This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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)[reply]
