 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Listcruft
editI reckon that the massive bibliography is totally redundant listcruft and think the article would be much better like this. Khodabandeh14 (talk · contribs) claims it is useful knowledge. Opinions please. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Using John Julius Norwich as an example, that lists 21 books. I would be for keeping books and articles written by Savory. I think book chapters, encyclopedias, dictionarys and book reviews are superfluous. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- The books should be there. The chapters and articles seem to be relevant and useful information, but possibly make the list too long. The book reviews and reference works should be removed, although the reference works could be mentioned in the article. Peter E. James (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay I have kept the books, book revies and journal articles. Some lists might be long, but I think useful information overrides aesthetics of the article here. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)