If you want to do this, you should first take a look
at [[:en:bibtex]]. This is what scientists use to
write papers/books, and they have experience with
handling large databases. The main idea is that you
need some form of reference. Neither the title, nor
the ISBN are good enough.
If interested, I can point you in this direction.
Yours,
Dpotop1
--- Bogdan Giusca <liste(a)dapyx.com> wrote:
I think Wikipedia really needs a central
bibliography,
because there are many books who are used in more
than
one article, some in dozens or even more.
Currently, a book reference is done this way:
<ref>[[Istvan Vasary]] (2005) ''Cumans and Tatars'',
[[Cambridge University Press]]. ISBN 123546958695,
page 22</ref>
with a central bibliography, it would be like this;
<book n="Cumans and Tatars" p="22"/>
and the book database would fill in the details in
the
page displayed to the viewer.
I suggest that we use the name instead of the ISBN,
because
it can be seen more clearly in the text, when
reading the
wiki-text. Also, there are many books (especially
older
books, but not only), which have no ISBN number and
some
which have many different editions with different
ISBNs.
There is still the problem with two books with the
same title,
in which case we need to add the author, too, for
disambiguation,
but I think this problem is less on the kind of
books we use for
reference. Shorter titles are used especially for
fiction.
There could be some benefits for having a central
bibliography,
other than not having to copy-paste the publishing
house/ISBN,
like knowing which articles refer to a certain book.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com