This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZarhanFastfire (talk | contribs) at 07:13, 30 April 2016 (→Talk:What's So Amazing About Grace?/GA1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:13, 30 April 2016 by ZarhanFastfire (talk | contribs) (→Talk:What's So Amazing About Grace?/GA1)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | See also: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Novels |
 | Books Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Books and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Books and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
Change to WP:Books
When are we going to do something about this daft surname only disambiguation rule for 20th Century writers? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to our April event
.jpg)  | |
|---|---|
|
Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon
| |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Jews Against Zionism (book) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Jews Against Zionism (book) to be moved to Jews Against Zionism. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
"#property:" in Infobox Books
In case anyone comes across an infobox parameter where "#property:" has been added, as in this version of Phantoms in the Brain, it seems that this is a system which adds Wikidata to the record so that content can be re-used across different Wikipedias (eg {{#property:P212}} for isbn). It doesn't appear to be clearly documented anywhere yet. See discussion at User_talk:Magioladitis#Phantoms_in_the_Brain. PamD 16:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've noticed that all of a sudden, the infoboxes of books are now sometimes showing the "genre" parameter automatically, even when the book is non-fiction. Is this related? It seems totally wrong, given that "genre" is specifically for fiction works only, per Template:Infobox book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I also noticed that in case of multiple ISBN entries, this addition displays all of them. Sometimes, these ISBNs are not even from the first edition of the book. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
OK after some consideration I think the recent changes have to be reverted for now till we really synchronise how the Infobox grabs the info from Wikidata. For example in many cases we have omitted the display of an ISBN for a reason. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Prairieplant, Frietjes, and Bgwhite: -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Magioladitis. Books first published before the ISBN system was invented do not get ISBN in the infobox, which has first edition information. One I noticed for a 1936 book by a British author yielded a 2006 American published edition (tracing it out on World Cat). Editors can add isbn for more recent editions in Publication history section of the article if it exists but no in the infobox, but for major authors, this is not done -- e.g., Auten, Dickens, Bronte, Twain, Harper Lee, though their books are still in print. Plus such a big change needs to be placed in the infobox book template so an editor knows what is expected. Now that template says use first edition isbn, for example. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is there any indication of when the changes are likely to be reverted? They're still in place now, and the effects, apparently including the addition of inaccurate information to infoboxes that cannot readily be removed, are very aggravating. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Notice regarding use of Goodreads template as an EL
Interested Project members are invited to comment on a discussion regarding the use of the {{tl:Goodreads}} template. Here is the link: WP:External_links/Noticeboard#Is_Goodreads_an_appropriate_EL.3F. 20:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:What's So Amazing About Grace?/GA1
Can anyone help here? The nominator Neelix appears to be inactive since November last year. Thanks. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Not so useful and misleading information in book templates
Can someone please explain the rationale for including the following things in articles about books, namely: an OCLC number, ISBN, Dewey classification (regardless of edition), and full LC classification. I get a strong impression every time I see these things that whoever's doing this does not understand how either of them actually works or what they are for. Putting them in will not help someone find them in their local library without first consulting the library's catalogue, as some seem to think (I've been told this was why they were there by one editor, so people could go find them). Take the article for Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. That novel has run through probably thousands of editions by now, in many English-speaking countries. The OCLC number which is there in the article is not some universal unique number for that book, now and forever: it is not "the number" for the novel! It is a number assigned by OCLC to one particular MARC record for one particular edition of the novel, published in 2003--of itself, that is no use to the casual reader of this article. The reader cannot jot down the number, take it to the library and find that book with it. The most one can do is click on the link and discover (wonder of wonders) a record for the edition of the book published in 2003--considerably less informative than the article the reader has at hand, one assumes. The ISBN is even less useful, and again, there is no single ISBN which somehow "represents" the novel--so what is the point of including one from 2003, 1975, or 2016? What does it matter--what's it for? We should not be cluttering up articles with data for its own sake, particularly when that data adds nothing to the article. Similarly, the LC classification given in the box is for a particular edition of the novel published, again, in 2003. You can see the 2003 in the classification itself. When it comes to literature, Dewey, at least, is a bit more justified, in that there is no date or variable Cutter number as there is with LC. But outside of literature, Dewey classifications, as LC ones, can vary considerably from one cataloguer or institution to another, and they can vary even more across editions of Dewey, which are issued every 4-5 years. All this strikes me as rather a lot of trainspotting, in that the information is jotted down for its own sake, the information is apparently chosen arbitrarily if not completely randomly, and its purpose is utterly mystifying rather than edifying to the casual reader of the enclycopedia. Sorry if I took a long time to say this, but this has been bothering me a long time, and I've never been sure till today where I could bring up the question. I strongly urge us to consider why a template has been created for these pieces of information about a work which exists in multiple formats--which can never adequately accommodate the breadth of diversity of data in those formats. I believe strongly that these articles do not need that data and are in fact worse for having them. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Categories: