I've updated the box to have info regarding the first edition, but I notice on the template example that multiple media are given -- paperback, hardback and CD -- so it appears the infobox is for all editions.  In that case, though, some of the fields seem too specific, bibliographically -- publisher and ISBN and so on.  That would make sense if the intention was for this box to be used for the first edition where possible, but as I said I can't find a clear statement of that and thought I'd check here before running around editing articles.  Thanks for any info.  Mike Christie 17:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that primarily You'd put info about the 1st edition, if not available then from the other editions. The media_type should have the media that the book is and was released in. If the cover picture is from a later edition You just add it as a tooltip like image = . feydey 17:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the template primarily for first editions? 

message: I have been reconsidering the request made earlier and one or two others are questioning this. What I propose is the a "image_caption" field is added as mentioned above and this be inserted as an optional field and implemented as the image_caption on the :Template:Infobox Biography infobox. If no one object straightaway I will insert the field and mock this up on one novel so people can see what it looks like. How does that sound. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, just like Infobox_Film has a caption for posters/DVD covers. feydey 14:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Caption field

message: For the picture books, this is a must.  New field? Burns flipper 07:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe for books the idea is to use the original publication information?  So the guidelines would be for the first edition in the country of first publication.  If later versions were illustrated (or illustrated by someone else), this would be noted in the article or potentially have a different ISBN. Burns flipper 09:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was tending to that thought myself, others views please :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by "consistently illustrated throughout" as Chapter number graphics could be so described, and I agree those should not count as illustrations in and of themselves. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A single illustration at the begining of the novel makes it illustrated by definition, but not "consistently throughout" like a picutre book or illustrated book. Also, a map or 2 at the begining of the novel are a single illustration, multiple maps would be consistently illustrated. PeregrineV 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your thought then is to use this phrase to indicate that the "illustrator" should have been responsible for illustrations used "consistently throught" the novel.?? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 06:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, once the field is there, then the illustrator for even single illustrations could be named, as it would no make a difference. But, when researching novels as opposed to articles on novels in my possession, finding the illustrator name may be difficult. For a picture book, the illustrator is like the author, key information. For a book with an illustration or two (even 1st editions), that infromation would be much less vital. PeregrineV 15:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Illustrator' field addition 

message: We have fields related to orginal title and translator, as well as publication date - but the publication date is the 1st editon (non English), while the article usually described the English edition. I'd suggested either adding the new field of 'first English edition' or adding that info to the 'published in' field.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wondered that while doing an infobox. So I would also like to see a separate field for the first English edition, to distinguish it from the original. feydey 08:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a major subject and warrants considerable thought. The way this type of thing is being handle currently is to say something like, "Publisher = French Pub co. (orig.) & HarperCollins (Eng. trans. first edition, hardback)". Does that answer the enquiry. Otherwise there are so many different details that could be included that the infobox would begin to get very packed! Also the "Release details" section later in the article pattern can be used to detail any particular editions and the origin and language of those. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question is not about Publishers, but just adding a "| eng_release_date  = "? feydey 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'd go with that, but would prefer "| english_release_date = " as a clearer form. Most will cut and past a pattern to get this so a few extra characters won't matter too much. Needs careful documentatino though! Placing I would propose after the "| release_date  = " parameter. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New field for translated titles: First English edition 

message: Considering we are often adding covers, I think it is important to note who the cover we display was made by.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is and we do try to - It requires we know the information. Also please note there is a field for this information, it is just a matter of placing it. If you know some, please do add them. Bear in mind this will change if the cover is changed and will need to be modified in tandem. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately cover artists are often not given credit, especially on paperback editions. It's a shame there isn't some sort of covers database that could be accessed for this information. 23skidoo 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Even if there isn't a field for it, you can put that information in the image's wikitag, which will in turn show up in the image's alt tag in the generated HTML. EVula 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New field: Cover art by 

message: I'm presently undergoing a project to catalog my library (I'm at 1900 books and counting) and as part of this project I'm recording ISBN numbers. I have learned, however, that ISBN refers only to a specific edition of the book and not to the book itself. Having an ISBN field in the template I think is asking for the same sort of problem as having a cover artist field. Someone will enter an ISBN number, but it may only be applicable to a certain edition of the book. For example, at least in the 1970s, it was common for books published in the UK to carry a different ISBN if they were imported to the US (not republished - I mean imported). So how do we decide which ISBN to use in the infobox? 23skidoo 14:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidance says: "prefer 1st edition" (of the first release country, i assume). feydey 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume folks who add ISBNs will remember to indicate if the number used is for another edition. As an aside question, I know Wikipedia is set up to create an automatic link when ISBNs are used, and presumably it works with the new ISBN13, but what about first-generation ISBNs from 66-67 that used fewer numbers, or sometimes even more numbers (thinking here of the many ISBN numbers from the 1970s that incorporated the price of the book)? 23skidoo 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ISBN number

message: Two more field have been proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Two new fields to infobox which warrent everyone's attention. Please get over there and place you views. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of two extra fields

message: For photographicly illustrated books. I noticed the lack of a photographer field when my daughter and I created A Moose for Jessica. -Hanuman Das 02:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No field is needed for this info, just add it to the article itself. Not many books have photos and rarely are they by only one person. feydey 08:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new field: Photographer