Talk:George Ault

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Visual arts C‑class

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Smithsonian Institution: Archives of American Art Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles 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.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Archives of American Art.

Third opinion[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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