| Revision as of 19:31, 13 January 2018 editRenamed user 995577823Xyn (talk | contribs)58,205 edits was brought up there← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:03, 29 August 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Mary Shelley/Archive 6) (bot |
| (323 intermediate revisions by 94 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader={{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize=75K |
|
|
|counter=5 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft=4 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive=2 |
|
|
|algo=old(90d) |
|
|
|archive=Talk:Mary Shelley/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1date=12:56, 20 June 2008 |
|
|action1date=12:56, 20 June 2008 |
| Line 15: |
Line 6: |
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|action1oldid=220536041 |
|
|action1oldid=220536041 |
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
|action2=FAC |
|
|action2date=04:29, 27 June 2008 |
|
|action2date=04:29, 27 June 2008 |
| Line 20: |
Line 12: |
|
|action2result=promoted |
|
|action2result=promoted |
|
|action2oldid=221975422 |
|
|action2oldid=221975422 |
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|maindate=October 30, 2008 |
|
|maindate=October 30, 2008 |
|
|
|maindate2= 30 August 2021 |
|
|
|otd1date=2017-08-30|otd1oldid=797945355 |
|
|
|otd2date=2019-08-30|otd2oldid=913088916 |
|
|
|otd3date=2022-08-30|otd3oldid=1107237786 |
|
|
|otd4date=2024-02-01|otd4oldid=1201986532 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|living=no|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|listas=Shelley, Mary|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Horror|class=FA|importance=High|listas=Shelley, Mary}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=FA|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=high|listas=Shelley, Mary}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=FA|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Horror|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|class=FA|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject England|class=FA|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject London|importance=High}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
{{Press |
|
{{Press |
|
| author = ] |
|
| author = ] |
|
| date = 2013-04-25 |
|
| date = 2013-04-25 |
|
| url = http://www.webcitation.org/6GAcEjKfJ |
|
| url = https://www.webcitation.org/6GAcEjKfJ |
|
| title = Beyond categorization on Misplaced Pages |
|
| title = Beyond categorization on Misplaced Pages |
|
| org = ] |
|
| org = ] |
|
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/6A771cTbC |
|
| archiveurl = https://www.webcitation.org/6GAcEjKfJ |
|
| archivedate = 2013-04-26 |
|
| archivedate = 2013-04-26 |
|
| accessdate = 2013-04-26 |
|
| accessdate = 2013-04-26 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=FA}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{Autoarchivingnotice|bot=MiszaBot|age=90}} |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-08-30|oldid1=797945355}} |
|
|
|
|archiveheader={{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize=75K |
|
== TFA rerun == |
|
|
|
|counter=6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft=4 |
|
Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential ] reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of . - Dank (]) 23:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive=2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|algo=old(120d) |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2017 == |
|
|
|
|archive=Talk:Mary Shelley/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Mary Shelley|answered=yes}} |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2024 == |
|
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 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 despair about "the unnatural love I had inspired". The novella offered a feminist critique of a patriarchal society as Matilda is punished in the afterlife through she did nothing to encourage her father's feelings ] (]) 06:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Partly done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Except for the "full of despair" part, are you sure? it seems grammatically correct to me. regards, ]] 07:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Mary Shelley|answered=yes}} |
|
== Question == |
|
|
|
5th paragraph, "Until the 1970s", should perhaps be changed to "until the 1850's" or "For the rest of her life", since Mary died in 1853. ] (]) 23:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I don't see a correlation between the time of her death and what she has been known for historically by researchers and scholars. —](]) 00:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lake Geneva and Frankenstein == |
|
{{green|"In June 1812, her father sent Mary to stay with the dissenting family of the radical William Baxter, near Dundee, Scotland."}} -- {{u|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: {{green|"In June 1812, Shelley's father sent her to stay with the dissenting family of the radical William Baxter, near Dundee, Scotland."}}? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ping|Cassianto}} I believe your reading is correct, although the article is referring to her as "Mary Godwin" at that point (rather than "Shelley"). ] (]) 00:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks, now swapped. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 07:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What were the other three stories?] (]) 22:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Request for infobox == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2024 == |
|
Could I implemente a infobox please? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Mary Shelley|answered=yes}} |
|
Thanks. ] (]) 23:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Change "The last decade of her life was dogged by illness, most likely caused by the brain tumour which killed her at the age of 53." to "The last decade of her life was dogged by illness, most likely caused by the brain tumour that ultimately led to her death at the age of 53. |
|
:I see there were discussions back in and , but it's been almost seven years - what's the consensus these days? While not ], infoboxes appear to have become increasingly common for biographies, so perhaps it will be different now. Certainly nothing in that edit is accurately described as "drivel." --] (]) 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. ] - ] 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why: The current version leads the reader into a garden path, making them wonder how could a person die twice? Once at the age of 53 and then again at another age, even if momentarily, it does not provide any other advantages over the edited version. Meannwhile the edited version would eliminate this garden path by adding the word "ultimately" ] (]) 14:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
#'''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.) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ⸺(])] 20:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
#'''Visual degradation''': The way this infobox squashes the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture. |
|
|
|
:I see no garden path. She died once, aged 53, from a brain tumour. ] (]) 08:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
#'''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. |
|
|
#'''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.) |
|
|
#'''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?) |
|
|
#'''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.) |
|
|
#'''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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== About the intro == |
|
: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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', to be clear. I see the infobox was removed back on , was added again , and lasted until , so apparently the large numbers of editors in that nearly two year period didn't have any problem with it. |
|
|
*#'''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. |
|
|
*#'''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." |
|
|
*#'''Uniformity''': this is an encyclopedia, not an artisanal craft, and infoboxes are now commonplace on biographies: ], ], ], ], ], 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. |
|
|
*#'''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. |
|
|
*#'''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. |
|
|
*#'''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 '']'' article didn't have the full publication date until ''this year''), but generally worth keeping in mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting: the Percy Shelley page intro has 3 paragraphs of literary history and then 1 paragraph of personal history. The Mary Shelley page intro has 3 paragraphs of personal history and 2 of literary history. |
|
: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. --] (]) 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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Wait, what? : "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. --] (]) 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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::]. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.--] (]) 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? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|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 without an IB; it was added on ; 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'''. ] - ] 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.--] (]) 17:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oh, I see, so stubs shouldn't have IBs? ] - ] 17:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, it's just unsurprising when they don't.--] (]) 17:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' infobox- per . 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. ] (]) 17:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{personal attack removed}} ] - ] 17:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Anyway, I think it's best I withdraw here, so take me to ANI if you want. ] (]) 17:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"regular characters"...so that'll include you then? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] (]) 17:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
{{adminhelp}} |
|
|
I have removed this editor's various PAs. The dif to check is . Doing this to ward off complaints by the editor for altering his remarks. ] (]) 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. . ] (]) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the personal history in Mary's introduction could very easily be condensed - there's a lot of detail there. Then perhaps the long literary history paragraph could be expanded out into 2 paragraphs? ] (]) 08:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::. . . . It's 2018 and my response here remains the . ] (]) 19:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
Change "The last decade of her life was dogged by illness, most likely caused by the brain tumour which killed her at the age of 53." to "The last decade of her life was dogged by illness, most likely caused by the brain tumour that ultimately led to her death at the age of 53.
Why: The current version leads the reader into a garden path, making them wonder how could a person die twice? Once at the age of 53 and then again at another age, even if momentarily, it does not provide any other advantages over the edited version. Meannwhile the edited version would eliminate this garden path by adding the word "ultimately" TheCosmos999 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Interesting: the Percy Shelley page intro has 3 paragraphs of literary history and then 1 paragraph of personal history. The Mary Shelley page intro has 3 paragraphs of personal history and 2 of literary history.
I think the personal history in Mary's introduction could very easily be condensed - there's a lot of detail there. Then perhaps the long literary history paragraph could be expanded out into 2 paragraphs? Kansaikiwi (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: I don't see a correlation between the time of her death and what she has been known for historically by researchers and scholars. —Sirdog (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)