Help talk:Book Template

By the Numbers?

So I've been going through entries and maybe this would be better off on the Help talk:Style Manual page, but I wanted a little more of a call out.

What is the 'standard' for linking the # of a imprint book? I see a lot of linking to the "Imprint By The Numbers" general page, but when that is merely a relisting of the specific years/1-100 pages, I tend to prefer linking directly to the subpage that lists the book in question.

Frex:

[[Harlequin Intrigue 1 - 100|#99]]
vs.
[[Harlequin Intrigue By The Numbers|#99]]

I recognize that the majority of the listing may be dated from a time before the breaking out of the series and just not updated, but I wondered if I was going through the effort of "correcting" something that was preferred in the original format.--DawnBurn 17:06, 24 September 2007 (PDT)

So the first would be correct, and the second would not? (makes sense) I have no experience with this. I think User:Leigh is the numbered series "expert". --Kay T

Well, the first is what I prefer, yes. And the second works, but is not 'correct', except in cases where there aren't subpages. --DawnBurn 17:37, 24 September 2007 (PDT)

I've been using a link back to the basic By The Numbers page for every series book page I've set up, which is my own preference (and how I've been setting up pages for more than a year, so every single one of them--several thousand at this point--would have to be changed if it's decided the other is the format you wish to use). I'm guessing it's how Romancewiki originally did it, since I first started creating pages by copying the format of ones she was doing. I like it because, I figure if a reader is going to follow a link back to other numbered books in the series, she should get a page with that would make ALL the numbered books in the series available to her, whereas a link back just to the one that particular book is listed on would only reveal, why, yes, this book is that number and here are the ones closest in number to it. But then, I just assumed readers would be looking for all the numbers in the series if they followed that link, which may not be the case. (But then, I also thought it was a good thing to have the Year on a book page link back to the books released in that year--which also seemed to be part of the original template--rather than have it as a dead/no link, which everyone else seems to be removing now, so what do I know?) I'll go with whatever Kay or Romancewiki thinks is best, and hold off adding any more book pages until it's decided. --Leigh

Leigh, first off I'd like to apologize if I gave any offense. It was not my intent. You have done an amazing amount of work and I just looked at it different before 'fixing' stuff and then asking. I don't think my way is necessarily better, I just thought a discussion and decision would be good.

Re: year removal Yes, it was in the template way back (and I checked) and then removed. I'm just fixing that because it seemed that wasn't being used. What I love about wiki's is that nothing is ever 'wrong' just different. And changing. When you did the massive work you did (which is highly appreciated!) that was the current standard. The year standard seems to have changed so now we go back as we see fit to update (or not).

Your thought that others might be looking for the rest of the series is good one and one I hadn't considered. My thought was to have the page link back most closely with the book in question. Either way is neat and good, just think we should be consistent. Your point about THOUSANDS of corrections (which by that way, wow) is a very valid objection too. I'm willing to abide either way.

Again please. I apologize if I gave any offense. --DawnBurn 15:54, 25 September 2007 (PDT)

Oops...did I sound mad? Because I'm totally not, I swear! Sorry if my response came off as kind of heated. I didn't think it did, but...maybe it did. Maybe one of those tricky coming-across-differently-in-cyberspace-than-intended things. Sorry! --Leigh

Or it is just me reading too much in. I was worried that you were upset given how much work you'd done that this upstart was saying CHANGE IT ALL. Hee, glad we are both on the same page and not mad. --DawnBurn 16:11, 25 September 2007 (PDT)

Book Template Adjustments

(moved from User talk:DawnBurn

Dawn, Thanks for fixing the categorization of the the real template:book (as opposed to the article Book Template), but I am sort of confused about removing the Amazon link. It seems that it would be hard to insert this link from scratch each time. Is there a reason you removed it from this template? Have you used the {{subst:book}} syntax with this template? was that the bug you were talking about? Maybe you could make an Amazon link template?--Kay T 12:35, 1 September 2007 (PDT)

I removed it because the link was dead and it made the capache (human test) go off, which was an extra layer. The amazon link needs to be added each time anyway. The bug was that there was extra data in template after I changed it and I wanted that removed. --DawnBurn 14:22, 1 September 2007 (PDT)

I don't understand. The link was dead until you filled in the ISBN number. The only thing you needed to fill in was the ISBN number. Now you have to find the info for the link each time and copy and paste it in? Is that what you are thinking? I know that there are an increasing number of books which link to the e-publisher, which I assume is fine, but for books that are sold on Amazon, it seems like a major pain to have to cut and paste all that Amazon code (since it can't be filled in from memory or just from the ISBN info). --Kay T 14:30, 1 September 2007 (PDT)

I added back the Amazon link -- while it does set of the evil Captcha (which much as I hate it, is working), I think most users are getting that they're supposed to properly fill in the ISBN and book title. But I'm going to add instructions to make that clear. Ideally, we would have links to multiple bookstores, but until there's a module that makes that feature easy-as-pie, we'll stick with just the Amazon. It looks like I won't be around much today either , book is done, review (totally biased!) is half-written, and the husband is planning an afternoon out of the house.--Romancewiki 09:50, 2 September 2007 (PDT)

As you say. I thought that the Captcha was slowly people down. I also didn't realize that you only had to sub the ISBN. I was always copying the whole Amazon link. =) --DawnBurn 01:19, 3 September 2007 (PDT)

Put me down for hating that Captcha too - I'm on a slow (but still broadband!) internet connection at home and it takes *forever* to load... Is there a way to maybe comment out the "http..." and then leave instructions to UN-comment it out in final formatting? I've also been just cut-and-pasting the Amazon http directly, because unless the book is in front of me, I have to go there to get the ISBN anyway. --Robini 14:48, 4 September 2007 (PDT)

Well, as Kay T said you could have your own template on your User Page or Sandbox and cut & paste. I think I could comment it out but I'm not sure that is a good solution because I think it would be harder to comment back in for low level users. I created Template:Book_linkless for a double from the old page. Usage is {{subst:book_linkless}}--DawnBurn 16:26, 4 September 2007 (PDT)

If you had been here pre Captcha when we had vandals constantly (I mean lots every day for several days, very scary), you would appreciate that it has stopped that problem. I think the Captcha is weird because it seems to think there are links even when there are no links, or something. Maybe Dawn will know if we could comment out the link. The other option would be to make your own template on your user page and cut and paste. Or we could have two templates, with and without. --Kay T 16:04, 4 September 2007 (PDT)

Let me be clear. I LOVE the Captcha in general. What I didn't/don't like was having it auto load for the Template with a broken link and then have to go again when I fixed the link. Mostly the slow down for a dead/useless link. --DawnBurn 16:26, 4 September 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for the new template! I think that is the best solution (the comment out would probably be too confusing for non-techies). --Kay T 16:37, 4 September 2007 (PDT)