Template talk:Cite book

Unlink "doi" redlink?
Is there a way to unlink the "doi" redlink in this template akin to how it's not linked in ? Thanks! —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)t c 23:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Is this something you could help with? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in the middle of something on wikidata, but I'll take a look in a few minutes --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the modules to figure this out. Perhaps we should create the page so it isn't redlinked? --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I added a . -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Generate "(ed.)"/"(eds.)" when citing a chapter in an edited volume?
Right now, using this citation template's  and related editor fields (e.g., , etc.) does not result in automatically appending the editor name(s) with "(ed.)" or "(eds.)" which results in a clunky and incomplete-looking citation: This looks okay but is muddies the editor's role relative to the cited text. It also looks worse if only initials are being used: As this implementation outputs a second period after the last editor's first name regardless of whether a period is already there. The English Wikipedia version of this template outputs something like this: But this "(ed.)" has to be manually included to appear in Wikiversity's version of the template (as it has been in this example: ). The template documentation makes it clear that this is currently the preferred method ("No text is added, so labels such as '[ed.]' have to be supplied by the user.") but this neither seems to be the best nor only solution. Would it be possible to implement English Wikipedia's automatic "(ed.)"/"(eds.)" when editor fields are used? Thanks! —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)t c 16:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)