Template talk:Book

Revisions and additions wishlist

Whenever this template gets a revamp, we should probably make some sort of additional ISBN parameter for ebooks, as some of Paizo's products have different ISBNs in print and digital formats (namely novels).—Yoda8myhead 20:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll likely start on some of this tonight, BTW. --Morbus Iff 20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Template parameter "isbne" has been added for ebook ISBNs. --Morbus Iff 17:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Auto-categorization

I notice that type Short Fiction automatically categorizes a book as Web fiction. There's another format of short fiction this leaves out, which are the compiled Pathfinder's Journal novellas. —Yoda8myhead 02:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

True. Ok, so should we switch "type = Short Fiction" to "type = Web Fiction" for all the web fictions? Do the PJ novellas get categorized differently than a novel? I'm not hugely a fan of the term "Short Fiction" in the long run - the Pathfinder Tales Novels are "Short Fiction" compared to It, or The Stand, or Infinite Jest, etc. I'd rather a term be more descriptive of its actual purpose, but I confess to coming up short on one for the PJ collections. How about a) all web fiction gets typed into Web Fiction and b) all the PJ novellas get typed into Novella? --Morbus Iff 13:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

On paizo.com, both web fiction and compiled Pathfinder's Journals are lumped together into one group called "short fiction" (here). I'd rather keep it simple with both bundled together under short fiction. Then if someone's curious about where a particular product's words first appeared, they can just check the product page, which will link to either the respective Pathfinder AP volumes or the serialized fiction on the web. This way if there are later other formats of short fiction, it's easy just to lump them in this group as well.—Yoda8myhead 00:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

So, if we're only running with Novels and Short Fiction, that will get rid of Novellas, Web fiction, and Serialized fiction in Category:Fiction by format. Ok by you? --Morbus Iff 00:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. But if you want to wait for others to chime in as well, I don't think we need to make the change right away. I honestly don't think anyone would notice either way.—Yoda8myhead 00:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Binding vs. Format?

Up to now, we've been using the binding parameter to denote items released as ePub only. Perhaps this should change from binding to format to include types of binding as well as digital formats? —Yoda8myhead 02:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the intent behind "binding" is clear enough that we don't have to busywork over to "format". --Morbus Iff 13:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Preparing for the future

Since we know Pathfinder comic books are coming in the near future, should we anticipate some of the categories we're likely to need while redoing this template? Or should we perhaps make a new template for comics and other serialized products? I'm thinking of not only comics but any volumes of Kobold Quarterly containing Pathfinder canon (which have, to date, used this template).—Yoda8myhead 02:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the Book template can cover all of these, really (though, we might want to switch out (Book) at the top of the template for (Magazine) or (Comic Book) as the need arises. The Kobold Quarterlys are sitting in Category:Unknown book type (since they've been passed through as Magazines), and that's something I'll add support for today or Monday (it's on my laundry list of things to do). I can add Comic Books at that time (can't wait for those, whee!) too. I have no idea how to handle those OGL books - I have no particular interest in them myself, so I would just type them over to "OGL book" and be done with it. --Morbus Iff 13:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I just went ahead and called the OGL books as accessories. It seemed to fit as well as any existing category. I've also added comic books and periodicals for the comics and KQ items that were showing up on the unknown type list. FoiledAgain (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Shown authors limit

Is it possible to distinguish some authors as such for the purpose of categorization, but not for actual display in the infobox? Typically we've set a soft limit at 4 or 5 for multi-author books wherein no one is credited on the cover, and in cases where someone is credited on the cover, only those with cover credit show up in the infobox, while all others are listed in the header of the article body and categories. This is especially pertinent in cases of hardcovers with over a dozen authors, as well as AP volumes and even, to a lesser extent, companions and setting books. I like being able to have the categories autopopulate, but am not a big fan of having lists of more than a handful of authors on a single book.—Yoda8myhead 03:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no change in this behavior. "author" will always be used for the human-readable strings (i.e., what shows up in the sidebar), and authorn is never displayed and is only ever used for categorization. You can see then both in action in Hollow's Last Hope. --Morbus Iff 13:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything's a (Book)

Noticed while working on Harrow Deck (game aid): everything's a (Book) under the image in this template, due to line 13 of the Template:Book code.

! colspan="2" style="background-color:{{{bgcolor|#000}}}; color:{{{fgcolor|#fff}}}" | '''(Book)'''

which means we unintentionally label the image of a deck of cards as a (Book), or an ACG boxed set.

Is it possible to reflect when something using the book template is not a book? Considering past discussions, maybe revise the text on this line based on the contents of the binding attribute?

(ie. if binding = Cards, display "Deck"; if binding = Boxed set, use "Box")

Not sure if my code is sound here, but what I'm thinking is:

! colspan="2" style="background-color:{{{bgcolor|#000}}}; color:{{{fgcolor|#fff}}}" | '''({{ #switch: {{binding|}}
| Cards     = Deck
| Boxed set = Box
| ePub      = eBook
| Book
}})'''

--Oznogon (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This idea has since been made mostly obsolete by {{Accessory}}, {{Deck}}, {{Map}}, etc., but still has some merit if we want to keep using {{Book}} for things that aren't strictly books, like ePubs and mixed-media stuff like the Beginner Box. --Oznogon (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Type options

Since we've defined elsewhere (namely in placing different product lines in their respective portals) what a sourcebook, accessory, and adventure are, should we make this template (and all existing books) consistent with those categories, both in the infobox and the body of their articles and in their categories? I know it's a lot of work, but it seems like consistency would go a long way to establishing these terms as we've defined them elsewhere. — Yoda8myhead (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: the infobox, I've started on that by (re-)defining the types with regards to how {{Book}} autocategorizes things, but I've been reluctant to tip the proverbial cart by removing non-book types like Accessory before the product pages that use it are updated and consistent. I'm hoping standardizing and updating infoboxes on the articles first will minimize the potential impact of such changes, and simplify any future wholesale changes we decide to make down the road by making them easier to perform by bot. (I did comment out the Adventure/Accessory type from the template, as I believe that's exclusively used on AP issues and the discussion in Forum:Categorizing sourcebooks? was pretty solidly toward eliminating that category altogether.)

Speaking of bots, we may want a bot to switch all remaining {{Book}} infoboxes in the Pathfinder Module and PFS scenario lists to {{Adventure}}. The fields are all the same between the templates so nothing should be lost, and few (if any) of those products use types that {{Adventure}} wouldn't handle. --Oznogon (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Binding -> Format

Would anyone have an issue with changing the template to list binding as "Format" instead? Since we have versions of books that aren't actually bound (ebook and audiobook). Format doesn't preclude also stating that something is a hardcover, softcover, trade paperback, etc. — Yoda8myhead (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Considering that you brought this up back in 2012 as well, I think its a good idea. -- Cpt kirstov (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

LOL. I guess I failed my Perception check to notice that. Thanks for the Aid Another assist!— Yoda8myhead (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)