Template:Cite book/testcases

This page is for comparing the current Cite Book output with the sandbox version. Editors are invited to add any examples of inconsistency below so they can be addressed, but please keep discussion on Template talk:Cite book where possible.

Inconsistent formatting
First, an example of incorrect formatting of editor reference:
 * Here is a citation with the chapter title included:


 * The editor's name is preceded by in.


 * If the chapter title is omitted, the treatment of the editor changes:


 * Now there is a double period after ed and the in has been dropped.


 * Aside from this inconsistency in format, insertion of the word in before the editors name is sometimes inappropriate. The word in makes sense for a collection of works by various authors, edited by an editor. But it does not make sense for a reprinted classic work, such as this example, where the original authors are responsible for the entire work. In this latter case, the reference is not to a chapter among variously sourced chapters, but to a particular topic in a work by the same authors.

This issue is remedied by simply using the editor's name followed by (editor) in all cases.

Second, an example of inconsistent linking to url. If |chapterurl= is not used, the url should attach by default to the title, and not to the chapter heading. The option |chapterurl= then becomes a true option, and is not forced upon the writer. Brews ohare (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a citation with the chapter title Preface specified. The url for the book becomes attached to the chapter heading:
 * If the chapter title is omitted, the url is attached to the book title instead:
 * If the chapter title is omitted, the url is attached to the book title instead:


 * Again with the sandbox

First, an example of incorrect formatting of editor reference:
 * Here is a citation with the chapter title included:


 * The editor's name is preceded by in.


 * If the chapter title is omitted, the treatment of the editor changes:


 * Now there is a double period after ed and the in has been dropped.


 * Aside from this inconsistency in format, insertion of the word in before the editors name is sometimes inappropriate. The word in makes sense for a collection of works by various authors, edited by an editor. But it does not make sense for a reprinted classic work, such as this example, where the original authors are responsible for the entire work. In this latter case, the reference is not to a chapter among variously sourced chapters, but to a particular topic in a work by the same authors.

This issue is remedied by simply using the editor's name followed by (editor) in all cases.

Second, an example of inconsistent linking to url. If |chapterurl= is not used, the url should attach by default to the title, and not to the chapter heading. The option |chapterurl= then becomes a true option, and is not forced upon the writer. Brews ohare (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a citation with the chapter title Preface specified. The url for the book becomes attached to the chapter heading:
 * If the chapter title is omitted, the url is attached to the book title instead:
 * If the chapter title is omitted, the url is attached to the book title instead: