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))

"The info box gives basic information such as date and place of birth, date of death, etc." so does the lede. Cassianto^Talk 23:16, 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)

• • I guess you simply don't have the capacity to understand my answer to your question, Pound's issues are too complex for a simplistic infobox. I suggest that you go elsewhere with your desire for an unworkable infobox...Modernist (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User warned for WP:NPA violation. Comment on arguments, don't comment on people. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am talking about issues; and WP:AGF having made my arguments...Modernist (talk) 21:58, 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)

If you look at Gertrude Stein's info-box, it lists her birth date, death date, nationality, etc. - what is complex about that? If you feel that Pound can't be pigeonholed as a Modernist, then leave that field out - there is nothing complicated about an info box, it is a standard Wikipedia feature presenting basic information and there is no reason why Pound can't have one, the same as anyone else on Wikipedia - (Epinoia (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC))

Any reason he would not be described as a Modernist? I'm looking for any potential problems with the infobox. That doesn't sound like one. --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose infobox per the last pantomime that appeared on these pages. This is a classic case of the requesting party not liking the result the last time round, so thought they'd have another stab until they get their way. This is a pointless waste of time. Since when do a load of lemmings with opposing views, requested by a RfC bot, trump the opinions of the primary author? Cassianto^Talk 23:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Why I oppose an infobox by Cassianto

Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.) Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture. Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all. Disconnected particles: Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.) Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?) Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.) Infoboxes work on complicated articles, and this article most certainly does not fit into that category. I like infoboxes, generally, and think they work extremely well on royal, political, sports, geographical, and film articles; but my worry is that this article only has one simply because some people perceive it to be "normal practise" for all articles to have an infobox, irrespective of the fact that it might not actually do the job required of it. CassiantoTalk 23:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Placeholder - as the article's primary contributor I made the decision not to add an infobox. I'll explain my reasoning as soon as I have time, in a few days. In the meantime, I'm bringing this discussion to the attention of the arbs at ARCA, if that request is still open. Victoria (tk) 00:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)