Awesome! You just created a pull request to the Citation Styles Language styles repository. One of our human volunteers will try to get in touch soon (usually within a week). In the meantime, I will run some automated checks. You should be notified of the results in a few minutes.

If you haven't done so yet, please make sure your style validates and follows all our other Style Requirements.

To update this pull request, visit the "Files changed" tab above, click on the ellipsis button in the top-right corner of your style, and then select "Edit file" to start editing:

If you have any questions, please leave a comment and we'll get back to you. While we usually respond in English, feel free to write in whatever language you're most comfortable.

😟 There are some issues with your submission.

Please check the test report for details.

😃 Your submission passed all our automated tests.

Below are some sample citations generated based on your proposed changes:

No, it should definitely be possible to do that format (though its dumb; version more correctly belongs next to the title). In practice, it seems to be placed after the title: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00027-020-0701-9

It's possible, but cumbersome. You'd do (in pseudo-code)
if version
delimit elements by ". "
else
delimit elements by ", "

But anyway -- I can't find any basis for the format suggested in the other thread and I completely agree with bwiernik (and the example he posts) that the version number belongs with the title, so merging this as is.