Talk:Mary Shelley

TFA rerun

Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of dead or dubious links. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2017

Please change (I will put the words that need to be changed in BRACKETS) the following: To deal with her grief, Shelley wrote the novella The Fields of Fancy, which become [BECAME] Matilda [,] dealing with a young woman whose beauty inspired incestuous love in her father, who ultimately commits suicide to stop himself from acting on his passion for his daughter [,] while she spends the rest of her life full of [IN DESPAIR, NOT FULL OF] despair about "the unnatural love I had inspired".[101] The novella offered a feminist critique of a patriarchal society as Matilda is punished in the afterlife through [THOUGH] she did nothing to encourage her father's feelings AMGunn (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Except for the "full of despair" part, are you sure? it seems grammatically correct to me. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Question

"In June 1812, her father sent Mary to stay with the dissenting family of the radical William Baxter, near Dundee, Scotland." -- Kaldari, this is an opening paragraph in the first section. The pronoun is wrong on the first mention, and should be a noun instead. I didn't want to fix it as I didn't want to get it wrong, and I wasn't completely sure who the pronoun refers to. Assuming I've read it correctly, should it read: "In June 1812, Shelley's father sent her to stay with the dissenting family of the radical William Baxter, near Dundee, Scotland."? Cassianto^Talk 22:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I believe your reading is correct, although the article is referring to her as "Mary Godwin" at that point (rather than "Shelley"). Kaldari (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, now swapped. Cassianto^Talk 07:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for infobox

Could I implemente a infobox please?

Thanks. In Memoriam A.H.H. (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I see there were discussions back in 2008 and 2010, but it's been almost seven years - what's the consensus these days? While not mandatory, infoboxes appear to have become increasingly common for biographies, so perhaps it will be different now. Certainly nothing in that reverted edit is accurately described as "drivel." --tronvillain (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the addition of an IB. In this article, it simply repeats information included in the well-written, concise lead nor does it allow for the nuance required in this particular biography. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I am neither for nor against infoboxes, in general. In fact, I consider them to be a great tool on complicated articles such as royalty, music, film, political, sports, military, and geographical articles; however, I consider them to be utterly useless everywhere else. Here are some of my reasons for not including an infobox here:

1. 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.)
2. Visual degradation: The way this infobox squashes the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
3. Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel this infobox gives to this article: "here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the box" says it all.
4. Disconnected particles: Its domination of the very opening of this 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.)
5. Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes like this 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?)
6. 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.)
7. Fictitious technical benefits: There has never been a centralised RfC or similar that means we need to provide dross for the deeply flawed nonsense of Wikidata. The information on the subject is already at Wikidata, so it doesn't need to be provided again by having an infobox. An infobox does not need to be here again in order for Google and others to use: they strip info from Wikidata, not here, so it's absence here does not affect either Wikidata or third party users.

There was a consensus not to include an infobox in 2010 and Wadewitz, the late author of this fine article, decided she did not want an infobox. Let's not do her the disservice by shoehorning in a rather stupid infobox and making this article look silly and amateurish. Cassianto^Talk 09:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, to be clear. I see the infobox was removed back on 18 January 2008, was added again 21 March 2015, and lasted until 20 December 2017, so apparently the large numbers of editors in that nearly two year period didn't have any problem with it.
  1. Expansiveness: If information is available, it's not apparent why an encyclopedia shouldn't provide access to it, and repeating information from the article is the point, not a problem.
  2. Visual enhancement: The smallest of screens, phones, work just fine with infoboxes. And in desktop mode, the infobox won't push the lede text to the left significantly more than the opening image does, and may in fact fill some of the empty white space alongside the contents. All of this is subjective, but I actually find its absence visually jarring, and a narrow box of text under the opening image is no sense "utter visual domination."
  3. Uniformity: this is an encyclopedia, not an artisanal craft, and infoboxes are now commonplace on biographies: Percy Bysshe Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, Lord Byron, William Godwin, William Shakespeare, and so on. The "here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on" is a virtue, not a vice.
  4. Benefit for users: anyone who wants to just read the article can still just continue to read down the article, but someone who wants quick access to basic information in an established order and format can glance over at the infobox.
  5. Comparison': infoboxes are great for comparing things and people - just open a couple of tabs or windows and there you are, without having to search out a list which may or may not exist.
  6. Technical benefits: Wikidata has to scrape from somewhere, and infoboxes seem to be a great place to do it from. That's not necessarily relevant to this article, where all of the information has probably been extracted (though amazingly the Frankenstein article didn't have the full publication date until this year), but generally worth keeping in mind.

Consensus can shift, and articles don't belong to anyone (even one of the major editors). Eventual change is not a "disservice" to anyone, and to assert that an infobox makes an article look "silly and amateurish" is an insult to countless other articles - I'm actually having trouble finding another major biography without an infobox, though I'm sure they exist. --tronvillain (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm asserting nothing. I'm telling you they do make articles look childish and amateurish. If you find that insulting, that's your problem. Cassianto^Talk 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait, what? Assert: "to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively." So, literally what you're doing. And yes, I find declaring the work of massive numbers of editors to be "childish and amateurish" to be insulting, unsurprisingly. --tronvillain (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, your problem. Hardly "work" copy and pasting a bunch of code from one article to another. I suggest you get over yourself. Cassianto^Talk 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.--tronvillain (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's an idea: instead of trying to take ownership of the top, right hand side of this article, go away, buy some books on a subject you find interesting, sit down over the course of a few weeks, and at all times of the day, and write, in your own words, a stunningly beautiful article the likes of which you see here. Oh, and talking of "insults", do you know how insulting it is to spend a small fortune and copious amounts of time writing an article like this only to have a drive by editor come along and force an infobox on it? Cassianto^Talk 17:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You're pretty possessive of this article if the mere discussion of the possibility of a shift in consensus makes you this defensive. As I said, we'll just have to wait and see. And no, I don't need link to biographies without infoboxes (I did say they presumably existed), but I definitely had to dig a little past the major ones.--tronvillain (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The same can be said of you who's continuing to scuffle to add one. Re: "looks" vs. "is"-to say that Cassianto insulted the work of countless other editors is a misstatement on your part. Saying something LOOKS a certain way vs IS that way is a big leap of original research. We hope (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That's some impressive lawyering. It's not at all insulting when you say "I'm telling you, Martin looks fat.", right? And you can counter that with "They said Martin looks fat, not that he is fat." A qualifier like "to me" would make it less an assertion of fact.--tronvillain (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There's also a difference between someone saying they're going to start a fire and someone actually starting one. Tea leaves can also be read any way you want. We hope (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Tronvillain, please do not alter your comments after they have been replied to, thanks. Also, some of the information you are adding here regarding additions/removals of IBs appears to be missing the full detail. The article was created in September 2001 without an IB; it was added on 30 July 2006; removed on 11 February 2008 by the editor who did substantial work on it bringing it to FA; discussions took place regarding an IB in 2008 and 2010 when consensus was against it; a drive-by editor added it back in March 2015 against consensus. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe I started that edit before it was replied to - I should have added an edited date to the comment after the edit conflict, though I'm not going to worry about that for minor corrections. Anyway, I linked to all of those, except the creation and the original add, and creation of a stub without an infobox is hardly surprising.--tronvillain (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so stubs shouldn't have IBs? Hmmmm .... SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it's just unsurprising when they don't.--tronvillain (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support infobox- per my previously expressed views. This !vote won't come as a surprise to anyone here and I won't be losing much sleep over this; I doubt we'll get a consensus either way. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  Fancy that, still following Cassianto then, Jcc? SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm loving the hypocrisy given that all the regular characters seem to be here too. It was actually Gerda's comment on Alex's big "solve the infobox wars" proposal page, which I have watchlisted. Anyway, I think it's best I withdraw here, so take me to ANI if you want. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"regular characters"...so that'll include you then? Cassianto^Talk 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• dif for altered comments We hope (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed this editor's various PAs. The dif to check is here. Doing this to ward off complaints by the editor for altering his remarks. We hope (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed a PA made against me too- the admin should check this too. Comments like that should be made at ANI (with diffs and all), not flung as an accusation in a civil talk page discussion. Diff. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

But they were. Your response. My response. My response 2. It's 2018 and my response here remains the same. We hope (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and as far as I can tell, I didn't take you to ANI, and you didn't take me to ANI, but that discussion was about how you spent a whole day replying to every comment I made- but now you're editing them as well? Also if you're going to do this- link to the right diff please. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to pull here with the whole admin help thing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

AN is a place where people reply to comments which I did. If that's stalking you, then many others must be guilty of stalking also when they respond at AN/ANI to a topic of interest. Your interest in what I either did or didn't do here that day or any day could be considered following or stalking. "What you're trying to pull here"-trying to remove PAs by you without the sirens going off that your comments were redacted and I want an admin for verification of the reason for the removal. We hope (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto has reverted my removal of the personal attack as ridiculous, so I've reverted yours as a similarly ridiculous stunt. I don't think things should have to be this way- where people are pulling stunts like yours to try and "win" discussions whilst silencing the opposition, where people are gaslighting others, where personal attacks and accusations are considered normal. In the spirit of cooperation, I've removed part of the offending sentence- but I've restored the rest, since Cassianto is right- this is ridiculous. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No stunt, an effort to cause you to discuss this in the civil manner as you claim to without PAs-which you aim at Cassianto regularly in these dicussions. We hope (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a two way thing- I had to ban him from my talk page (something I don't think I've had to do with any other editor) because of the abuse and harassment I was getting. I'm ok with his insults to me on talk pages- I can choose to ignore that and some of the more clever ones even make me smile- but when it's on my user talk page as well then that's too far. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Did the other editor deserve to be called an attack dog by you? We hope (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

...and how upset I was with it, too. Cassianto^Talk 20:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)