Talk:Wedding of Nora Robinson and Alexander Kirkman Finlay

Wedding gifts

Whilst the list of what the couple received (and who they received them from) is extensive and well documented, I feel that it is in violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT. The prose in the section seems to adequately explain both the customary and some specifically notable points or givers, so I suggest that this list be pared down to maybe two or three gifts from notable guests in addition to what is in prose (i.e. remove all the bullets). In any event, very detailed description of items on the list such as "a handsome travelling clock with exquisitely worked Japanese panels" and "a silver-mounted walnut-case, with cut glass perfume bottles, and beautiful silver monogram in shamrocks and thistles" (emphasis is mine) would seem to be highly subjective and excessive. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried several different ways of presenting the information about the gifts and was of two minds about the adjectives applied in the press reports. I do think that the reader would be interested in them and they provide a rare insight. However, the list is too long so I have selected some gifts to make the points about their significance. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. With a very selective number of gifts where there is a particular significance, I would have no problem in principle in their inclusion. I just object to having an exhaustive list, like what you inserted. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Tone of whole article

I agree with the comments above about the wedding gifts, and would extend my criticism to the whole article. It is about the wedding of two non-notable people. We are told that it "was only the second vice-regal wedding to take place in the colony", but not what a vice-regal wedding was, nor anything about the first one. It reads like an article from a Hello magazine of 130 years ago, not something that belongs in an encyclopedia.

The wedding, which is the subject of the article, not the people, is highly notable, given that a large proportion of the population turned up to see it, the press covered it extensively, and among the guests were many very notable people. In all these respects the article contributes to an encyclopedic understanding of the significance of marriages, which has long been understood to be important from the dynastic, social and political perspective. In the colony, this wedding was clearly significant.

The text explains about the previous vice regal wedding: "The only previous time that a wedding of a daughter of the representative of the Queen in New South Wales had been celebrated in Sydney was at the marriage of the Hon. Sir Edward Deas Thomson, C.B., K.C.M.G., with the daughter of Governor Sir Richard Bourke" and the reference given shows that Deas Thomson was in fact at the Finlay-Robinson wedding breakfast. Furthermore, "vice-regal" is linked, so if you do not know what it means it is easy to find out. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And the subsequent events section is weird. Instead of "they both lived happily ever after" or whatever, we are told that he went back to Scotland and she married someone else. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Real life is not Hollywood. People die and things go awry. That is what happens. Readers want to know what happened. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, readers want to know what happened - but we aren't really told. Presumably, they divorced at some date. But the reader is left guessing. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. The reader is not left guessing. The article says: "The groom returned to his home, Castle Toward in Scotland where he died on 29 July 1883. His will ..." etc. The text continues: "The bride married Charles Richard Durant ... on 8 September 1887." So, her first husband died quite young and had gone back to his parents' home (presumably with his wife) and four years after his death she remarried. The only remaining mystery is why he died but the fact that he was back in Scotland implies that he went back home because he was very ill. I have added the words " (then Nora Finlay)" in the hope of clarifying a little and if I ever find out why he died, I will add that too. Divorce in those days was difficult and expensive. There is nothing scandalous, only sad. Nevertheless, it is clear from the records (and in the article) that Nora outlived both husbands. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I still find "Subsequent events The groom returned to his home, Castle Toward in Scotland" quite surprising. It reads as if this happened immediately after the wedding. I guess that in fact they lived together, somewhere in Australia, for several years before his return to Scotland. Maproom (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they went back to Glenormiston, in Victoria, I assume. You make a good point that it seems a sudden jump from wedding to death. I appreciate your interest and feedback and have tried to make the juncture less abrupt. Looking at it again, I saw that the fault was in my writing - the timeframes were not clear. I think it is better now. I was trying to develop the article without wandering too far off the topic. Various things were already deleted before it went live (and the gift list afterwards!) and various other things were not included. The more I found out about the story, the more fascinated I became (as you can tell because I wrote this article about it). I have more information about life at the time. I fear though, that if I add it, you might find it to be off-topic. We will see! :) Whiteghost.ink (talk)