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.

Capitalization of languages[edit]

Could the language in which each book is written be capitalized when it appears in the template? For example, if "{{language|en}}" or even just "English" is entered as a value for the |language= parameter, it is displayed as "english". See, for instance, "File:Notes on Names of Places in the Island of Singapore and its Vicinity (1889) by H T Haughton.pdf". — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for good suggestion. --Jarekt (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Single pages[edit]

This template is said to be for entire books. So what should I do if I only upload one page of a book? For instance, File:Dei delitti e delle pene, edizione VI, frontespizio.jpg. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Majority of uses of this template is for individual pages making up a book and there is no restriction that you have to have all the pages to use the template. I am not sure where it says "entire book" but it should be corrected if it is confusing. --Jarekt (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, maybe I misread. Is this clearer? [1] --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)