Talk:Robert Kaske

Split into bibliography?
The bibliography of this article is quite large and I think it'd be a good idea to split it into a separate article. The prose and the bibliography are each large enough to justify splitting- thoughts? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, or maybe keep it here but trim the section. Not sure if the *full* collection should be listed on Wikipedia. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a split proposal to the top- discussion can occur here. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ping for FA promoter @Usernameunique MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. There are several clear detriments to splitting the article, without (from what I can tell) any clear benefits. As several of Kaske's colleagues commented, his published output was both relatively modest and disproportionately influential. Per Sowell 1989, "so many of his articles, even the shorter ones, constituted seminal studies". For example, Kaske's article on the Sutton Hoo spoons—the reason I wrote this article in the first place—is a standard on the subject yet, in the article on Kaske, bears passing mentions a single time in a nine-clause sentence. Per Brown 1986, meanwhile, "If we were working in the sciences, where team research is routine, Bob Kaske's bibliography would be many times its present length." Thus, despite extensive efforts to create a complete bibliography—not an easy task for one who died before the internet came of age—the article still lists fewer than 100 works. Splitting the article into two would therefore create disjointed lists while not removing much from this article. Meanwhile, the benefit of splitting remains unclear. The article is less than 3,000 words long, while the relevant guideline states that at even twice that length, "Length alone does not justify division or trimming." The MOS, for its part, states that "Lists of published works should be included for authors", and that "Complete lists of works ... are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." --Usernameunique (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I understand what you mean. Removed split tag MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Appreciate it. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Date of birth and death.
Date of birth and death are wrong.

174.17.179.132 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)