Talk:Ezra Pound

Infobox (again)

I move for a vote/request for comments to include an infobox on this article, as in this revision. I know infoboxes aren't required, but I don't see why not to have one.

THis has been dicussed in the past, but I've not seen a valid reason not to have one in just this article. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not "just this article", and you've not presented a valid reason to have one - nor a valid RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The valid reason is that editors has been trying to add it (being BOLD), but has been reverted, on multiple times. When that happens one should start a disucssion about the edits. That is what I have done. I want a discussion about pros and cons (for/againt) of having the infobox which users has been trying to add. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That may well be a reason to discuss the issue, but you've still presented no valid reason to add it nor a valid RfC. If all you want is a discussion of pros/cons (and you are unsatisfied with previous discussions along those lines), that's also not an RfC (and certainly not a vote), so I'd suggest removing the tag and rewording your initial comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A summary of the earlier discussions is that Modernists are notoriously difficult to categorise, and that doing so via genre choice in an infobox would be especially glib for such a complicated man as Pound, and would poorly serve or more likely, mislead readers. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

To say that Ezra Pound is too complicated for an info box is nonsense - many complicated people on Wikipedia have info boxes, Gertrude Stein, for example, who was arguably a more adventurous writer than Pound and E.E. Cummings who was much more innovative with language than Pound. The Ezra Pound page is a Featured Article on Wikipedia and should follow the same standard format and presentation as other Wikipedia articles (Epinoia (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC))

• Excuse me? Did Cummings or Stein support the Italian Fascists and the Nazi regime? Were either of those two rabid anti-semites or confined to an insane asylum? or convicted of treason? Sorry but no infobox here...Modernist (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Modernist. Why are those facts a reason not to have an info box? Debresser (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Why should a person's political views mean they are not eligible for an info box? Hitler has an info box and he was more of a fascist than Pound. Christopher Smart was a writer confined to an asylum, yet he has an info box. The info box gives basic information such as date and place of birth, date of death, etc. It is a feature of Wikipedia articles and is not an endorsement of anyone's beliefs or actions, it is a statement of information. Advocating for an info box does not imply support of Pound's anti-Semitism or fascism, it's simply a summary of dates and facts. (Epinoia (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC))

• As discussed above there are too many complicated directions for the simplistic infobox; try somewhere else...Modernist (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If you won't provide an acceptable answer to the question asked by both me and Epinoia, your opinion is likely to be overruled by the majority here. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• List the problems. While infoboxes are helpful in general, they don't work where significant infobox parameters cannot be adequately summarized into a simple phrase. In such cases, the infobox either become bait for repeated edit-wars, or gets reduced to only containing minor points, leaving the main reasons for having an infobox absent. Is that the case here? If so, then I'd definitely oppose having an infobox. Simply list the infobox parameters that are likely to be a problem, and we'll discuss them. However, without that list, by default, I must be in favor of including a standard infobox. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)