Talk:Mary Shelley bibliography

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books B‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Novels: Short story Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.

Bibliographies Low‑importance

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Pole

Gittings and Manton (164–65) suggest that Claire Clairmont co-authored this with Mary Shelley. According to them, it was published in The English Annual for 1836 as by "the author of Frankenstein", and the two shared the payment. If, as our bibliography states, it was published in 1832, this would scotch that idea, though.qp10qp (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no other discussion of its co-authorship. Should we add a footnote? Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Via Google Books, I found a good discussion of the issue in Charles Robinson's 1990 edition of the Collected Tales and Stories, p. 399. ([1]). He says (aha!) that it was published in both The Court Magazine (1832) and The English Annual (1836). He traces the partial attribution to Clairmont back to Bradford A. Booth (1938) and endorses it. Booth and Robinson are cited (Google Books) in the entry for The Pole in The Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (1999), p. 1075. qp10qp (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Awadewit asked me to look this article over and, to the non-expert, it seems excellent! :D The gifts and devotion of its author are apparent in every section. :) The following are some suggestions to help convey its graces:

I think I would waken the article to life by adding perhaps 2-3 paragraphs to the lead to introduce Mary Shelley, to set her works in their historical context, to survey her works, and more generally to provide a red thread that the reader can pursue, Theseus-like, through the labyrinth. Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - the lead looks so forlorn right now, doesn't it? I was going to do this when I finished putting together the list. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same might be said for the sections. Perhaps 3-4 sentences for each to survey the list and place those works in the context of her whole life? Not by bread alone...but perhaps with sauce? Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. The works are often discussed by genre in the criticism, so that shouldn't be too hard. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that scholars will find this a simple-minded question, but the expression "Printed for X" makes me wonder "by whom?". That is, I'm guessing that that wording means that there was some unnamed printer who actually printed the work for a noble, or for another publisher? I also wasn't sure how to parse the publisher information for Frankenstein: "London: Printed for Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mayor, & Jones"? Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that means there was a printer. We don't always know who it was and it is usually not included in the publication information. The reason the bibliography entry appears this way is because the title page does. If you think about it, the "Printed for" is still implicit - publishing houses have just dropped those words. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be customary, but using boldface type for volume numbers might help to spice up, you know, give more visual interest to eash line, e.g., "The Bride of Modern Italy". The London Magazine 9 (1824): 351–363. Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't bring myself to do that. It conforms to no known bibliographic standard that I know! I just can't! It would be so painful. :) It just looks so wrong. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the name really "Charles Jũgill"? The tilde seemed so — umm, exotic. Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is supposed to be an umlaut. I can barely see the symbols in the box under the editing window and I must have picked the wrong one! Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "n.d." in Proserpine threw me; does it mean "not dated"? Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"No date", yes. Expanded in brackets. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are square brackets needed around "and others" in the author column of the first table? Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure yet, actually. I have to find out what the original title page says. It is surprisingly hard to find out! Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For brevity, perhaps you could put the Keepsake references into a Bibliography? Their publishing data are repeated in the Short story and Poems sections. Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand - sorry! Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add the Clemit and Markley reference to the Bibiography? Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to figure out a better way to discuss those volumes. That is actually "Volume 4" of the Literary Lives and Other Writings. I'll probably list each volume separately or something, eventually. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fragment table might benefit from more explanation? I wasn't sure how to interpret the manuscript codes, and the titles were...intriguing. My imagination starts spinning yarns when I see something as tantalizingly ambiguous... ;) Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I'm going to add a "Notes" section and explain each fragment. There are lots more fragments to add, too. Actually, I don't know how to interpret the manuscript codes, either. I assume if one went to the library, that would become clear? I suppose I could always write to them and ask for an explanation. Or maybe there is some information on their website. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! You know how much I appreciate your advice! Awadewit (talk)

it would seem to me that the following sentence in the "Quotes-Section" is incomplete: ""draws on particularly passages in the Old Testament books of Genesis...". Particularly what??? Is there a word missing in the quoted material (in which case angular brackets shold be added) or is it an oversight? 77.133.45.229 (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved (non-admin closure) Cloudz 679 16:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by Mary Shelley → Mary Shelley bibliography – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Name change for WP wide consistency of author bibliography titles per advice of WikiProject Bibliographies. Mike Cline (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is not a list of works about Mary Shelly, it's a list of works by Mary Shelley. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed the opposer is correct, this is a list of works by Mary Shelly and should properly be entitled Mary Shelly bibliography as an author bibliography. Whereas if this list was of works about Mary Shelly, it should properly be entitled Bibliography of Mary Shelley as a topical bibliography. This proposed rename is aimed at bringing consistency in article names to the locus of articles that are author bibliographies. Consistency is one of the five primary naming criteria in our titling policy WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA. Currently, 94% of the articles (245) in Category:Bibliographies by author are entitled Author bibliography. It seems logical that we try and bring along the other 16% in a measured way. This is what this nom in about. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The distinction between "Shelley biblio" and "Biblio of Shelley" is as clear as mud. Using regular English language grammar, the two are frequently equivalent. That the current "consistent" names are so undistinguishing is rather disappointing. Rather, the current standard is substandard, and should be rethought. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could we please have spelling fixed in these RMs? I have corrected two misspelt words in the proposed title. They are a distraction we can do without; and in the case of "Shelly" it can appear as if that change is indeed intended – as more historically accurate, or whatever. Noetica^Tea? 22:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice at WT:WikiProject Bibliographies that there is controversy over a mass rename of biblio/list of works articles, so the consistency claimed appears to be a newly created consistency based on a new project's recent guideline. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Please note the that mass renaming alluded to above was done by User:Curb Chain unilaterally, and without any association with the WikiProject Bibliographies. Please read ANI discussions [2] and [3]. Additionally, User:70.24.248.23 has conveinently ignored the fact that Consistency is one of the five WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA contained in our titling policy. Within the Category:Bibliographies by author there are 244 entries. 232 of those entries ~(95%) are entitled Author bibiliography. Our WP:TITLE consistency policy reads: •Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions. The bibliography project merely points out this consistency policy for author bibliographies, it doesn't and hasn't imposed it as a newly created consistency as 70.24.248.23 alludes to above. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strongly oppose, The present title indicates the subject of this article precisely; similarly, one appropriate title for a bibliography of works on Shelley would be Bibliography of works on Mary Shelley. There are others, but these two are clear and immediately distinguishable from each other. JCScaliger (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as I can see, the distinction between "John Doe bibliography" and "bibliography of John Doe" is absolutely artificial. Both could refer to works by or about John Doe. "List of works by John Doe" is an unambigous title or this kind of articles, just as "list of publications about John Doe" (or the above-proposed "Bibliography of works on John Doe") would be unambiguous. I note that similar discussions are taking place simultaneously at several list articles and strongly suggest that consensus should be obtained at the community level instead. At this point the results of these discussions vary per article and consistency would be vastly preferable. --Crusio (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.