Template talk:Book

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.svg Template:Book has been protected indefinitely because it is a highly-used or visible template. Use {{Edit request}} on this page to request an edit.
Please test any changes in the template's /sandbox or /testcases subpages, or in a user subpage, and consider discussing changes at the talk page before implementing them.


Ancient book with institution[edit]

Does this look correct? File:Practica D. magistri V00241 00000004.tif.

  • I asked the institution if the metadata is correct enough, let's see.
  • I still have to fix something with Template:BEIC which loses its styles for some reason.
  • I'm not sure how to pass parameters around: should I use the "Accession number" parameter and pass it to my Template:BEIC in some way? Or should that ID-specific information only go into the Institution template?
  • I didn't mention anywhere the Centro APICE (where the item is physically located) and the Internet Archive (which is mentioned in their metadata as having another copy, or something). I wouldn't know where to put them and I see no need to copy all the OPAC metadata on Commons.

--Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That looks mostly fine. But things to improve:
  • for materials published prior to 1923 (anywhere) please use license templates {{PD-old-100-1923}} etc. See Commons:Multi-license copyright tags for more info.
  • You should use translation templates as much as possible to make fields readable to the most audience. for example you should use {{other date}} in this file. Read suggestions for each field in template:Book for more info.
  • if you have some kind of Accession number you should display it and this can provide link to the source and the "source" field can just have static partnership template. See for example my upload: File:Armia Ukraińska - List Ukraińskiej Wojskowej Komisji Likwidacyjnej do pułkownika Kołosowskiego - 701-007-003-133.pdf. Although the way you have done it here is also fine.
  • names of authors would be better in "Giovanni Matteo Ferrari" instead of "Ferrari, Giovanni Matteo". Also if you can match them with creator templates and categories that would make it much better.
  • The Centro APICE (where the item is physically located) should be the one in the institution field not BEIC. BEIC can be mentioned in the source.
  • The part about Internet Archive: if you have a link than it can probably go as alternative source into source field
  • A final thought: I do not know what metadata is available to you but you should try to preserve as much as possible. If you have some data that does not fit current template we can work on ways to make it fit. also you should have somewhere link to OPAC. May be we should add it to Template:Book authority control?
--Jarekt (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm very grateful for this patient reply, you're extremely helpful. I'll go through these issues as soon as possible together with the library's personnel. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've tried to follow all the suggestions for our new round of uploads (about 60). I've automated the thing, so from now on we should only get better. Some piece of data are available in theory, but in practice they need strenuous conversions between formats; I'll work on that to improve the result before the next upload, also in coordination with zotero tools. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That looks better. Some more comments:
--Jarekt (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. For now I'm still dealing with the basics of the script, but you raise good points.
  • We don't have such information in the metadata. Is there a generic (usage of a) template to mean that something comes from a book, but may be or not be the whole work?
  • We don't have translated categories either. The choice is between no categories and available categories. Commons ought to be a multilingual project, so IMHO localised categories are better than nothing. If they're considered noise, I can remove them.
  • I asked around, but there is no library to convert from MARC21 to ISO 639-3/1 language codes. I'm working on such conversions as part of Zotero but I don't think it makes sense to reimplement them on each and every tool. At some point I'll also work on the Commons exporter of Zotero and reuse it in this script, I hope.
  • Yes, I know of GWT. It's not suitable for me, sadly, because BEIC doesn't have any easily usable metadata: all I do is scraping in Python and passing the data to another Python program (pywikibot). Adding XML as additional transport format would only complicate things. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • About, artworks in a book: We do not have a generic template for such situation. You either use {{Artwork}} with source done by {{Cite book}} or you use {{book}} template where there is no place for comments about individual pages. In some limited cases you have both, like in File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg where each image from the set has extensive metadata by itself (using {{Photograph}} or {[tl|Artwork}}), but in addition there is a extensive metadata about the book using {{Stroop Report}} template which was a specialized version of {{Book}} template. Specialized book templates are created to avoid need for adding exactly the same text to all the files and than needing to change all the files to fix some small issue.
  • Available categories are fine but they should be matched somehow to existing categories and can not stay forever in the Category:Storia delle Scienze naturali, fisiche, chimiche. We might have to get more voices on the subject from users experienced in categorizing mass uploaded images, like [User:Fea]] or User:Dominic, but you should strive to in the end have multiple categories per file (other than Category:Media from BEIC). Currently all categories on Commons are in English, because that is all that software supports, and you categories will have to follow those standards - see COM:CAT for more info. You can create temporary categories like Category:Media from BEIC: Storia delle Scienze naturali, fisiche, chimiche which will be then used to add final categories. All books should be categorized by author, and I can help you in creation of some of those categories if that would be helpful.
  • MARC21 to ISO 639-3/1 language code conversion should not be that hard. I suspect that number of codes your data has might be smaller than all the possible codes and might be easier to match to codes supported by {{Book}} template. If you give me the list I can try to see if I can match them.
--Jarekt (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok. AFAICS, Book template is still the best option. I'm striving for uploads of complete books eventually, the situation evolves.
  • IMHO category redirects are the only sensible option. Bots already handle those and at least some trace is left in Commons. Many files would have more categories if the creator templates consistently added the category named after their author: is there a rule about that?
  • I know it's not hard, I've already done such a map. But it's a waste of time to reimplement it dozens times. If really necessary I'll do it myself. If it's more useful to add the conversion to the template, I can do that as well. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The rule about Creators and categories is that Creator templates should never add categories. If any of them do than that category is often removed (hopefully after adding it to the files). Last time I checked about a year ago none did. In the past we had a lot of trouble with this types of categories which do not allow you to subcategorize and there was a lot of effort spent to clean it up. It is easy to create a static table of categories associated with creators or institutions and add them at the upload time. --Jarekt (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Add identifying class[edit]

{{edit request}} Please add fileinfotpl-type-book to the <table> classes (second line of the template)! See Commons talk:Machine-readable data#Identifying information-like templates for background. Thanks, --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Tgr (WMF) I do not want to be guessing here and I am not that well versed with different styles of HTML tags, so currently the second line is "
<table class="toccolours vevent" style="width: 100%; direction: {{Dir|{{int:Lang}}}};" cellpadding="2">
". What would you like it to be? I will do the same for the other infobox templates as requested. --Jarekt (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Would you also be able to update s:Template:Book when you do here, or please ping me so that I don't miss out the mirroring. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
<table class="fileinfotpl-type-book toccolours vevent" style="width: 100%; direction: {{Dir|{{int:Lang}}}};" cellpadding="2">
(new part marked with green.) Thanks! --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
updated at enWS  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry I was suppose to let you know when I change it. --Jarekt (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Books ending up in non-machine readable categories.[edit]

Hi all,

See File:Cyclopaedia, Chambers - Volume 1 - 0120.jpg for an example. This book has a source and an author but is in "Files with no machine-readable source" and "Files with no machine-readable author". I believe this is the case for all books using book-template.

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I've looked but I can't find why CommonsMetadata can't see those tags, so I've asked for Tgr's help. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Basvb, Guillaume (WMF): Book templates are ignored (see the end of the discussion at Template_talk:Art_Photo#Issue_with_MediaViewer; in a nutshell, the problem is that they are often used for images where the author of the book is in no meaningful sense author of the image). I guess the correct behavior would be to only ignore them when there are other kinds of information templates on the page. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, most book pages on commons, contain just text and in such case the author or editor of the book is THE author. Some books have "illustrator" field, who should be a co-author. Some files with book templates have other infoboxes, like for example File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg. So I agree that in case when book template is the only infobox template on the page than author, editor, illustrator and translator of the book should be listed as co-authors. In case of the source, there usually should be only one and it does not matter if it comes from {{book}} or other templates. --Jarekt (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
If the information is there in the book template it seems nice to use it. At least they shouldn't be in the error cat because that's simply confusing and clutters the category (I estimate this issue to be at a few (1-3) hundred thousand images). Who and what to attribute is a harder discussion, which in part has already taken place at the talk-page Tgr linked. I believe that in case of books in general reproduction (taking an image) most of the time is not a creative adaptation of the book itself, therefore the person uploading the book to commons or digitizing it isn't really the one who should get credits. The author mainly is the writer with indeed sometimes important co-authors such as translators and illustrators. However in the case of books most of the time we're talking about PD-material. Still then crediting the person who did the actual work is best. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Book}} template does not have a field for the person digitizing the image, and I do not think I have ever seen uploders listing themselves as "authors" of a book, at least not the ones knowledgeable enough to use {{Book}} template. So in great majority of cases the person listed in the Book template author field is the writer of the book. --Jarekt (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

How to enter language for multilingual books?[edit]

The "language" parameter seems to support entering only one language code; however, there are also multilingual books. Is there a solution for these? Gestumblindi (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Language code "mul" will mark it as "multiple languages." See example. I wish there was a way to list which languages are in the book within the template, I've just been doing so with categories. djr13 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

VIAF[edit]

Can the (Work/Expression) VIAF option be added (or directly pulled from Wikisource)? Thanks, The Haz talk 12:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with it can you give me an example of book with VIAF? Nothing can be pooled from wikisource but in the future we might be able to pool stuff from wikidata. --Jarekt (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)