Jump to content

Talk:Mary Shelley/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Request for an Infobox

Mary Shelley is a person, therefore she requires an infobox [WP:WPINFOBOX]. The infobox would be useful because it gives information to people like me, who take notes on people related to Shelley, but not Shelley herself, but do not want to scroll to the bottom of Shelley's article for her burial (date and place), legacy, etc. Vincentupsdellred (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: Tagged a Wikiproject supporting infoboxes.

Vincentupsdellred (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Vincentupsdellred, please see the discussion above concerning this which was closed by Alex Shih very recently (just over a week ago in fact) as 'no consensus'. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Closed a little quickly I thought, though perhaps that was mostly because it also degenerated pretty quickly. Leaving it open might allow consensus to eventually build one way or the other. 14:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we've had enough disruption on this topic for now? Surely there are other fires to put out on Wikipedia and we can let this one cool off for a few weeks before opening another RFC. --Laser brain (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That wasn't really a RFC, but I don't see the harm in leaving it an open issue indefinitely instead of quickly sweeping it under the rug.--tronvillain (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't see the harm other than the multiple admin board threads and ArbCom cases around infobox disruptions? Of course, feel free to ignore my suggestion and keep picking at this scab. --Laser brain (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Sagaciousphil. I thought this time it might go over better than last time? Cheers, Vincentupsdellred (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I realise that this thread is a few months old, however as a "normal" Wikipedia user the lack of infobox was the first thing I noticed when I opened the article and I actually double checked the title of the article thinking that I'd mistakenly clicked on the wrong link. Realising it was indeed the right page my second thought was that it was an incomplete stub about Mary Shelley and that was why nobody had bothered to add an infobox. The fact that the lack of infobox was the first thing I noticed about the page demonstrates how common they are on Wikipedia and that people expect them on the articles they read. In my opinion, the arguments against infoboxes seem to come from an elitist group of regular Wikipedia editors who would appear to believe that they are far superior to the rest of us "normal" users; and insist on Wikipedia being used in the way they see as "proper", rather than looking at how Wikipedia is actually used by most people. Stubbornly sticking to what you believe is the "right" way of doing things, rather than listening to what your users actually want, is a surefire way of losing users and comes across as incredibly immature. Goodforaweekend (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmmmm... a "new" user who knows about an eight year old RfC? And one who is happy to label people with opposing opinions as "immature"? - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
New users are capable of searching archives.--tronvillain (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
...and seemingly incapable of knowing what a consensus is. CassiantoTalk 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh no, people talk about it once and a while, what a terrible disruption.--tronvillain (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Nah - their very first post is on a contentious point, and they have discovered an eight-year-old RfC? All that and they didn't find the various discussions on the archives of this article? I just don't buy that at all. Quack quack quack... - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I'm so pleased you acknowledge that repeating this boring fucking subject on a near bi-monthly basis is "terrible disruption". It's a pity our illustrious committee don't share your view. CassiantoTalk 15:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course, that they never claimed to be a new user.--tronvillain (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I am a new user. I noticed the lack of infobox and came to the talk page to see why it didn't exist. I saw where Sagaciousphil said "please see the discussion above" but as there was no discussion I checked the archive. I'm sorry that a new user having basic computer abilities is such an alien concept to you SchroCat. And the reason my very first post is on a contentious point is because I've been intending to create an account for ages but never got around to it, it was only how ludicrous the arguments against infoboxes are that made me finally create an account to make the point. And I never said having opposing opinions was immature, I said not looking at what users actually want and how users actually use Wikipedia is immature, I think your reading comprehension skills could use some work. And I know what a consensus is but as I said, a few uppity users who think Wikipedia should be run the way they want it to be, is hardly a consensus. goodforaweekend (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I have very strong doubts that you are a new user, particularly given the nonsense above (finding an 8 year old RfC on a different topic, but not the discussions of the archives of this page. Given your continual insults to those who hold an opposing viewpoint to yours, I suspect that it won't be long before you are no longer able to use your account. - SchroCat (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
And not only that, Goodforaweekend, but you are also fluent in knowing how to ping, and find and write a bunch of html for your "new" user page. It takes 20 seconds to create an account, but you've mananged to "not get around to it" until now? You must've been really busy. It's also a coincidence that despite being here for years, you manage to find the 20 seconds needed to create an account, and then make this article on this subject your first edit. Pull the other one, it has bells on. CassiantoTalk 07:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The RfC was linked in the archive on this page. It's really not that difficult. No I never bothered to create an account because until now I never needed to, before this I've only ever edited typos and that can be done without creating an account. And I explained why it was my first edit, please try reading. I spent a year working as a Software Engineer and am studying a degree in Electronic Engineering, html isn't exactly difficult to grasp especially if you have mastered the extremely complex skill of copy & paste... goodforaweekend (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh and I have no idea what a ping is
EDIT: After being informed on another page that I pinged a user incorrectly I've realised that a ping is when you put someone's username in the square brackets and it creates a link to their profile (and apparently also notifies them which I was not aware). I figured out how to do this by copying what someone else had done in an edit and changing the username. Again, my expert copy & paste skills came in useful. goodforaweekend (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Please don't add an infobox to this article. It is perfect just as it is. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Trial of Edward Moxon for Queen Mab

This is a very minor detail, and I apologize for my current obsession with it, which perhaps traces back to being confused several years ago by the odd way in which several Wikipedia articles mentioned that Moxon escaped punishment, avoided jail, or otherwise faced minimal consequences from his blasphemous libel conviction.

I have added more detail and sources to the Queen Mab article itself, but in this article, I have tried to clarify that the prosecution was in fact a test of the law via private prosecution by a Chartist (Henry Hetherington) in response to his own trial for blasphemous libel (the first in 17 years), and that Moxon faced no punishment not out of escaping anything, but because the prosecution didn't seek any. Arguably, no one wanted Moxon punished: the prosecuting counsel praised Shelley and Moxon, and expressed "the satisfaction he should feel if the result of this trial were to establish that no publication on religion should be a subject for prosecution in the future." (Townsend, 365). The whole trial was apparently more a legal oddity than serious attack on Moxon.

In reviewing the current sources for the section, Seymour has only a sentence on the prosecution (and a confusing statement that it was the last in England, despite Whitehouse v Gay News and numerous other cases), while Blumberg notes Hetherington's involvement in the notes. However, only the legal source I have added (Townsend) clearly states that the prosecution did not seek any punishment, as part of a lengthy summary of the trial. I am not familiar with the citation practices being used in this article, and I appreciate that adding a mostly unrelated legal text could be problematic, so I would very much welcome suggestions or changes if necessary.

I also understand that I might be thinking about a very minor point far too much, and hope that I have not added too much to the article itself. --Constantine (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Location of Albion House

I am questioning the use of the word on, and would suggest using by in a damp house on the Thames Having lived in Marlow for 25 years myself I can certainly say that Albion house is not 'on' the Thames. The phrase suggests that the house is right next to the river, or on the banks of. It is at least 300 meters as the crow flies from the river and would have had at least two manor house and grounds including "Court Gardens" between it and the river. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.45.53.143 (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Children

In Bath and Marlow the article says There Mary Shelley gave birth to her third child, Clara. Yet later, in Italy, it says both her children—Clara, ... and William. It is confusing how many children she had before the birth of her fourth child, Percy Florence, on 12 November 1819. The beginning of the article says their second and third children died. Sam Tomato (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019

on like the 3rd or 4th line shelley's is spelt wrong 78.150.44.35 (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Information Box Needed

I noticed the page does not have an infobox. I feel that adding one would up the quality of the page, but am not familiar with how to best go about this. Zoms101 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

And I feel that it wouldn't. This has been discussed many times before, the most recent of which was only last year here and here, so please refer yourself to the many discussions in the archives that have previously been held. Thanks. CassiantoTalk 18:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.


Percy Shelley and Mary Shelley's marriage

In this article it says that they eloped in 1814, however other sources say they married in 1816, would anyone mind fact-checking this, thanks.

2001:44B8:1129:9400:CC15:163:9E2F:7D3C (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Charli. H

Eloping and marrying are two different things. They eloped in 1814 when they ran off to continental Europe. In 1816 they got married. Hope that helps! Anboersma (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Second attempt at wanting an Infobox

INFOBOX ENDORSED
A close has been requested and infobox discussions are difficult ones that require explanation. Although not a formal RfC, discussion particpants largely treated it as such and similar standards should apply. A !vote count shows an infobox has almost 2-1 support but closers are specifically warned not to simply count noses in that way. Looking at the strength of arguments shows that many fall into the category of "irrelevant arguments" those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. The majority of "oppose" arguments fall into simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. E.g., the original author opposed infoboxes, that they are only good for certain types of articles, that they have no added value, that infobox discussions are unwelcome, etc. These are clearly expressions of "personal opinion only" and not especially helpful. There were other arguments that there is no precedent established by the presence of infoboxes on other biographical articles for famous authors. This is true but there was a clear expression for an infobox here so arguments against its inclusion on this article should be particular to this article and a lack of precedents is not a barrier to inclusion per the relevant Arbcom decision. There were clear usability and policy-based arguments in favor of an infobox: that the requirements of the relevant template could be met, that access to information was enhanced, and that key biographical information was difficult to find quickly without one. These constitute grounds for improving the encyclopedia to serve readers, which is the first pillar and the basis of WP:IAR. As the number of users accessing this site via mobile devices has climbed, information accessibility arguments especially are ones that a closer should take seriously. There will inevitably be a backlash against this discussion but the clear consensus of this particular discussion for this particular article, by both numbers and strength of arguments is to endorse an infobox.(non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I think the page should have an infobox too. Without scanning though the text, you can quickly see information like her nationality, age at death and main novels. There is no demerit to having an infobox. BrightOrion | talk 23:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please refer yourself to the thread above, marked "Infomation box needed". Thanks. CassiantoTalk 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it says "The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box." I would like to add my comment here. Thank you BrightOrion | talk 23:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
That is for the person who asked the first question. Please don't start another weary, laborious discussion on this tired old subject. There is a consensus in place not to have an idiotbox - see the archives. I cannot comment on this particular box again, so if you wish to talk generally about infoboxes, please come to my talk page. CassiantoTalk 00:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to continue this 'tired' discussion, but I want to point this out. The Wikipedia articles on Charles Dickens, Walt Whitman, Washington Irving, Bram Stoker, Edgar Allan Poe, Herman Melville, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, to name but eight authors from the 1800s, all have infoboxes. Perhaps you could explain why Mary Shelley is unusual in that she doesn't need one?BrightOrion | talk 00:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look at the previous discussions.--Grahame (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Mary Shelley/Archive 6
Richard Rothwell's 1840 portrait of Shelley
Born(1797-08-30)30 August 1797
Somers Town, London
Died1 February 1851(1851-02-01) (aged 53)
Chester Square, London
OccupationWriter
WorksFrankenstein (1818), among others
SpousePercy Bysshe Shelley (m. 1816–1822; his death)
Parent(s)William Godwin
Mary Wollstonecraft
Expanding my !vote rationale per the points raised by LB in the discussion below: In this article, an infobox would give the reader important information about Shelley that isn't really well-presented or well-packaged in the article now. The includes: (1) place of birth/death; the lead says she is English, but doesn't mention she is from Somers Town, London. (2) Age at death: the infobox gives this quickly; with the lead, the reader must do the math (or read to the bottom of the 4th lead paragraph). (3) Parents and spouses are better listed in an infobox rather than their current place in the first paragraph of the lead... which I'm really surprised about for an FA... is the most important thing about Shelley who her parents and husband were? I doubt it... this information shouldn't take up the prime real estate of lead paragraph... but it's fine in an infobox. If we move it to the infobox, we'll free up the first paragraph for more important text about her and her career, rather than about her parents and husband. (4) A link to List of works by Mary Shelley would be better placed in the infobox; currently the link is way at the bottom of the body in the Selected Works section. It's better to give the reader a link to her works list right at the top. (Personally I'm pretty ambivalent about signatures in infoboxes, but that's another one.) Quick mock-up to the right. Lev!vich 17:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
So if parents and husband aren't important enough to warrant inclusion in the lead, taking up "prime real estate"... why on earth would you want to give them more prominence in an infobox? This speaks to GoodDay's argument that such templates are better suited to stats-heavy articles - things like Shelley's precise age at death are not central to reader understanding of her and her impact. See also Kaldari's comment below. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
For me, it's not about just prominence, it's about real estate; that is, it's not just the positioning, it's the positioning plus how much space it takes up. |parents=William Godwin, Mary Wollstonecraft in the infobox takes up less space on the screen than the current She also edited and promoted the works of her husband, the Romantic poet and philosopher Percy Bysshe Shelley. Her father was the political philosopher William Godwin and her mother was the philosopher and feminist activist Mary Wollstonecraft. I think it'd be an improvement to take those two sentences I've quoted out of the lead paragraph and instead put it in the infobox. As to her age at death, I would argue it's important, perhaps even central, to the understanding of any biography to know how long the subject lived. It makes a difference if someone died at 13, 33, 53, or 83. Lev!vich 18:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Those sentences have the advantage of providing context to why we might care who her husband and parents were, instead of taking up four lines to give less useful information. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
We care who the husband and parents are of every biography subject. It'd be a rather incomplete biography that didn't give the subject's husband and parents. Lev!vich 18:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting removing them, I'm suggesting we preserve the context missing from your proposal. Extracting them to the infobox makes them at once more prominent and less useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been answered on numerous occasions already.--Grahame (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Last RFC was 2018, it seems: Talk:Mary Shelley/Archive 5#Request for infobox and Talk:Mary Shelley/Archive 6#Request for an Infobox. The last mention was 2019 at #Information Box Needed but only two editors posted there (with opposite views). Lev!vich 02:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the argument that "others have it so this one should to" is not and has never been effective in infobox conversations. There is no rule for info boxes that says all writers should have one, or all philosophers should have one. If the supporters here want their votes to be taken seriously, I would kindly advise them to move past this type of argument. Aza24 (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • That infoboxes are ubiquitous is strong indication that readers find infoboxes useful. That infoboxes are ubiquitous among Featured Articles is strong indication that FA writers and reviewers often find infoboxes to be useful. So yeah, people like infoboxes, and it matters that they do. The whole point of an article is to give readers information in a format they find useful, and there are strong indicators that readers and editors find infoboxes to be a useful format for delivering information. In the case of this article, there is useful information that could be usefully presented in an infobox. (Regardless, I'm sure my !vote will be taken seriously.) Lev!vich 19:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Infoboxes are a convenient source of quick facts for people browsing the article. I see great advantage to having one, without any detriment to the contrary. Eliteplus (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - On behalf of Wadewitz who was one of the main authors of this article, but died in a rock-climbing accident. She was strongly against the use of infoboxes in her articles, as she believed they contributed to people having a shallow understanding of the subject matter and often inappropriately framed a subject's life according to the narrow confines of a particular infobox's parameter set. Kaldari (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Mary Shelley/Archive 6
Portrait of Shelley, c. 1840
Born(1797-08-30)30 August 1797
Somers Town, England
Died1 February 1851(1851-02-01) (aged 53)
Chester Square
OccupationWriter
WorksList of works including novels, short stories, plays, essays, biographies and travel literature
I have a lot of respect for editors' wishes but how would a simple mentioning of when and where she lived and died, as normal for encyclopedias at the beginning of a biography, and a link to her work, be inappropriate? Compare Beethoven. I would like to see the number of infobox discussions down to zero, because they cost editors' time, and even editors' presence in the project. Each time one comes up I sigh, and think could we at least say at the beginning which infobox? ... which parameters filled how? (if we can't avoid it altogether?) So: example shown, taken from a 2018 attempt, but I really don't care if taken or not. The selection of work types could of be shorter or longer (and the image is just small here, to save space). - I admire the work of the principal author. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Yet in every infobox discussion you turn up... For somebody who apparently isn't interested you waste a lot of time on them. Just by commenting you add fuel to the fire. † Encyclopædius 06:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, in the three infobox discussions I encountered this year (admittedly three more than hoped) I had something to say which I believed was factual. I decide what I think is a waste of my time, not you. In this case, I had already unwatched, but just came across an interesting edit per my watchlist. I respect this editor a lot! The article was TFA in 2015 on my request, as you may recall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I think could we at least say at the beginning which infobox? ... which parameters filled how? is a really good point. It could have/should have been linked in this discussion, but the example infobox I was going by was this one that was reverted prompting this conversation (which I think is a fine infobox, but actually I like Gerda's mock-up here better). Overall, though, I agree anyone proposing to add an infobox to an article should at the least do a mock-up (or add one boldly and let it be reverted before discussion per BRD, as was done here). Lev!vich 17:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Imho, I think the IB should also include her spouse and her signature. ~ HAL333 03:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
An excellent example of the problem, and the pointlessness of discussing a particular implementation: having anything at all encourages bloating. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully, i don't think that it is our role as editors to control what kind of depth of understanding readers should have access to. There isn't one type of wiki reader and even the same person might be looking for a different depth of information or understanding in each visit. blindlynx (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The whole point of an encyclopedia is to give people a quick (and thus necessarily shallow) understanding of a subject. Nobody gets a deep understanding of anything from reading a Wikipedia article (any Wikipedia article). "Quick summary" is what encyclopedia entries are all about. Consider the average length of a Britannica entry, or any other encyclopedia. Lev!vich 15:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Easily handled in article content. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd have to read trough the complete lead to find out in this article where she was born, for example, - not what I'd call "easy". Until then I only know "English" from the first sentence. Place of death is worse. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Same is true for politicians, monarchs, and sports figures. Why are those three categories of occupations different than writers, musicians, or scientists? I read "politicians, monarchs, and sports figures" and I'm scratching my head wondering what Donald Trump, Elizabeth II, and Babe Ruth have in common that makes them good candidates for infoboxes, but not Mary Shelley (or Mick Jagger or Marie Curie). Lev!vich 17:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Infoboxes are best used to show reign dates, service of office dates & stats. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • As per the issues raised by the author in previous discussions here, I don't think this proposal would be an improvement. Also, this is not a vote, and the generalized supports above do not speak to this specific article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    There are two infobox mock-ups linked in this discussion. How can we speak more specifically to this article than to point to infobox mock-ups for this article? Did you want me to make an argument for why Mary Shelley's DOB should be in the infobox, or is it enough to say "DOB is basic information that can be helpfully presented in a userbox"? Lev!vich 16:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    There are several "votes" in this discussion wherein the person provides a generic argument for using infoboxes in general without speaking to this use case, or points to their use in other articles as an argument. Every time these come up in dispute resolution, it's made clear that neither the presence nor absence of infoboxes is mandated. So if one is arguing to add one, especially when the article passed through our most rigorous content review process without it, I'd say the burden is on those folks to argue the use case for this article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    I really don't follow or understand that. Why should this article have an infobox? Because an infobox will provide the reader with quick access to basic information. That the argument applies to a lot of articles doesn't mean the argument doesn't apply to this article? Just to take two arguments above, what is the difference between "Infoboxes are a good way to offer basic information on the person at the very top of the article" and "infoboxes are good for politicians, monarchs & sports figures bios, only"? Can you provide an example of a non-generic argument? Lev!vich 17:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    No, I can't, because I can't think of a good reason why this specific article needs an infobox. I can only think of reasons it shouldn't have one. --Laser brain (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't understand why you say "needs". Of course it doesn't "need" one. Does this article need an image? No. The question should be: would it be better? I will keep silent on that matter which I am pleased to be able to decide in articles I write, and the great Brian Boulton decided in articles he wrote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    Hey, I have no horse in this race. If you look at my FAs they all have infoboxes and I put them there. I'm merely pointing out that the onus is on whoever suggests an infobox that there is an objectively sound argument to have one. I don't see any such thing on this page—everything amounts to "I like them" or "They exist on some other pages". --Laser brain (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    I don't mean to pick on you, LB, but don't understand what you mean by an objectively sound argument in favor of an infobox. Can you give me an example of one, for any article? I can only think of one reason to have an infobox on any article, and it's this: it gives the reader basic information (like when and where a person lived or an event took place) faster than prose. I can't even think of a second argument in favor of infoboxes (aesthetics? surely not). I think this one argument is objectively sound, and not an "I like it" argument. But I really don't understand, if this is not an objectively sound argument, then what an objectively sound argument looks like, for any infobox, on any article. Lev!vich 23:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Levivich: I think infoboxes are good when there is a bunch of data about the subject that is sprinkled throughout the article and it's useful to condense in the "at-a-glance" format of the infobox. To grab an example from one of my own FAs: What bands have they been in? What genres do they comprise? What years were they active? What other acts are they associated with? Those are all things you'd have to read the entire narrative to discover. It's a good service to the reader and in my mind that's on objectively good reason. I'm sure you can agree that there is a lot of poor behavior around this issue for some reason and I think we'd all be helped by articulating objective arguments. Again, the outcome of dispute resolution on this topic has been that a case should be made on a per-article basis. --Laser brain (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There is a precedent in usage on similiar articles. Just visit Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, John Keats, Bram Stoker, Leigh Hunt, and Thomas Love Peacock. There is nothing special abourt Mary that merits the absence of an infobox. ~ HAL333 23:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The box has no added value. I hope the day will come when Bishonen and the others can find a way to stop these disruptive discussions constantly taking place and preventing the usual obsessed culprits from trying to enforce their preferences on others.† Encyclopædius 06:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
    "the usual obsessed culprits from trying to enforce their preferences on others" is an unfair description. Lev!vich 17:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
As fair as the follicles on Boris Johnson's head. The same names magically appear in evety infobox dispute. It's an obsession with wanting every article to have a box and trying to enforce them in places where they're not wanted. Some of you even dream of the day that infoboxes are mandatory!† Encyclopædius 08:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Your name has appeared in every infobox RFC that my name has appeared in. Actually, your name has appeared in more. Does this mean you should stop participating in these discussions? I don't think so, and you shouldn't think so either. Let's focus on edits not editors. Lev!vich 13:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
90% of the participants in this discussion have never contributed to the article itself.[1] So you're all "culprits" in my book. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
... which is, by design, the entire purpose of an RFC: to get wider participation, from editors who do not have the article watchlisted. We would never get any content disputes resolved if they were decided only by the editors who regularly edit an article. Lev!vich 03:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You must be new to the war field (and this is not an RfC). It's common practice that the principal editors decide, and I have been to Arbitration Enforcement for questioning that, being told "it's common practice for the main editors' preference to be respected" in 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I am new to this, and I could have sworn it had an RFC tag at one point. I see now that the RFC tag was removed. Which is kind of funny considering Randy's comment below about this not being formal enough to support a change. So if I put the RFC tag back, I'll be edit warring. If I start a new thread, I'll be an "infobox pusher". If I do nothing, this discussion may be seen as invalid. Thank goodness for uninvolved closers! Lev!vich 18:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
There will be no closer as it's not a formal RfC. What you could do is ignore all this and begin an RfC, or ignore even more and leave it as is. - I have no "culprits in my book", but am concerned about those who enforce their preference by silently let an infobox disappear during "improvements", and cry "culprit" when it is missed. (To be clear: not in this article.) Keeping an eye on Audrey Hepburn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Verrückt! Even the Gesundheitsminister doesn't have an ibox! Have no fear Gerda I won't be bothering to write biographies on here again.† Encyclopædius 12:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no interest in "enforcing" my preference on any article I have not written, and you could simply do the same, and we were done with this silly "war" nobody wants to waste time in. In Mary Shelley's case (simply on my watchlist) all I wanted to add is how a concise compromise box could look like, based on what Brian set as a model, - in 2013. Call that fuel if it helps you. Unwatching, I have articles to write. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Even Merkel doesn't have an infobox!! Do they not have infobox wars on German wiki or are they too smart for that?† Encyclopædius 13:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: The problem is that the RFC tag was (twice) added mid-discussion, which smacks of forum shopping when the discussion isn't going a certain way. Other RFCs have been tainted by on- and off-wiki canvassing, meatpuppeting, trolling, hounding, and more, often revolving around the same handful of editors. There are some bad actors in this space and I think that's why it persists as an area of conflict much to the bewilderment of many. --Laser brain (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
... except, at the time the RFC tag was added (Special:Diff/980514554), the discussion was leaning support 6-2, and the person who added it voted support, and the person who removed it does not support the proposal. So that undercuts the forum shopping theory. I've seen RFC tags added to talk page discussions mid-way many times; most recently, a thread I started at WP:V had an RFC tag added mid-way by an admin, and was later closed by another admin, and a change was made to V as a result. Lots of participation at a core content policy page, and no one had a problem with the RFC tag being added partway through. I'm not sure why that was a problem in this discussion, but nevertheless, it doesn't appear that we've needed an RFC tag to generate sufficient participation here. Lev!vich 17:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, it makes no difference to me. I'm just noting where things have gone off the rails here. I'd rather this stop lighting up my watchlist, infobox or no. I'm positive every single person in this discussion can better add value to the project by doing something else. --Laser brain (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Taking part in the collaborate process to improve articles is kind of the whole point, right? It feels a little patronizing to be told that taking part in this discussion is somehow a waste of time; if I thought that I wouldn't do it. But I do, and I did. Also a little ironic considering how much metaphorical ink you've spilled in this discussion in favor of one option, even if you haven't formally voted. Parabolist (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the absence of an infobox is completely jarring. The added value is a quick, easier-to-parse, summary of key biographical information in a consistent format with the other author biographies, e.g. Mary Wollstonecraft (her mother). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The ease of access to simple information is the point of an infobox. Obviously, for added context, you read the prose, but sometimes you just need to quickly remember a DOB. Trying to obscure this stuff in some sort of pitch to 'force' the reader into reading the prose is incredibly patronizing. We should assume our readers want to read our articles, and not plan around them trying to avoid it. Parabolist (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. There's enough information to fill out {{Infobox writer}} to a meaningful degree, and some of this (birth city, age at death) isn't immediately obvious or even present in the lead. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per discussion, although this format doesn't have the feel of a formal debate on the issue and shouldn't lead to placing an unwanted infobox. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others above. All of the information important to her career as a writer is contained in the well-written lede. Prose is better for conveying aspects of her life as opposed to factoids. An infobox wouldn't improve the article. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:URFA/2020 notes

This article has some uncited text that should be addressed (and checked for original research). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

78.147.213.241 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

so basically she was deppressed and her kids died so ye

This is not a valid edit request. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

James Lind influence

James Lind (physician, born 1736) is thought to have been influential in the development of Frankenstein. There are many scholarly articles on this topic such as: The real Doctor Frankenstein?, James Lind Biography, Frankenstein's Chemical Roots.

I had inserted a link to Lind's wiki page as further reading/see also. This was reverted by Nikkimaria on grounds of speculation.

The relationship between Mary, Percy and James Lind is well-documented. Mention of Lind on her page warrants further consideration. SloppyTots (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As indicated by those sources, Lind has been proposed as an inspiration for Frankenstein. We cannot say definitively based on those sources that he was the inspiration for Frankenstein. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
We cannot reject the possibility either. At a minimum, a link to James Lind should be in the See Also section. Martinevans123, would you kindly weigh in?SloppyTots (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, this article needs to stray from the typical style of referring to people by surname-only

In the biography section, there are too many surname variables! It is extremely confusing to read paragraphs filled with narratives about "Godwin did this" and "Shelley did that" (and especially with lack of pronouns) having to stop and think "Is Godwin William or Mary?" and "Is Shelley Mary or Percy?" Even if the answers can be deduced with some degree of probability, this should not be. We are going to have to use first names for these sections. The otherwise lack of clarity justifies it. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Children parameter in the infobox

@Nikkimaria: Including the children parameter in the infobox makes the article more accessible; acquiring the information from the main body is a chore, and while you may be able to glean how many children she had from the text in the lead, why should someone have to count them? Do you have a counterpoint to justify the reversion? Because "previous was sufficient" doesn't cover it. Regardless of whether you thought it was sufficient beforehand, you should have left it up per WP:DONTREVERT. Also, you should have been the one to take this to the talk page; you were edit warring by reverting me for a second time. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Be aware that DONTREVERT is an essay, while WP:ONUS is policy. We don't include every single fact available in the infobox - see MOS:INFOBOX, plus the discussion above. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:ONUS is mainly about whether something should be included in the article at all. Her children already are in her article. Do you specifically mean WP:CONSENSUS? The discussion above does not mention the children parameter, and I can't see an agreement in the archive to not include it, so what consensus is there? I feel the discussion above actually supports the inclusion. The closing comment: There were clear usability and policy-based arguments in favor of an infobox: [...] that key biographical information was difficult to find quickly without one. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above mentioned the dual issues of bloating and highlighting information that is not central to understanding the subject and her impact. You've now added another parameter along those lines. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
"Bloating" was a reason you used above to oppose the infobox entirely; the consensus was against you. It hadn't occurred to me that you would also take issue with her birth name being listed. That is key biographical information, although, unlike the information on her children, is easy to learn quickly elsewhere. (Do you only object to biographical information? You haven't objected to the language parameter another user recently added.) I maintain that the closing comment supports the children parameter given it's difficult to find that information quickly in the main text. It wouldn't even just be listing the number of children, given that one of her children was notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The closing doesn't support adding any particular detail, nor as you note did anyone in the discussion propose it. How hard something is to find isn't the deciding factor in whether to include it there either. The key details about this subject are that she was an English author, not her name at birth. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
By that reasoning, her birth and death dates and places, age at time of death, spouse, and parents should not be mentioned there either. It reads as if your objection is based on you still not wanting the infobox at all. I feel we're at an impasse here so I'm requesting a third opinion. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
No, my objection is based on WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Nothing you've put forward has supported that the fact you want to add is key to a reader's understanding of the subject and her impact. Your argument seems to favour including information based on obscurity rather than significance; that's not what we're meant to be doing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I see no reason not to include this parameter in the infobox. It summarises, but does not supplant, information in the text, which is the purpose of infoboxes, and adding one line to a not especially lengthy infobox does not seem to me to lead to any bloat. It's a common enough parameter in infoboxes about historical people, and it's obviously relevant to her life (note that the article is a biography, not solely a discussion of her writing and historical impact). Since we'd already had an RfC as to whether the infobox should be there at all, it seems entirely reasonable to include this line. Please note that Third Opinions are informal and advisory only, and that the matter can be taken to RfC or other more formal dispute resolution processes should a dispute remain. Anaxial (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that "Percy Florence" appears in the article 11 times, in the lede and 5 of 15 body sections, so it has some significance (more than a casual mention in "Family"). I'm not sure that I like the mention of non-notable children (after all, we don't mention non-notable occupations in the infobox) but numbering the children is in keeping with the documentation at Template:Infobox writer. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Anaxial and Reidgreg: Could we get your thoughts on the birth name parameter in the infobox? Nikkimaria has since removed it. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The subject does not seem to have been particularly notable as Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (did not publish as such and sources prefer Mary Shelley) so I don't feel the need to include it in the infobox. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

idk

Mary Shelley was born Mary Wollstonecraft in Somers town, London, in 1797. she was the Second child of the Feminist philosopher, educator and writer Mary Wollstonecraft and the first child of the philospher, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.177.229 (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Mary Shelley --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I am curious why you would nominate TFA an article with three-month-old citation needed tags? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 notes

This article has some uncited text that should be addressed (and checked for original research). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Would this be of help, as a source, or leading to other sources? It supports some of the facts, such as S. living with son and his wife, and travelling with them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not familiar with that source, but it has the feeling of a personal website … is it a high quality source? On the other hand, perhaps someone can tap the sources it used … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
If I was sure it was a RS I had added it to the article. I am not. It lists sources for the facts which look like RS, but I have no access. The uncited facts relate to the relation of her to her son, 1) after he finished studies, 2) after he married. If we find nothing we will have to drop the facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
If no one solves the two tags in a few weeks, then they could just be commented out, with a note, along with the Brewer unused source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, the Brewer source listed in Secondary sources is not used in the article, and was not used in the promoted version, and is returning a HarvRef error. Perhaps someone can look it up to determine if it is the source of the uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I must confess that good reasons have been given for the reversion of my new "In Popular Culture" section. A few months ago, I created a much much longer "popular culture" section for the Sigmund Freud article which was better referenced, for the simple reason that the references were much easier to find which would indicate the material better satisfies Wikipedia's criterion of "Notability". I always thought that Imdb was considered unreliable by Wikipedia with regard to their trivia and goofs section (although their editors try to verify everything), but I thought that with regard to cast and crew of the film, Imdb was considered OK. But even this is considered disputed according to Wikipedia:Citing Imdb#Disputed Uses, which came as a huge surprise to me.

So I guess there needs to be bsome independent third party discussing these films together to satisfy WP:Notability. So far all I have found is this blog by a published author [2]. She does not discuss the recent film with Elle Fanning. My understanding is that blogs written by authors who have published in print in reliable sources are usually accepted by Wikipedia. Perhaps if this section is restored, I should cut out all the material about the ages of the actresses who played Mary Shelley as being WP:Original Research. although I do find it interesting that Ms. Fanning is the only actress to play Shelley remotely close to her actual age upon writing Frankenstein.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi WickerGuy, thanks for bringing this here. I do think that if we are to include material like this, we want to avoid original research and ensure that the sourcing is high-quality, since this article is currently classed as featured. The use of blogs as sources is a bit more nuanced than just anyone who has published in print reliable sources: for material that is not about the author themselves, the author needs to be considered a subject-matter expert, ie who has published work in the relevant field in reliable sources. Is that the case for this author? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for calling attention to that. I was at the peak of my Wikipedia editing in the years 2007-2012, and have been slightly less active since then. The rules have tightened up since my era. The author of the blog is a founding editor of a reputable UK print magazine on the history of horror fiction, called "Hellebore", so I think we are good there. However, I suspect that if we are going to satisfy WP:Notability by referring to comparative discussions in outside sources, we should have more than one. I will dig around and look for a bit more, before resubmitting this section. (Once again, it is a LOT easier to find comparative discussions of the various portrayals of Sigmund Freud in film, than Mary Shelley. I state now I suspect this is due to Freud being a far more controversial figure than Mary Shelley. Hence, the "In Popular Culture" section I created for the Freud article is not in jeopardy.)WickerGuy (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Shezam! Found a full length book which in one section discusses all of these films. "Gender and Contemporary Horror in Comics, Games and Transmedia" edited by Steven Gerrard, Robert Shail, Samantha HollandWickerGuy (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Comparative discussion of most of the films also appears in "The Oxford Handbook of Percy Bysshe Shelley"WickerGuy (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture may have some relevant words of wisdom. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

Add films and television

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley_(film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley_(Doctor_Who) Marvel Avenger (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done See section above for discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

Typo error in the sentence: “She was raised by her father, who provided her with a rich if informal education-“ “If” should be replaced with “of” InnovativeMechanist (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever edits this minor detail InnovativeMechanist (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Current sentence is correct - meaning her education was good but unconventional. Replacing with "of" would make the sentence nonsensical - "rich of informal education" Cannolis (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Converting references to SFN/Harvp, to aid in accessibility of citations

As my recent start at moving over to SFN/Harvp for the references was reverted by @Nikkimaria:, I am here seeking a consensus for the change. The main argument is using such, or a similar standard is better than the plain text references, as it allows for a single click to the relevant full citation in the bibliography section, as to the current need to look for the relevant citation by just the surname alone (as none provide the date for the citation in the plain text reference). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm a fan of linked citations. Nikkimaria is right from a process perspective: you generally shouldn't change away from the established style without affirmative talk page consensus. As long as you're willing to fully convert to the linked style, I'm all for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • The existing footnote style is in line with the MLA Handbook, which is standard for academic publications in this subject area - plus unlinked citations in general are more accessible for those who are subject-matter rather than Wikipedia-editing experts, and the former are needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

Her spouse Percy Shelley was born August 4,1792. this is clearly a mix up ? 2603:8000:A700:3C6:7DC8:B4FD:EA04:DF11 (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Shelley/Archive_6&oldid=1242923882"