Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/Like for citations, "Re-use" mode for already listed books in bibliography

Random proposal ►◄ Editing The survey has concluded. Here are the results!

Like for citations, "Re-use" mode for already listed books in bibliography

Problem: When trying to add a source from an already displayed book in an article, I would love to "re-use" one of the listed book and add its page number, for instance. Then it automatically adds the correct reference.
Proposed solution: Like for what is already existing with citations, add a "Re-use" mode for all the already listed books in the bibliography section.
Who would benefit: Articles with a bibliography section which contains the "Template:Cite book".
More comments:
Phabricator tickets: phab:T100645
Proposer: Jurbop (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This is quite the same request as here, if I understand correctly: Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Citations/Automatic_duplicate_citation_finder Skimel (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't think it is really exactly similar. The idea is not to add a duplicate. It is to use in "Visual editing" mode something that is already available in the bibliography section, not the references section. So I don't have to use any other complex template (like for instance Template:Harvard citation). Thanks in advance Jurbop (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If CommTech were to take book referencing over the line from WMDE, I would be very excited. I think VE support (phab:T151301) was the primary blocker per WMDE_Technical_Wishes/Book_referencing#Why_this_wish_is_cancelled. --Izno (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno, Many thanks for all the information. I appreciated.

So the idea was already submitted and voted for many times during the last years! And in 2021, it was decided that, well you know, technically it is possible to do it (even if it is more difficult to do in VE).

And well, finally it is not a priority because not enough people voted for it!

I am wondering : do we want to improve the reliability of Wikipedia by adding easy ways for anyone (less advanced users in mind) to add citations for books? Jurbop (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you need to list the same work twice in the bibliography section? If you want to refer to it in a reference, {{sfn}} should be used. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Support Izno (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lion-hearted85 (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lectrician1 (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aca (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Skimel (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thingofme (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Helga Wiki (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kcomerfo (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shooterwalker (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support MONUMENTA (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hampcky (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Grid (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support β₁₆ - (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alextheconservative (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 05:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exilexi (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Vulp❯❯❯here! 04:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — DaxServer (t · c) 12:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 11:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support SD0001 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support DGG (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sunpriat (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]