Talk:Catching the Big Fish
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Article expansion[edit]
I read through the existing references and was able to add quite a bit to the article. I inserted all the inline references but for some reason the different references show up as the same reference number. I tried different formatting for the "ref name ="XXX"/". If I did not put a space between "name" and "=", there was a cite error message. But that space might be causing the references to show up as the same number. I added another paragraph to the Reception section but then somehow all the references disappeared. So I undid that revision and the references came back. Any input would be appreciated.Coaster92 (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the paragraph I want to post under Reception, which seems to somehow hide all the references:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaster92 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)One reviewer observed the seeming conflict between the bliss Lynch experiences in his meditation and his life and the dark, disturbing, and bliss-less films Lynch creates.[1] For another, Lynch’s “gentle wisdom” came across as “encouraging, calming insights into the beyond.”[2] Another perceived deficiency in the book is the lack of details about Transcendental Meditation and how it’s practiced, creating a “tantalizing but unsatisfying” effect[3] and the feeling that the reader is “on the outside looking in.”[4] Ultimately, Lynch’s love of creating films and transcendence along with his unique perspective are seen as themes that his admirers and would-be filmmakers can relish.[5][6]
- (1) To fix the markup, in the Spirituality reference, you need to move the slash outside the quotes. That is, change it from
<ref name =“Spirituality/”>to<ref name =“Spirituality”/>. (I made this change in your talk page post above, to get the rest of the talk page to display.) (2) You said "the different references show up as the same reference number." Are you talking about how there are 28 references to the New York Observer article, that are all (at the moment anyway) combined into footnote 7, with letters corresponding to each reference -- a, b, c, and so on? Because that's what you want -- that is, it's preferable for multiple uses of the same reference to have a combined footnote like that. See WP:NAMEDREFS. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- (1) To fix the markup, in the Spirituality reference, you need to move the slash outside the quotes. That is, change it from
- TimidGuy has taken care of this for you. He's also simplified the markup of the footnotes, by removing unnecessary quotes from the ref tags. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments and attention to this Mudwater. Thank you for catching the / placement as well. Yes, the quote marks were causing a problem but that is the formatting that is shown in Citing Sources, Repeated References. But I won't use them anymore. I left a message on TG's talk page about this because he helped me with something like this on another article though I can't recall which one. Anyway, your help and comments are much appreciated.Coaster92 (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
“Alert”was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ The Independent on Sunday; March 11, 2007; Romney, Jonathan; London, England
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
“Tools”was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
”Alert”was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
“Variety”was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
“Spirituality”was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Citation format/sequence[edit]
In this article, for some of the newspaper citations, formatting is different from the W MOS. I followed the W MOS (including the order of info) for the cites I entered but other editors entered cites before me. I was thinking to tweak the citations so they conform to the MOS sequence, but maybe there is something I am not aware of. Or is the order not important so long as the info is there? The W MOS says this is info needed and lists each item in this order:
"Newspaper articles Citations for newspaper articles typically include: • name of the newspaper in italics • date of publication • byline(author's name), if any • title of the article within quotation marks • city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper • page number(s) are optional"Coaster92 (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've been thinking that the way {{Cite news}} formats newspaper references is a guideline for how to format them manually -- and that's different from what you've quoted. I'd suggest you try actually using {{Cite news}} to format a few newspaper references, and see how you like it. Some people prefer to use it all the time, and others don't. Take a look at the "common form" doc, near the beginning of the Usage section -- it has the parameters that are most commonly used, and you generally don't have to worry about the other parameters. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)