Talk:Mary Shelley: Difference between revisions

	Mary Shelley is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 30, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 20, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 27, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Horror FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as High-importance).

Template:Maintained

In the section "Percy Bysshe Shelley", one of the sentences is confusing, namely how could William Godwin have "accepted money from Percy Shelley" if Shelley had become "penniless"? Kaldari (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the bit about accepting money, because Percy Shelley did not resume negotiations with Godwin immediately on returning from France. qp10qp (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might want to make the link for Queen Mab more specific, although that's assuming it is a notable work. Kaldari (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know I'm the slowest proofreader in the world, but I finally got around to finishing the article. The only other thing I noticed is that the sentence that starts "The eclipse of Mary Shelley's reputation" is a bit confusing/difficult to read, IMO. Eclipse of her reputation by what? Frankenstein? Kaldari (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the course of the nineteenth century, Mary Shelley came to be seen as a one-novel author at best, rather than as the professional writer she was; most of her works have remained out of print until the last thirty years, obstructing a larger view of her achievement. - new version - is this better? do we need to say the one novel was Frankenstein? Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that is much more straightforward. BTW, I finally got around to replacing the family tree with an SVG version (which is scalable and editable). Hope you like it. Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for fixing up the family tree! Awadewit (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did all of my proofreading and commenting on this article from a cell phone! Is there a barnstar for that? :) Kaldari (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very patient! Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this have an infobox? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's fine without one. Kaldari (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we chose not to have one. They tend to say what is already written at the beginning of the article, and people start to add unreferenced "influenced" parameters that grow into a list, flags, and all sorts. Infoboxes are only an optional "extra". I never read them, I find. qp10qp (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the infobox is repetitive and unnecessary. Awadewit (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But an infobox makes the article look more professional. Besides, every biographic article in Wikipedia has an infobox. Why doesn't Mary Shelley deserve one ?

• IMO, there is nothing professional about an infobox since it merely repeats information already in the lead. Moreover, not every biography on Wikipedia has an infobox. Many FAs do not, for example. There is no requirement for an infobox. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, an infobox is we nedd a infobox also quick to look at and direct. It's good for people looking for specific information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalv89 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of that specific information, name, birth and death date, etc. is easily available in the first few sentences of the lead. We don't need such a hideous box when we have such a lovely caption. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet Cyclopaedia is spelled both with and without the ash ligature in the three times it is wikilinked in the article, with no clear reason for the difference. Also, the entry in "Selected list of works" section drops the a. The apparent inconsistency may be better removed. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence in the second paragraph seems to skirt around the subject in a subjective and ambiguous manner:

In 1814, Mary Godwin fell in love with one of her father’s political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley.

Would not the following be more appropriate?

In 1814, Mary Godwin began an affair with one of her father’s political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley.

Neelix (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "had an affair with" would be more appropriate, for two reasons. 1) MS eventually married PBS; 2) The words "began an affair with" have a strong negative connotation that we try to avoid in this article. We try to present the story to the reader and let them draw their own moral conclusions. The story of Mary Shelley's life has often been told in strongly moralistic tones and we really wanted to avoid that here. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS marrying PBS doesn't preclude a prior affair. Would 'liason' have less of a negative connotation? Saying that they "fell in love" is a highly subjective statement about their unverifiable emotions. It also simply emplies that PBS empregnated MS rather than actually saying so. I am not attempting to impose a moral judgement; I am attempting to turn an ambiguous explanation of the story into one which is more concrete. An unbiased sentence would state what they did rather than what their emotional state may have been. Even stating that they "had intercourse" or "engaged in sexual activities" would be more appropriate than "fell in love". Neelix (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Liason" also has an extremely negative connotation, I'm afraid. There is nothing unverifiable about their falling in love. They both wrote in letters that they were love - there is nothing subjective about it. Changing it to a statement about their sexual relationship would dramatically alter the meaning - their relationship was clearly more than a sexual one and reducing it to that would give the reader a false impression. I'm really not sure what the problem with this statement is: MS did fall in love with PBS, by her own account and by others' accounts. What do you feel is misleading about this statement? Awadewit (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the paragraph only hints that PBS was the father of MS's child. This is what the section I am referencing:

In 1814, Mary Godwin fell in love with one of her father’s political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley. Together with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, they left for France and travelled through Europe; upon their return to England, Mary was pregnant.

In my initial reading of these two sentences, I did not understand how she became pregnant. I had to read the two sentences twice before I realized that an actual relationship existed between MS and PBS. When I first read "Mary Godwin fell in love with... the married Percy Bysshe Shelley," my assumption was that she admired him from afar or that it was an unrequited love. The following statement does not completely clear up this misunderstanding in saying that she became pregnant, as no connection between the relationship and the pregnancy is stated.

I think I have hit upon a solution that will be satisfactory on all accounts. Why don't we switch the wording to the following:

In 1814, Mary Godwin began a romantic relationship with one of her father's political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley. With the resulting pregnancy, she and Percy faced two years of ostracism, constant debt, and the death of their prematurely born daughter.

The term "romantic relationship" has no negative connotations, nor does it reduce the concept to either an emotional state or a sexual partnership. Stating that the pregnancy resulted from this relationship more clearly establishes the link to Percy as the father, and also removes the unnecessary information about MS and CC travelling through Europe, which is not really pertinent. Do you find this solution to be more acceptable? Neelix (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I see the problem you are pointing out. I hate to leave out a reference to their European trip, though, which was a big deal. She lost her reputation because of this trip (the pregnancy only added to her shame). One of the problems we are running into here is that the lead cannot explain everything. Here are two different options (one is clearly much wordier than the other):

• In 1814, Mary Godwin fell in love with one of her father’s political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley. Together with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, they left for France and travelled through Europe; upon their return to England, Mary was pregnant with Percy's child.

• In 1814, Mary Godwin began a romantic relationship with one of her father's political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley. Together with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, they left for France and travelled through Europe. Upon their return, Mary and Percy faced several years of ostracism, as a result of their elopement and Mary's resulting pregnancy, as well as constant debt and the death of their prematurely born daughter.

What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first version is less confusing, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"With Percy's child" certainly helps avoid confusion. Would it not be possible to employ "began a romantic relationship" as well? Doing so would look like this:

In 1814, Mary Godwin began a romantic relationship with one of her father's political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley. Together with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, they left for Franch and travelled through Europe; upon their return to England, Mary was pregnant with Percy's child. Neelix (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either of those sounds good to me. Kaldari (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BIO was edited recently to make the use of "Mr", "Mrs", etc. more strongly deprecated. Of course, when you're dealing with lots of people in the same family with the same last name, it can be tricky to avoid using these as shorthand in various situations. In this article, specifically, we have two sentences using honorifics:

• "Kegan Paul later suggested that Mrs Godwin had favoured her own children over Mary Wollstonecraft’s."
• "Mr and Mrs Godwin were present and the marriage ended the family rift."

Any suggestions on how to reword these to avoid the honorifics?

On a related note, at some point we all need to sit down and come up with some useful guidelines on how to handle maiden names vs. married names, as the current guidelines fail to address a myriad of situations that crop up periodically. This seems to be an especially tricky thing to deal with in biographical articles of women. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The first one is tricky - we can't refer to her as "Mary", since we are contrasting her to "Mary Wollstonecraft". Referring to her as "Mary Jane" doesn't totally eliminate the confusion. "Mary Jane Clairmont" eliminates the marriage. "Mary Jane Godwin", perhaps? One problem with that version is that I don't think we use it at any other point in the article, so it might actually be confusing. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we change this to "her parents" without confusion? (William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft were biologically her parents, while William Godwin and Mary Jane Clairmont raised her.) I think confusion might arise. Changing it to "William and Mary Jane Godwin..." seems unnecessarily awkward. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me know when you want to tackle the maiden/married name guideline. Every time I have tried to change a MOS guideline, it has been a disaster, but I can be optimistic, right? :) Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about those sentences being tricky. I wasn't sure how to fix them myself. Unless you can think of good ways to resolve the ambiguities, I wouldn't mind leaving them for the time being.

Trying to change the MoS is often frustrating, but I'm actually glad it's somewhat difficult to change (so we don't have new guidelines to deal with every week). There are debates on some MoS pages that have been going on for years. BTW, if you think there is actually a case for legitimate use of "Mr", "Mrs", etc, you should jump in here. Kaldari (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - see if the post is confusing enough! :) Awadewit (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a response. I'd like to try editing the entire article along those lines. The subject of the article would be "Godwin" then "Shelley", with subsequent use of her relatives' names arranged to harmonize with that. Would anyone here mind if I tried it? It could be reverted if it's not an improvement. Ariadne55 (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try, but as you can tell from my response, the names in this article were carefully chosen. For example, "Mary Godwin" and "Mary Shelley" are used throughout. "Mary" is only used when it is necessary to distinguish from "Percy" (putting the two on an evenly informal level). Using "Godwin" and "Shelley" for MS will only cause confusion, I think. Too many people associate those names with "William Godwin" and "Percy Bysshe Shelley". Even if you choose to do this, however, problems would remain. "William" is the name of both William Godwin (Mary Shelley's father) and William Shelley (Mary Shelley's son). "Percy" is the name of both Percy Florence Shelley (Mary Shelley's son) and Percy Bysshe Shelley (Mary Shelley's husband). If you can make the names any clearer, I would be happy with that, but we did think this through! The names are just a mess here (too many people are named for each other)! For your information, there is a family tree here. Awadewit (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see your approach, Ariadne55. Perhaps it can be made to work here. If so, I'm confident it could be applied anywhere. I don't think it will be easy though. Be sure to acquaint yourself with that convoluted family tree first. Good luck! Kaldari (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I recently added a (meanwhile deleted) reference to Mary Shelley's Short Story "The Mourner" (and one might/should probably add "The Last Man") to the sentence about Mary Shelley living in Bishopsgate "on the edge of Windsor Great Park" – an area that she describes in detail in the above works. I find this fact quite as significant as the following:

"At Bishopsgate, Percy wrote his poem Alastor; and on 24 January 1816, Mary gave birth to a second child, William, named after her father and soon nicknamed "Willmouse"."

Isn't the connection between life and literary work worth mentioning? In fact, one might add to this, since it's one of the prominent features in her writing that she recycles places she's been to in her texts. Or is it more important that Mary Shelley gave birth at a place rather than that it seems to have impressed her enough to feature in her work?

What do you think? I don't want to mar this excellent article, but I always enjoy insights of this kind, especially when they refer to lesser known works of an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinuvielas (talk • contribs) 10:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tinuvielas - thank you for your contribution. There are many such connections in Shelley's work. The question is which ones to mention in such a brief article as this one. "The Mourner" is not an oft-read work nor is it studied by scholars much, which is one reason I deleted this interesting tidbit. This article tries to present only the most important information on Shelley and her works - that which scholars themselves repeat. That said, do you have a source for how Shelley uses places more generally in her works? You will notice that in the "Autobiographical elements" section, we discuss how the people Shelley knew appear in various guises in her novels. We could definitely add something there about how the places she visited provided fodder for the settings of her novels and short stories (I remember reading about this when I was researching the article). We just need a reliable source. Awadewit (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick! Thanks :-). As to the information being unsourced, I didn't think it necessary to add any source in this case since the name of the park & lake Virginia Water in it are referenced in the beginning of the story:

"A georgeous scene of kingly pride is the prospect now before us!--the offspring of art, the nursling of nature-- where can the eye rest on a landscape more deliciously lovely than the fair expanse of Virginia Water, now an open mirror to the sky, now shaded by umbrageous banks, which wind into dark recesses, or are rounded into soft promontories?".

At any rate, "The Mourner" is one of only three short stories by M.S. currently available in German translation, so I'm astonished to hear it considered not oft-read... However, I see your point about saying something more general about Shelley using place names, and since I'm writing on her anyway these days, I'll be on the lookout for scholarly opinions about this fact. Be back if I find something... ;-).

p.s. I still think that mentioning Percy Shelley writing Alastor in Bishopsgate is quite as (if not more) tangential in this connection as mentioning the above... isn't it?

Tinuvielas (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I know why we included the bit on Alastor - MS biographers mention it. It is such an important PBS poem. However, I see now that we don't mention Prometheus Unbound! How could we have forgotten? Is it better to take away Alastor or add Prometheus Unbound? (Are all of Mary Shelley's novels translated into German?) Awadewit (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, difficult question – but if you ask me, in a MARY Shelley article, I think Prometheus Unbound is rather more important than Alastor. I don't see the connection of the latter to Mary Shelley (yet - anyone?). As to the novels: Only "Frankenstein" and "The Last Man" are currently in print, the latter in a most horrible edition – no idea (yet P) if any of her other novels ever were. I'll find out! ;-) Tinuvielas (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - let's add Prometheus and see if we can elaborate on the meaning of Alastor. I'll have to gather up my books over the next few days - they are scattered around. Awadewit (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't help with Percy/Alastor, but if I run across anything, I'll let you know. As to the translations: Among the 77 items listed in the German National Library are more or less 70 editions of "Frankenstein" (first translated 1912), one of "The Last Man" (heavily edited and abridged, 1982), "Rambles" (2002, translated by scholar Alexander Pechmann who has also written an excellent biography and translated the first edition of "Frankenstein" – he is apparently working hard at establishing Mary Shelley & her work in German); a volume of three short stories (The Mourner, The False Rhyme, Transformation) and her essay "On Ghosts". Tinuvielas (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably responsible for this part of the article; checking back through the biographical sources, I see that Spark and Seymour do emphasise the significance of Alastor to Mary's Bishopsgate period. I've also just looked at Mary Shelley's published notes to the poem, and she suggests that none of Percy's poems were more characteristic. Spark calls Alastor "his first mature poetic achievement", a judgement shared by Sunstein. However, while arguing therefore for the retention of this emphasis, I do now see that I should have also mentioned The Last Man here, given that it evokes Windsor. Happy to rectify that when this discussion finishes. Sunstein mentions The Mourner in a note in this context, but I'm not sure whether a notesworth in a long biography is enough to justify a mention of that story in the main text of our tightly potted equivalent. There are biographical connections in so much of Mary Shelley's fiction.qp10qp (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add this material in. (Note: I'm teaching Frankenstein right now!) Awadewit (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... how about Victor Frankenstein being modeled on Percy Shelley? According to Karen Karbiner, Victor Frankenstein shares Percy Shelley's creativity, intensity, passion and even his propensity to put his work before his family-ties and neglect his lover (Karen Karbiner: "Cursed Tellers, Compelling Tales: The Endurance of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", Introduction to: Mary Shelley: Frankenstein, Barnes & Noble, xiii-xxxi; need to check place & date of publication though). Interesting observation imho... 77.133.45.229 (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Italic text[reply]

I think that is more appropriate for the Frankenstein article. That article is a mess, though. Awadewit (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added the following to the Bishopsgate passage, referenced to Sunstein: "In her novel The Last Man, she later imagined Windsor as a Garden of Eden". The reference can serve for the Alastor mention too. qp10qp (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice & satisfactory I think, though one might have added "and other works" – Mary Shelley is still widely regarded as a "one-novel" (or at most "two-novel"-author, including "The Last Man"). As to Shelley/Victor, I guess you're right that the Shelley-reference would be better on the "Frankenstein"-page – although if one wanted to give an example for the frequent biographical allusions in her work, "Frankenstein" would probably be your best bet. I'll take a look at the "Frankenstein"-article this week anyway, but haven't read enough (yet) I think in order to dig into that one. 77.133.108.178 (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see how different perspectives paint different pictures! According to this article, Payne tried to convince Washington Irving to propose to Shelley when his own love for her was left unrequited. My own readings on Washington Irving actually say that Payne was spurned by Shelley because of her interest in Irving. Payne and Shelley talked about a marriage with Irving before Irving was aware of it, it seems. This information is coming from Washington Irving: An American Original (2008) by Brian Jay Jones. Any comments on the discrepancy in info? --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Could you possibly copy here exactly what Jones says on this? Mary is romantically inscrutable, but perhaps we could try to establish the sequence of events. qp10qp (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a few pages discussing this. I'll summarize and quote where I think it helps. Jones writes that, after keeping their mutual friend Payne "at arm's length", Payne revealed to Irving that she was interested in him (Jones calls it a "crush"). "She said you had interested her more than any one she had seen since she left Italy... that you were gentle and cordial, and that she longed for friendship with you... at first she fired at my mentioning that she talked as if she were in love." She then asked for Irving's letters. She continued corresponding with Payne, at one point noting that marriage plans were taking too long. "Methinks our acquaintance [Irving] proceeds at the rate of the Antediluvians, who, I have somewhere read, though nothing of an interval of a year or two between a visit. Alack! I fear that at this rate, if ever the Church should make us one, it would be announced in the consolatory phrase that the Bride and Bridgegroom's joint ages amounted to the discreet number of 145 and 3 months." Payne tried to convince Irving to pursue the relationship: "I do not ask you to fall in love... very possibly you would have fallen in love with her." On Irving's end, the only mention he makes of Shelley in his journals is one comment: "Read Mrs. Shelley's correspondence before going to bed." He then returned Shelley's letters to Payne. That's all from Jones's book, pages 228 to 230 (sorry for my delay, by the way). --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything there contradicts the account we have in the article, which is:

She also met the American actor John Howard Payne and the American writer Washington Irving. Payne fell in love with her and in 1826 asked her to marry him. She refused, saying that after being married to one genius, she could only marry another. Payne accepted the rejection and tried without success to talk his friend Irving into proposing himself. Mary Shelley was aware of Payne's plan, but how seriously she took it is unclear.

The key issue is whether that last sentence is too cautious. It is always difficult to tell how seriously MS took this sort of thing. She talked of marriage in this same pert-sarcastic tone with Trelawney, and I think the most one can say is that she was probably using humour for self-protection. My reading, therefore, would be that when Payne told her he'd try to fix her up with Irving, she adopted a joky tone as a defence mechanism. I think women talked in layers like that in those days out of necessity. I'm reluctant to believe that Mary spurned Payne because of Irving, or that she "used" Payne to get to Irving, because that sounds so unlike Mary Shelley, who was a very decent, and in some ways innocent, human being, as far as I can see. Payne may have believed that he was being used (that for Mary he was "only a source of introduction") to Irving, but I should think this would be a gambit of his rather than something which Mary would have recognised (after all, her contacts with Payne often did not involve Irving). Since Mary never mentions Payne and hardly mentions Irving in her journals, we are stuck with Payne's version of what happened, which must be treated with caution. One thing is clear: Mary did not ask Payne to show Irving her letters. (If she had, you'd think she'd have tried harder than such phrases as: "Give my love, of course Platonic, to I".) In fact, she asked him to burn them. For me, the key to this whole odd incident is Payne: Payne loved or was infatuated with Mary so much that he would "act the hero", as he put it, for her, so he pursued the Irving thing on her behalf, quite sillily. He was the chief cook and bottle washer of the whole "romance", while Mary and Irving stood on the sidelines—the first not without hope, since she obviously did fancy Irving, and the second (quite understandably, since he'd only met MS three or four times), with bemusement.

However, my reading doesn't count, and it certainly does seem, from what you bring, that Jones has produced, in a book published since we wrote the article, a more detailed account of this human comedy than that provided by MS's biographers.

Awadewit, would you be able to look at this book in your university library to see if or how we need to adjust our passage on this? So far, I have added that Irving intrigued Mary when she met him, to fill in a link in the sequence. qp10qp (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally looked this up. The Irving book makes it clear Payne fell in love with Mary Shelley, but that she rejected him. However, the book also suggests that Shelley pursued Irving through Payne, asking for copies of Irving's letters. Unfortunately, the quotes provided for this interpretation in the biography leave a lot to be desired. I'm not quite sure where they are getting this from. The entire incident could be tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps we should reword the article to make our presentation of it less certain? Awadewit (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the absence of evidence from Shelley herself, it sounds to me like the most we could add would be that Payne believed she had used him to get to Irving. qp10qp (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source for this is the 1907 book The Romance of Mary Shelley, John Howard Payne, and Washington Irving, which contains the letters that Irving, Payne and Shelley wrote to each other. I'm not certain it's all tongue in cheek (Mary seems legitimately flustered when she learns that Irving might read what she wrote about the Antidiluvians!) That said, I do think the interpretation given in this article is entirely fair.Federalistpapers (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ginamarie emanuel proposes a simple factual correction: Mary Shelley's Mother died when she was eleven days old.. The article states that the death occurs ten days post pratun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginamarie emanuel (talk • contribs) 07:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Changed. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments given against including an infobox in the above, 2008, discussion amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Overall consensus on WP is to include infoboxes, both for reader convenience and for the metadata which they emit. I suggest that it is time to add one to this article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to include infoboxes occurs on a case-by-case basis. There is no reason to include one here, as it will only repeat information in the first line of the article, thereby not actually helping the reader and marring the layout of the article. Furthermore, it will add a bunch of code to the top of the article, making it harder to new editors to edit the article, as the usability project has demonstrated. In sum, it will add nothing and be detrimental, so I don't see a reason being presented in the above post to add an infobox. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subjective arguments you now present against having an infobox could apply to almost all infoboxes on Wikipedia. Others are simply fallacious. As for you not seeing a reason: you've clearly ignored what I said, not least "the metadata which they emit". Like I said; this seems to be just [{WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. BTW, the first line of the artcile, on my screen, currently reads "Mary Shelley (née Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin; 30 August 1797 – 1 February". Her age-at-death, to give one example of a typical infobox property, does not occur (on my screen) until after more than 440 lines. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are not mandatory, and for many classes of article, redundant. Particularly when it comes to the arts, they can be grossly misleading and lead to oversimplification. An argument was made in 2008, and little has changed since. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said; no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Does anyone have a substantive reason not to include one? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mandatory, redundant, frequently misleading, simplification. Not suited to articles related to the arts. Contains junk html which makes editing difficult. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So not all WP:IDONTLIKEIT; but fallacies, too. Still no substantive reason. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are where we are so, if thats your reply. Long time no talk, pigs, bty. I missed these discussions. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like the only argument for an infobox here is ILIKEIT, or perhaps "everyone else does it". Mary Shelley isn't a footballer, so I don't really see what use an infobox would be to this article. Kaldari (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear why you apparently think infoboxes are only for footballers, or why you didn't see "both for reader convenience and for the metadata which they emit" in my original comment, above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be your problem, not ours. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you don't get to label all the arguments we've presented fallacies or "I don't like it" simply because you don't agree. We've presented arguments for not having an infobox, as you asked. There is clearly no consensus for an infobox on this article. Awadewit (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Andy, you don't get to label all the arguments we've presented fallacies or "I don't like it" simply because you don't agree.' - indeed not; but as that's not what I've done, I'll label your point a straw-man. There is clearly no consensus for excluding an infobox. In order to arrive at consensus, I've asked what the substantivereasons for not having one might be. There appear to be none. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the rest of us consider repetitious, misleading info, simplification, and making it more difficult for new editors to edit substantive arguments. None of these are strawmen arguments. I consider this discussion at an end, since we are now at the point of repeating ourselves. Awadewit (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, 'the rest of us' seems to be three of you. The points you now make may not be straw-men (note that I didn't say that the were; so arguing that they are not is in itself a straw-man); but since they do not prevent the inclusion of an infobox in other, comparable, articles, and that inclusion does not prevent those articles from being used an edited, the points; neither are they substantive; they are merely your opinions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "reader convenience", that's what the first sentence is for, and we have metadata from the Persondata template. So I still don't see the use of adding an infobox here. Kaldari (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed the deficiencies of the fist sentence; above. Even if it were improved, infoboxes offer additional user convenience. Persondata is peculiar to Wikipedia; the metadata emitted by infoboxes, the hCard microformat, is a generic, open standard understood by tools such as Google and Yahoo. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]