This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This template is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. For guidelines on this template's usage, see its documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Novels This template is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel Children's literature This template is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature Tasks you can do: Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

{{editprotected}} For media_type, is it possible to remove the lowercase template? It makes the formatting look bad in articles where we've placed capitals. (such as the first letter) If it's left that way for a reason, can someone please explain? ^blurred_peace ☮ 23:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree - this is a cavalier way of imposing stylistic and subjective ideas on all infoboxes regardless of a majority of editors work. No substantive debate had. Also restricted to just one field make the whole look like the work of amateurs. Please change back to the way it used to be. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly agree. Apparently it was done by request because people were finding things like "Print (Hardcover)" and didn't like the capital H (which I also believe to be incorrect). But forcing the very first letter in an infobox item to be lowercase is highly irregular, and reason not to use a blunt instrument like the {lc} template, but to correct capitalization problems as they're found. Even the person that made the original request later said "The standard in infoboxes is for the first word to be capitalised, and the others uncapitalised...". Is this enuf consensus yet to add the editprotected flag? 76.121.3.85 (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said so - added as mentioned. An independant admin can check! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

• please add arabic interwiki to this templeate ar:قالب:معلومات كتاب --Heshamdiab116 (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please add it to the documentation page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting sync with the sandbox for some minor code cleanup. This is preliminary work before getting on with merging {{infobox book in series}} into here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cover artist field is not showing up at The Great Gatsby. Is there a reason for this? — MusicMaker5376 02:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the parameter is in the singular - fixed it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — MusicMaker5376 20:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Just minor, but since this is a template and used in many articles the links should be correct. [[Publisher]] needs to be changed to [[Publishing|Publisher]]. TJ Spyke 18:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be piped. It is possible that publisher will one day have its own article. — RockMFR 18:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See WP:PIPING – I don't see what is incorrect about publisher.  Skomorokh  18:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template needs a website field.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - I can't think of a more undesirable parameter. Rather than focus on the notable bibligrpahic details of the book - and in its first edition this is pointing to probable fansites and publisher advertising. Bad idea.! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal. We manage not to fill other infoboxes with fansites; and many books now have an official website. Dismissing the latter as mere "advertising" is unhelpful - the same could be said for many of the other official website we link to. That doesn't reduce their usefulness or relevance, to our readers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official website of what then? - surely you are talking about modern books with this one, which has a clear slant to recently published material, even just the last 10 or less. Very restricted and heading toward the least notable books statistically. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? It'll be an optional field; we can write guidance explaining when it should, or should not, be used. Besides, old books can have official websites, too: http://www.tcd.ie/Library/old-library/book-of-kells/ Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but extremely rare! It raises the question of how it is "official". And yes I can see how in the case above you mention. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the request to link Encyclopedia of Chicago to http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/ in its infobox. Is this not a desirable thing to do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no problem myself with that. Certainly the article should be linked. It is just that as soon as you add a parameter to the infobox people will start to populate it with all sorts of things that vaguely fit into the definition of "website". However much control we impose, the "cat is out of the bag" and all sorts of crud will get added. That is the type of inclusion that I am keen to avoid. Experience here tells me that once open the door will not get closed. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the same argument espoused about potential parameters in other templates; and have never been persuaded by it - we have to trust each other to use WP wisely, or we may as well all give up. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why are we not all administrators? Trust is earned, experience guide who you give it to. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A far more important issue is the use of infoboxes at all. There are editor's primarily those who work on FA classification that tend between them to dislike and remove this template. They have an argument about "usage" that personally I should look into more - however so far it doesn't not convince. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the parameters of the infobox be amendend, such that the insertion of an OCLC no longer results in a direct link to the Worldcat website being created. I think the addition of direct links goes against the spirit of WP:LINKSPAM, not in the perjorative sense, but in the sense that alothough the link is well intentioned and possibly beneficial, it is not the business of Wikipedia to provide links to Worldcat or any other bookcataloging service. There are many other simiar catalging systems such as ISBN, LCCN and ASIN, but the infobox is not used to link directly to their websites. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no non-pejorative sense of WP:LINKSPAM. It refers to "the purpose of promoting a website or a product", which this is not -- it's helping readers to more-easily find books at their local libraries.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Worldcat is involved in cataloguing services, linking to its site is effectviely promoting its website over other cataloguing services and other catologuing systems. Which cataloges are more or less helpful than Worldcat, I could not say, but this does seem to be an example of adding direct links which "explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source". The template specifically avoids doing this with the ISBN, and I don't see why Worldcat should be treated differently in this regard. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's quoting out of context. The full sentence: "Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article." It's possible that it shouldn't be linking to Worldcat -- but as long as you keep trying to make WP:LINKSPAM fit the situation, you won't succeed in making your point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, there is no explicit solicitation, but readers are being implicitly directed to use a specific external source to expand an article. Is a subtle difference, granted, but the effect is the same. WP:LINKSPAM does say that "There is no hard rule on when this crosses over from being a legitimate attempt to improve the article into being internal spam", and this is the grey area where I am starting from. I think you now agree that it shouldn't be linking to Worldcat, the only difference between us is just that I am trying to articulate why it should not link. I appologise if I am labouring the point about linkspam, but I am trying to reach for the closest analogous approximation to what is wrong with the template. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WorldCat site contains little more than basic bibliographic info and some user-created content sections transcluded from other sites. I don't see how the linked OCLC pages could reasonably be used to expand articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I do not agree that it should not be linking to Worldcat -- I don't see the same issues that you do. However, I also don't agree that it must be linking to Worldcat. The ease-of-use improvement isn't huge. If the template were tweaked to only link the OCLC in the absence of the ISBN, that might satisfy all concerned... -SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That seemed to be the solution most frequently brought up at the other discussion. For the record, I think it's the best idea going forward - in effect, it would provide an alternative search for items that a reader can't presently find through Special:BookSources, and only then. That ought to alleviate the spam concerns amongst everyone other than Gavin Collins, and I don't see any broad support for his proposal to never link OCLCs. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The link to Worldcat is not linkspam and should not be removed. 2) If it is not already clear, the guidance should be strengthened such that OCLC is only useful where there is not an ISBN number. 3) If 2 can be accomplished programmatically in the template, that'd be all the better. older ≠ wiser 17:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an easy fix: I just tested it in a sandbox, and it appeared to link correctly. The changed version is:

|data18= {{#if:{{{isbn|}}}|{{{oclc}}}|{{#if:{{{oclc|}}}| [http://worldcat.org/oclc/{{urlencode:{{{oclc}}}}} {{{oclc}}}] }}}} It didn't link the OCLC on the book I tested with (using Preview), and when I deleted the ISBN, it linked as before.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the original proposal. The links to WorldCat are beneficial, and do not in any way constitute linkspam. The suggestion that they do strikes me as bizarre. As for the later proposal of only displaying the |oclc= parameter in the absence of the |isbn= parameter, this one actually makes sense but I still disagree with it. In fact, I do not see a need for any change. HairyWombat (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]