== Bass fishing == 

 Hello Mike, 

 The list of secondary references is *way* too long. I appreciate the effort you've made in standardising the format and alphabetising them, and wonder if you could find a way to trim the back a bit and/or encourage others to do so. One way is to take them from the book list and add them as in-line references. In theory, *all* works used by contributors should be cited as references, not as further reading titles. This makes it possible for people to go back and verify the fact or statistic quoted to see if it really is in said reference book. Another approach is simply to cull the list down to, say, the top ten titles from a historic and usefulness perspective. I note that some editors seem to do nothing but add book titles to articles, presumably because they are authors or sellers of said volume. Since I know nothing about bass fishing I hesitate to crop the book list myself, though in due course I may pluck up the courage. 

 Yours etc.,   

 : Neale  Interesting thoughts as the list of books is only but a portion of the work out there. I have not added many of the more pedestrian and fadish books on bass fishing that are out there. The idea that one could cut down to the "top 10" would be a very subjective exercise.  If I cared less about fly fishing for bass, none of those would make the list.  The same would hold true if all I cared about was fly fishing for bass, many of the titles wouldn't make my top ten.  I added the books, because in total they provide and excellent overall perspective of Bass Fishing from its earliest practice up to today.  It is weak on the professional side, but not because there isn't good literature on the subject, but because that's not my area of experience.  Every book I added, I have read and studied and have in my personal library.  They all provide insights into Bass Fishing.  To include their ideas and cite them as inline references would essentially turn the article into a literature review on Bass Fishing which I don't think is the intent.  However, as secondary references, they indeed, IMHO, contribute to the encyclopedic content of the article. 

 Since I know nothing about bass fishing I hesitate to crop the book list myself, though in due course I may pluck up the courage. 

 : I would not think of removing references to Aquarium fish from an article, unless I had read the work and could cite unequivocally that the reference did not apply. 

 The list of secondary references is *way* too long. 

 :I would consider the above a very subjective statement, clouded by realities of print publishing that just do not apply to digital works.  We have the luxury of including extraordinary amounts of USEFUL information unconstrained by mere space requirements.  All that should guide whether or not information is included is relavance, NPOV and verifiability.