Template:Cite book/testcases

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ExpandTemplates

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Cite_book

====== Reference ======

[1] The Music Bangla Tv opening last night, [2] channel-16 return back is music bangla tv not too late. [3] A New music channel.

More complex examples
{{testcase|id=Using a DOI

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: