User talk:Mama meta modal

Mama meta modal, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Mama meta modal! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Further reading"[edit]

"Further reading" and "Bibliography" are not the same thing, at all. Please stop making that change, and please go back and revert yourself where you have already done it. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what could be the difference? Mama meta modal (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"Further reading" comprises additional sources the reader could pursue if they are interested, which are not used in the article. A Bibliography would contain sourced that are cited in the article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. That is your own opinion. But the source of the article are cited in footnotes. Do you have any evidence that guidelines would support your point of view more than another? Mama meta modal (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It is not my own opinion; it is an established style guideline for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout for full advice on how to use various headings. "Notes" and "References" are for cited sources. "Further reading" is for other publications the reader might be interested in that are not cited in the article. Please let me know if you have other questions or have a difficult time understanding the style guide. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that "Notes" = "References" ≠ "Further reading" (MOS). But it does not mean that the latter ≠ "Bibliography"! They kind of have the same definition, right? Mama meta modal (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

No, Notes are not the same as References. Additionally, the style guide explicitly says what "Further reading". Please refrain from making such changes to articles, as I do not believe you have enough experience and understanding. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of the further reading sections in bot generated Gene Wiki articles is to provide notability and encourage human editors to expand these articles by providing background references some of which would hopefully be moved in-line. The closest relevant guideline is this:

Some editors list sources that they hope to use in the future to build the article in Further reading. This is neither encouraged nor prohibited.
— Wikipedia:Further_reading#Relation_to_reference_sections

I myself occasionally remove these further reading sections, especially if there are large numbers of in-line citations. However your deletions are borderline. These articles have undergone minor expansion and only contain a few in-line citations. In addition, the edit summary Cite in footnote if important (diff) is a bit condescending. Your indiscriminate deletion of further reading section is not justified. Please stop. Boghog (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]