Talk:George Ault

Third opinion
The infobox is fine...and should stay, I don't like them either. Modernist (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Modernist, you'll have to excuse me for not understanding your position. You've mentioned this approach a few times now on different talk pages: you don't like infoboxes, but they should stay? I was hoping for an argument along with the third opinion. Ceoil and I say how it serves no purpose. What is the case for it? Whiskeydog (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It conveys a modicum of quick information, serving as an index and/or as a table of contents on the subject and as an aid in the article..seems useful considering its appearance with an image and or a portrait.. What's the problem? Why is this such a big deal? You can still add as much content as you want, other images, paragraphs of brilliantly referenced insights, long rambling epic poems, and all sorts of stream of consciousness dreamlike parables etc. etc. etc. It lends a consistency to the articles, which arguably is bad and on the other hand is arguably good. I don't like em because they are somewhat superficial and jive, but I accept that a lot of other people seem to need maps of the territory more than I do......so maybe they are acts of compassion..Modernist (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For a wider coversation about this start a thread here:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Modernist (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)