Talk:Mary Shelley

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)

• An info box could help with this issue, among others. 87.247.54.182 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 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. Cassianto^Talk 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

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. Cassianto^Talk 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. Cassianto^Talk 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)

• Support would provide additional at a glance information that is not in the lead such as place of birth and literary movement. They are also the de facto norm on wiki blindlynx (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - this is a biography where an infobox would be useful, as there is plenty of relevant information to populate an infobox (dates, location, notable works), such as the infoboxes at other top-quality (WP:FA/WP:TFA) author biographies e.g. William Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Maya Angelou, J. K. Rowling, James Joyce, Ursula K. Le Guin. Lev!vich 00:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Mary Shelley
Richard Rothwell's 1840 portrait of Shelley
Born	(1797-08-30)30 August 1797 Somers Town, London
Died	1 February 1851(1851-02-01) (aged 53) Chester Square, London
Occupation	Writer
Works	Frankenstein (1818), among others
Spouse	Percy 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
Portrait of Shelley, c. 1840
Born	(1797-08-30)30 August 1797 Somers Town, England
Died	1 February 1851(1851-02-01) (aged 53) Chester Square
Occupation	Writer
Works	List 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)

• Support Infoboxes are a good way to offer basic information on the person at the very top of the article, and do more good than harm for the project. Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - infoboxes are good for politicians, monarchs & sports figures bios, only. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Why? Isn't "being born, died, and worked" the same for all people? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 26 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)