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

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Would it be possible for |isbn= to seek out an ISBN-shaped string within the argument, and internally link that, rather than failing to link if the argument as a whole isn't an ISBN-shaped string? E.g. the "(hardcover)" at [1] is preventing the ISBN from being linked. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

added |isbn_note= (which is hopefully uncontroversial). Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using the new |isbn_note= parameter, which is very useful in certain articles. Can someone add it to the documentation so more editors are aware of its existence?

Also, where are we on the published/publisher debate? If there has been consensus, the documentation should be updated to reflect it.— TAnthony^Talk 02:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat related; I think ISBN13 should be separate parameter, that way there's no confusion for people not familiar with the differences of IBN10 and ISBN13. Although the current parameter recognizes ISBN13 strings it would be better for clarity and cleaner if the two could just be identified separately. If I want to add an ISBN13 to an article with an existing ISBN10, I can either just list it next to the ISBN10 (not very clear) or add it with the note ISBN 13 (clunky). Pariah24 (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need both. Any ISBN-10 can be converted to an ISBN-13, and an ISBN-13 which begins 978 can also be converted to an ISBN-10; ignoring the 978 at the start of the ISBN-13, nine of the digits are identical, only the last one differs. An ISBN-13 which begins 979 has no ISBN-10 equivalent. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how the process works; I also understand you don't necessarily "need" both, but it is common practice to list both on nearly every database out there. It has come in handy for me in the past to have both available on hand to run them through a search. Who wants to calculate checksum digits for every book by hand? Since this is an encyclopedia i.e. a reference tool for information it makes sense to list both of them. I'm not going to go off editing the template without consensus (not that I can anyway) but I think it's something that should be discussed. Listing them both equally would bring Wikipedia more in line with worldcat and other respectable information sources. Pariah24 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether this edit is correct, but the template documentation seems unclear (to me anyway) about how this parameter is intended to be used. Thoughts? DonIago (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, almost all of the infobox params are intended for info about the original edition. I note that it doesn't mention the paperback edition, which certainly exists (that or my copy is either absolutely unique or a counterfeit) --Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Given that nobody else has commented I'll proceed on that interpretation. DonIago (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added |subtitle=. It should use the same italicisation as |title=. Could someone check my code in that regard, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mabbett, the title is always italic (no conditional, see titlestyle), so you don't need any conditional in the subheaderstyle. the |italictitle= is for the automatic italicisation of title at the top of the transcluding article. Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This change was initiated in on an other talkpage, see Template talk:Infobox#subtitle. The edits mentioned here (25 October 2014) have been undone, see [2]. As for layout, this (reverted) form, placement in the first subheader would separate title and subtitle by the box's border. See follow up in section #Subtitle below. -DePiep (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template:infobox book/sandbox version is updated, 10 November. See Update note below. -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add optional parameter |subtitle= to this infobox. In code (simplified here):

| title = {{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}{{#if:{{{subtitle|}}}|<br/><small>{{{subtitle|}}}</small>}}

Proposal is in the /sandbox, see also /testcases. @Pigsonthewing, Frietjes, and Rezonansowy: -DePiep (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikidata, subtitle is property P392. -DePiep (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books with subtitles (compare current solution): Animal farm, My Senator and Me, On the Origin of Species -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you propose to re-add the parameter, which you recently removed after I added it. I oppose the use of your code, which shoehorns the subtitle into the {{Infobox}} template's |Title= parameter, with a <br/> separator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you oppose adding this parameter while you have added it yourself before? -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose adding the parameter; what I said was " I oppose the use of your code, which shoehorns the subtitle into the {{Infobox}} template's |Title= parameter, with a <br/> separator. ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, do you maintain your earlier proposal (by edit, now reverted) to have a subtitle as an infobox subheader, separated from the title by the infobox's border? Or do you have a third option? -DePiep (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There being no argument against it other than your IDONTLIKEIT, of course I do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered days ago. -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Ollieinc (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In doubt Now I have a problem in the visual appearance of both solutions. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 08:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rezonansowy can you describe that problem? -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below, bold subtitle for such long texts doesn't look too good, IMO. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 08:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from being long, I don't see things that bad. As it is in the lefthand (current version), it is a weird sentence (lowercase start...) starting out of nowhere. Is that any base for how you'd like to see a subtitle?

/sandbox (1) is Updated. See Update note below.-DePiep (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Template:Infobox/testcases Frietjes is showing a third option. -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Testcases side by side

• comment: the use of <br /> and <small>...</small> tags is suboptimal. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Can be solved at Template talk:Infobox, but I don't know what's holding things up there. Parametername, semantics, datarow. I don't see the problem. -DePiep (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sure, ignoring the fact that the only proposal at Template talk:Infobox uses <br /> and <small>...</small> tags, which is suboptimal. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Update 2014-11-10. To improve visual apearance, I've changed the subtitle format: title italics stay; font-size:smaller; font-weight:normal (unbold). See testcases for /sandbox (1). Three fonts effects was a bit much. Comments? -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the booktitle must be entered by parameter |name= (or let it default to the pagename). I propose to add parameter |title= for this ( = book title). More intuitive. Old parameter name |name= stays, no intention to change this. Also, default title/name = pagename stays. -DePiep (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this would add needles complexity, to solve no apparent problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It solves the discrepancy between parameter name |name= and book "name" being its title (which can also have a subtitle btw). Complexity now lies with the editor. -DePiep (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the evidence that this is causing a problem is..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What problem are you talking about? -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quite. There is no problem that requires this change as a solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I didn't claim there was a problem. However, the proposal stays. -DePiep (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These linked sections of Archives 6 and 7 concern wholly or mainly our publication parameters: publisher, pub_date, publisher1, publication-date, published, etc (some may be deprecated, some never realized).

Next wishes (proposal & adoption of a complex new parameter published=, 2013-08)

Deprecated parameters (immediate reaction to its introduction, 2013-08)

The new "published" parameter, a bad idea? (2013-09)

Data granularity [duplicated in the archive] (from 2013-12)

Granular publication parameters (2014-06): Top; 1. Edit request; 2. It's still a problem

FYI, my excursion to the archives was prompted by notice of one ISP session today (Contributions 2601:9:700:62B:FDF6:ED26:7E5E:A393) that provides and revises precise American-style publication dates as values of the complex parameter. The two double visits provide first one precise date, then another. That doesn't concern the infobox design directly but the archived discussions do feature, among much else, our various expectations concerning how editors will complete the publ field(s).

--P64 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This mistake has completely put me off editing Wikipedia until recently (not a very mature response but there you go), but is still on my mind. Having given it more thought, here's what's currently on my mind:

1. Everyone seems to be in agreement that |published= should be removed.
2. There was no consensus to revert to the old semi-granular parameters (especially when some editors spent a lot of time correcting/improving infoboxes in other ways while changing to |published=, and the old parameters often contained multiple data in practice) nor to migrate all examples to a new fully granular system, forcing a single field display.

What I'd failed to see in previous proposals was that we could replace |published= with a completely optional set of fully granular parameters for those who wanted to use them (however fully granular parameters were implemented we would still have to support the old parameters to allow for existing use), rather than trying to force this new (to my mind much improved) system on all editors. This way if editors objected to the condensed display they could use the old parameters without problem, but equally if we came across multiple publishers, say, in an old parameter infobox, we could migrate it as and when it was encountered.

I think this would address the only objections raised last time (Dream Focus wanted the old parameters as they were & Redrose64 pointed out the ridiculousness of migrating in minor cases), would support the improvements made in the failed |published= migration, and would allow us (or, you know, just me) to remove all current instances of |published=, which could then be removed from template and documentation before anyone else used it, like the IP edits mentioned above. Any further changes could then be discussed without this still being an issue. ‑‑xensyria^T 00:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Read by parameter, which is useful for audiobooks. It defines person who read the book for recording the audiobook. It was used in {{Torchwood book}} for example. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 18:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A preferred position? -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe after the {{{writer}}} {{{author}}}... --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added |read by= to the /sandbox, not yet /sandbox2. See template:infobox book/testcases, added to the examples.

Second thought: shouldn't we name it |audio read by=, both parameter and label? If seen isolated (without the word "audio book" nearby), it could be misunderstood as 'those who have read the book'.

(+lol, you got me. Our books don't have a {{{writer|}}}). -DePiep (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we push this into live as a merge from (TfD) Touchwood books? Any more from that one to add? -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would be good idea from the technical point. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 10:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, |audio read by= now ready for deployment in the sandbox (see testcases).

One more question @Rezonansowy:: the Torchwood template also has |set between= option. I think that is useful in here too. We can use a more general name+label here: |set in period=; position right below "subject". Add? -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And another one: why not have a "set in place" option too, next to "time"? Let's make it:

[label data] Set in |set in=. This way the editor can add appropriate text to make it read: "Set in  Russia, 1918". (I must say, together with "genre" and "subject" this is a more interpretive parameter, not as factual as the others). Add? -DePiep (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read by seems good (might be a good idea to discourage enthusiastic editors in the documentation from trying to list every person to have read, say, the Sherlock Holmes novels though). I don't think that |set between= in these cases would be able to be replaced by |set in= and |set in period=, as this seems to have been used for continuity (in addition to |preceded by= and |followed by=; not sure of the precise logic used to distinguish these, but if standardised with other {{infobox book}} uses, the latter could be used alone); that's not to say it wouldn't be useful as an extra parameter, just not an equivalent replacement. Also wondering what would happen if a book was set in multiple periods and places (Cloud Atlas springs to mind)... would it display as something like "Set in  Chatham Islands; Zedelghem, Belgium; Buenas Yerbas, California; Britain; Nea So Copros, Korea; Big Island, Hawaii, 1850; 1931; 1975; present day; future; far future"? ‑‑xensyria^T 15:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, no need to copy the strict definition from there, I only took the idea. I guess the Set in label can cover nicely relevant time and/or place.

An editor adding a long list - well, too much detail and irrelevants can be added everywhere, in text too. We need sound judgement for that, not making a good edit impossible. (see how many "relation" family members are listed in John F. Kennedy). My signing, late: -DePiep (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No support from original requester Rezonansowy, so this idea about |set in= will not continue. -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will propose the |audio read by= addition (below), as is in the sandbox now. -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Please replace all code with all sandbox code.
• Changes: Add parameter |audio read by= as asked & discussed above in #Read by parameter. Data rows had to be renumbered.

Note: I could do the edit myself (under TE-protection), but an extra pair of eyes are welcome. -DePiep (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: I'm not so experienced in it, if it's useful just add it. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take you for the Book specialist ;-): if you think it's useful in the tempalte, we'll add it. (edit request paused for now) -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Rezonansowy Mlpearc (open channel) 19:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

added as |audio_read_by= since all other parameters in the template use underscores instead of spaces. Frietjes (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @DePiep: I support two set in params. Now it looks very good and would be very useful. Time to think about Wikidata props :) --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 20:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes We are cross editing (funny experience). I leave this to you from here. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fixed as |set_in= since all the other parameters use underscores instead of spaces. Frietjes (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about |set in period=? This is useful as well. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 21:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

seems redundant since the setting is the time and place. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 21:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now {{Torchwood book}} seems to be merged. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 21:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose the addition of a release_number parameter for Doctor Who books. I know that this parameter has already been added, but since the addition was never formally proposed here, I thought I would retroactively propose the addition. any objections? Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note that there are around 500 or so novels in this category, most of which are now using this parameter. Frietjes (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: It's only fair that you mention why the parameter was added and also why it is already in use: it was this TfD and the one immediately below it. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The addition was correctly challenged & reverted. See this appeal to the admin. I find it apalling that this thread is opened as if nothing happened, while he current template version is achieved by disruptive non-talking edit warring. Any editor with a sense of correct procedure would have reverted Pigsonthewing. In this hostage situation, looking for "consensus" with a bleeding nose is not the way to proceed. In this atmosphere, I do not expect that my contributions would be appreciated. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:, yes, thank you for providing the link. in the edit summary, we were instructed to revert the addition if it is controversial. apparently it is controversial. now, as part of WP:BRD, I am attempting to start a discussion about the merits (or lack of merits) of adding it. Frietjes (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if the decision is not to include this param, does that mean that the two infoboxes deleted yesterday should be reinstated? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:, I could be wrong, but I thought the {{Torchwood book}} template was "unused", so it's not really part of this discussion? as far as the Doctor Who books go, a bot replaced all of them putting the 'release number' into the release_number parameter. so, possible outcomes could be (1) the parameter is deemed to be important enough to keep in the infobox, and nothing happens to the articles, (2) the 'release number' is deemed unimportant, and we just remove the parameter from the infobox, (3) a bot/editor moves the 'release number' to a different location within the infobox (e.g., the notes section), or (4) the Doctor Who book template is resurrected and the entire process is restarted as a merger discussion, or (5) something that I haven't considered. Frietjes (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on a related note, I would support reverting Plastikspork's changes while this discussion proceeds (as a minimal good faith gesture) since Plastikspork did say "please revert/discuss if this is controversial". Frietjes (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed the most relevant WikiProject, which I think should have been done at the start. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Redrose64: IMO there is no need to introduce the {{Torchwood}} TfD in here. It the has been discussed here and has concluded. -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion: make this series and number show in the same data row, e.g.: "Series, number 5, 12" or some other format, with the label if-ed. -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's more problematic. Is a "Release number" an independent number or is it sub to a series (iow, does the numbering restart in a next series)? When answered whichever way, why would we specify this parameter specific for the Dr Who books, while this is the generic Book template? -DePiep (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One editor disruptively making a point does not amount to a controversy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the parameter should be included. ~500 is not a trivial number of articles. They were, and would again be, would be damaged by its removal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subthread to separate process issues from actual merge discussion. -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• About the current version & reversals there is a thread at ANI. -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]