Template talk:Book Data

What's with the Amazon image link?

Why do you have an amazon image link that appears at the top of each book page?

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/057506403X.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

This doesn't seem to serve much purpose visually and I have noticed that some links take you to a blank page. I also noticed the Book Data template page says:

The "photo=" attribute should now be deprecated – use "cover=" instead.

Does this have something to do with the issue I read about copyright concerns? If yes, then using the non-free fair use guidelines (as used on wikipedia) can be applicable using low-res images and applying the correct license.

Additionally, I have a template suggestion I would like to run through with admin that I believe will improve the book infoboxes. --   CelticWanderer      talk        contribs        edits     23:17, 8 June 2013 (GMT)

It used to work, summoning up a cover image from Amazon. I have no idea what changed. You seem to have some skill with templates; perhaps you could fix it. --Old Dickens (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2013 (GMT)

I have a basic knowledge of creating templates, nothing as complicated as on Wikipedia or other extensive wikis. My suggestion was for a complete revamp that doesn't include the 'HiddenStructure' parameter. I was going to include a proposed template to my subpages to see what people thought but alas, I cannot create pages! --   CelticWanderer      talk        contribs        edits     23:56, 8 June 2013 (GMT)

Removing HiddenStructure

I've been trying to fix the Book Data infobox template so it doesn't display data that doesn't exist - for example, an empty category link for books which aren't part of a series. This probably involves a deeper revamp, as CelticWanderer suggested a decade ago (!), so I'm going to try and build a new template from scratch and test it. -- Guybrush (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hallelujah. Then if you could do the other infoboxes... I've spent a lot of time inserting spaces to get rid of the string of code, but the empty fields remain. (Today's oddity: I get only the 26 edits from today in the Recent changes, even logged in.) --Old Dickens (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There are a few modules it'd be good to add - for example the reference option would be great, then we could have actual footnotes on the wiki. But it might also work to import the more sophisticated Infobox structure from Wikipedia...I'm slowly working on it, anyway. -- Guybrush (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)