Talk:An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 11 June 2025 by reviewer DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs).

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Regarding the table of contents

I noticed that there's a bit of a dispute over whether to include the book's table of contents in the article, I'm fine with having it. It might flow more naturally if written as prose instead of a list ("The book begins by discussing quantum electrodynamics..."), but fundamentally, the article should say what's in the book, and presenting the TOC is one way to do that. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening this discussion. Indeed I see no problem in keeping the table of contents, this is done in other textbook articles. The prose version can also be done from the reviews but it would not be exhaustive. If anybody has a guideline on this, please let us know.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure somebody has written a guideline about this, but on the other hand, if it's so obscure that you're not aware of it after 14 years and 28K edits, the question inevitably arises as to whether any such guideline would really just be one guy's opinion that never had serious community deliberation going into it. I don't think we should be too swayed by an essay written in 2005 and then forgotten about, for example. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]