![]() |
Hi Mama meta modal! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
"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)
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)
![]() |
Hi Mama meta modal! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
"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)
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)