Talk:Gentleman Jim Robinson
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gentleman Jim Robinson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Page numbers
[edit]For ref #3, please identify page numbers for the supported claims, rather than the range 1-136. Here's where the abbreviated form <ref>Last, year. p. ###.</ref> comes in handy. If you have the book, that rocks. --Lexein (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
NamedRef useage
[edit]O.K. I understand what you're asking now. The first message about line 97 was very cryptic. HOwever, after discussions with other Wikipedia administrators, by understanding was that I should give a complete reference initially, but can follow that with individual references using the NamedRef template and just give specific page numbers. So, what I did is to begin that process. I still have some more revisions to make which will include further references like what you suggested. The entire document is 600 pages, I am only taking references from the initial 136 pages, which is what I indicated with that initial reference.
Kkhemet (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for being unclear, and I didn't mean to be pushy. I'm not an admin. Referring to the rendered ref number (#3) as displayed on the page is pretty common, but I should also have referred to a revision as well, to be specific in time.
- To explain my reasoning, named refs are best used for multiple identical citations with the same author and page #. By contrast, the abbreviated (non-named) form <ref>Lastname, year. p. #</ref> is usable for same author, different pages. There are lots of citation styles, of course; you can do anything you like.
- That massive change I made was because all those refs were identical, and were identically named (<ref name=long_identical_name>), with a long name.
- I didn't mention the {{NamedRef}} template because it seemed pretty advanced and complicated. Sorry. --Lexein (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)