Talk:Poema de Fernán González

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Poetry

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry 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.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Infobox

I don't see the use in the new infobox that appeared here, and at Carmen Campidoctoris, Mocedades de Rodrigo and Cantar de mio Cid recently. These are long infoboxes stuffed with way too much information, most of it not easily accomodated by the box. I'm not going to waste time quibbling with everything in the box, but one example should suffice to explain my opposition: the genre of the Poema is described as "narrative heroic poetry". But why that and not simply "epic"? Or mester de clerecía? Or cantar de gesta/chanson de geste? The opening line gives the reader all this information and allows him to figure out how best to describe it for his needs or in what category it is placed at what level (at a high level of abstraction its genre is simply poetry, at a much lower one it is something like "legal–scholastic chivalric narrative" or even "Cid literature"). Srnec (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I included thoses boxes Snerc, following the style of epic literature articles such as Beowulf. I described the poems as "narrative heroic poetry" instead of "epic" because there are some arguably considered epics written in prose like the Eddas. However, I trust your thoughts, if you think some information should be changed, please proceed.--Infinauta (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why couldn't we say "epic poetry"? We could, but I think you misunderstand. I don't want to change the infobox, but delete it. And at Carmen Campidoctoris. I just don't think they are helping the reader any better than a well-written lead should. When the ascription is to "probably a monk from the monastery of San Pedro de Arlanza, following an oral tradition", I ask myself why that is better put in a box than in a sentence? Medieval stuff doesn't fit into infoboxes generally, even infoboxes that might work fine for more modern things (countries, battles, etc.). Srnec (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Epic poetry" is also a good term, of course, I agree to change it. You say you want to delete the complete infobox because it doesn't help the reader, but here I don't agree that much. Infoboxes are used in Wikipedia for quick information at a glance. You're right saying that all the information contained in the infoboxes could be actually readed in the article, but the thing here is that maybe not every visitor of wikipedia reads full articles. You and me are interested in epic poetry and we like to get all the information possible about epic poetry, but the average reader maybe doesn't need or doesn't want to read the full article and just needs a quick reference. An infobox doesn't hurt the article, but completes it. Nevertheless you may be right about the infoboxes being too long. We could select the most importante lines inside the infobox and deleting the others. I'm truly interested in these articles and want to make the best out of them, so I appreciate and value your opinion. Therefore I'm still open to completely delete the infoboxes if that's an actual improvement and not a matter of aesthetics, but I must insist, I think that they are a quite precise tool to complete the article and improve its comprehesion for all kind of interested readers.--Infinauta (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a database. If "not every visitor of wikipedia reads full articles" that's just too bad for them. The way to get information at Wikipedia is by reading its articles! I am not suggesting the most important information be buried deep down on a page. The important information should be right there in the first paragraph. In both cases—here and at Carmen Campidoctoris—the articles are relatively short and the first paragraph sums up the informatio nicely. The long complicated infoboxes are jam-packed with information which is not more easily presented in such a format. It is not in fact easier to read information off the infobox than it is out of the article. Yes, it is partly just aesthetic, but it also about not cheating our readers. Unfortunately, complex information cannot be easily stored in an infobox. Section headings like "Date and authorship" at the Carmen article can help the reader locate the information he wants. While I still at this moment favour deletion, I am open to reducing the number of lines in the boxes and coming to an agreement on precisely what information should be included and how. I'm not sure that an anonymous work should be otherwise described in an infobox than as "anonymous", for example. Srnec (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree that maybe sourcing an anonymous author doesn't help. I agree to delete it (I change line now to avoid a paragraph jam).

I'm sure we can reach an agreement on other lines. We could also delete the "ascribed to" line, as not all researches agree on the kind of author (i.e. the neotraditionalist theories in the Cantar de Mio Cid vs the cultivated author supported by Colin Smith). The "state of existance" line could be merged with "manuscript" (i.e. in Poema de Fernán Gonzálese would be Manuscript: unique manuscript, El Escorial library, IV-B-21). If you agree, I will change it. If you have more suggestions, I'm pleased to listen to you.--Infinauta (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would essentially trim it down to the lines that say "Also known as", "Author(s)", "Language", "Date", "Manuscript(s)", "Genre", "Verse form", and "Length". The setting cannot be described as Spain if we're going to put a modern Spanish flag up. The subject matter is better covered in the article and not squeezed into a box. These are the things that I think somebody might reasonably be hoping to find isolated in a box with a quick glance. The box can never be a substitute for reading the article and we should try to make it suffice as one.

If I am scanning dozens of articles about medieval epics, to compare lengths, then I might benefit from an infobox which isolates the length of the poem—which might be in the first paragraph in some articles and in a section in others. I guess I don't share your view that the infobox is primarily for those who don't care to know much about medieval literature. If you don't know much, the infobox is not the place to start. If you do, then it might be a convenient "gathering place" for the "data" (especially data like the manuscript numbers, which don't fit well in prose). Srnec (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It seems we finally reached an agreement. Please, let me know if you have more suggestions or if you think we could extend these infoboxes to other epic poems.--Infinauta (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]