Talk:List of wedding ceremony participants

Photos and Education/Media

This ringbearer image was removed with the reason "no model release" this evening, but I have readded it. This is why:

1. The photo is already released under a GFDL license, giving anyone permission to copy, reproduce, edit, etc. the image.
2. The image also appears on another page where it was assessed for cuteness by the photographer and others (and this cannot have been done either if there was a model-release problem).
3. Most of all, Wikipedia is an educational/media resource at its heart (as an online encyclopedia), and law specifically permits photos to be published in educational/media without model releases. (Ever wonder why the newspaper photojournalist never asks you to sign anything when he/she takes your picture?)

The image has existed on the Ringbearer page and was simply absorbed into this page when the pages (stubs) were merged into a master conglomerate article.

And by the way, it is "cute". VigilancePrime (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC) :-)

This photo was taken at a private event, not a public event. Therefore the right to publish is not automatically granted by the parents. --Mactographer (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps better said, "has been requested to remove from family"? That's no problem, but should have Talk Page comment first. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

MERGES DISCUSSION

from Celebrant (United States)

• This has been moved to Celebrant USA Foundation and Institute as being the correct title of the organization. Mangoe (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

from Celebrant (Australia)

• Can we please take this one off the table right away since this discusses a term specific to Australia regulated by Australian law and understood by the entire adult population?PelleSmith (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this from the merger now since no one has objected and I will split the entry back up soon unless someone articulates a good reason not to.PelleSmith (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

from Marriage officiant

• Do it! Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

from Officiant

• I've removed this from consideration, as "officiant" refers to the leader of a variety of rites, not just marriage. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

from Humanist officiant

• I've also removed this from consideration because these people do more than just weddings. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not merge -- SPLIT this entry

I think the merger suggestions above are exactly the opposite of what should be done here. This entry is already too wide ranging and meandering, its contents should be split appropriately. Keep in mind that wedding ceremonies performed in different cultures, by different ethnic groups from various religious traditions often have many idiosyncratic types of "participants." We can already see that fact in the current entry and the only direction for an entry like this to go is to expand even more. I think some of the subcategories could maybe be merged with each other but I'm pretty opposed to this parent entry.PelleSmith (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I definately vote for a split - my goodness, this is turning into a thesis on the topic of weddings, I only wanted a BRIEF description of what the maid of honor is, not a full-day's lecture.... --WiseWoman (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly rename

I notice now that all the original seperate entries were simply moved and redirected into this parent entry earlier this month without any discussion on any of entry talk pages. I still think they should be split up again, with main entries for each type of wedding participant, but I have an additional suggestion. Keep this entry, in a much shorter form with various summaries for each type of participant, but rename it to specify what type of wedding ceremony it is really about--American (possibly "Western") wedding ceremonies.PelleSmith (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the entires were stubs. It was a consolidation to create one solid, well-sized article from many weak, stubby articles. All the above pages are basically different terms for the same thing (more or less). Instead of having a bunch of poorly-sourced, over-short pages, we could have one very solid, longer article. That was the intent. Discussion was forewent because the stub consolidation seemed a no-brainer. If anyone wants to resplit them AND fill them up to a decent size, please do! Otherwise, the big-picture preference should be to one good article and not many poor or marginal articles. (I would think.) VigilancePrime (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with this entry is that it artificially organizes information under an non-notable heading on conceptual grounds. This is more in line with how we use lists and less so with entries. The information organized in the entry is itself notable in common English through terms like "wedding" itself, and then all the various participant names themselves. While I like the idea of having a list of participants in American (or Western) wedding ceremonies I think organizing them thus in an entry is artificial. What if we cut down the information in this entry so as to summarize the stubs into one liners and had main entry links to the original more specialized entries that go to actual notable concepts? I also think a stub is more likely to get fleshed out in the future and there is definitely lots of information to create larger entries for each of the participants that were merged into this entry. I would also like to point out that the above concepts that are now suggested to merge into this entry are not actually synonymous though they all relate to types of wedding officiants. For instance in Australia everyone knows what a celebrant is, because celebrants are regulated by the state, and in fact all legally recognized wedding officiants are called celebrants, whereas in the United States the term has only very recently come into usage amongst a very small minority many of whom are attempting to adopt the Australian practice of civil celebrancy to the United States (e.g. the subject matter of the current entry on US celebrancy). You could argue that the latter American practice isn't notable enough, however the Australian one certainly is and should not simply be lumped together with various other English or American terms for wedding officiants. This leads me to the remaining issue of the cultural assumptions taken by this entry (which I would rather see as a list). It mainly organizes information from the Euro-American traditions of Christian and post-Christian peoples. The problem is that even those peoples will readily refer to the marriage ceremonies of other groups (religious, ethnic, etc.) as weddings. It simply isn't correct to keep this title, even for a list, in its current generalized state.PelleSmith (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unmerge

I disagree with the merging of so many articles into this page. It is unwieldy at this point. Each section can have a little blurb and the use the Main template to point to the distinct articles on each subject. There's no reason the bride's attire has to be discussed here. It should be in a bride article. — Reinyday, 02:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge

The term maid of honour has two other meanings in the UK as this article explains and as that page redirects here, the explanation given is important. These definitions would be removed should this article only cover weddings.

I disagree with the merging too

Lets split this article again. There is absolutely no need to merge so many good articles. More smaller entries are much better for a fast overview. Wiki is not paper --77.64.135.107 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. IP,

They were not good articles. Most were no-section stubs.

By all means, split them and turn them into real articles.

But one very good article is better than 5 pathetic ones.

A couple of these could be standalones, but most... forget it.

Unless you're going to go and rewrite them all to a decent size, in which case, Go For It!!!

  VigilancePrime   •   15:16, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)   :-)  

I disagree again. This article is now much too long and will become perhaps even longer! As I said before short articles are much better for a fast overview and encourage to add some information. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with short entries or even stubs. --77.64.135.107 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A better merge

This article duplicates the matterial in White wedding#Attendees and so we should just merge to that section. Mangoe (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Heteronormative

This article is very heteronormative. A wedding party does not consist necessarily of a male and female part nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.220.67 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 May 2008

Bridesmaids -- subsections

Mrg3105, can you explain why you reverted all of my recent edits? Here's what I did:

• I moved the reference in the ==Sources== section to its proper spot in the article. No information was deleted in this process. Yet your summary was "do not delete sources" and "do not delete sourced content."

• I created a new ===History=== subsection for the ==Bridesmaids== section. You reverted that as "not a particularly good faith move" -- and then immediately re-created two history-related sections. How is making a history section bad faith on my part, but good faith on your part?

Let's go over that edit in detail. I did three things:

1. I moved it to the end of the bridesmaids section, so that the end of the history subsection wouldn't randomly merge with the next paragraph in the regular bridesmaids section. Have a look at what you've done: after two paragraphs of "History", the article reverts to current practice, without any differentiation.
2. I moved the paragraph about dressing alike in Victorian England to follow the paragraph about dressing alike in Rome, since these are connected ideas (the 19th century practice in England being believed to derive directly from the older Roman practice).
3. I deleted the parentage and translation of the names of two remarkably unimportant figures in the Hebrew scriptures -- a section that I considered deleting entirely, because no source says that these women were actually participants in the wedding ceremony. ("Maid" is not the same as "bridesmaid.")

Now what in this could possibly be construed as bad faith, as opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no necessity to do all this. Usually history precedes the rest of the text as it shows development of the concept, and is written chronologically from oldest to newest developments. One section heading was all that was needed.

The entire section is referenced, and the unimportant figures are your opinion because they are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. The women were present at the ceremony, and the word bridesmaid does come from the maid of the bride, i.e. bride's maid. By the way, this practice of a maid coming with the bride was retained for a very long time, remember Maid Marion from Robin Hood?

Moreover, in-text citation is to be discouraged because it comes out in very small and hard to see font. All at is necessary in referencing are the page numbers, which also allows creation of shorter reference columns in the more referenced articles.

I may have been wrong at accusing you of bad faith edits because I did not realise you only moved the source, but there is no need to do that either. In any case I apologise if you were just trying to improve the article. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You say that "One section heading was all that was needed." You put in two sections. I put in one. So if "One section heading was all that was needed," why did you remove my one section in favor of your two sections? Why don't you correct what you now admit was an unneeded change on your part?

I removed the parentage and translation of these women's names because it has nothing to do with them being bridesmaids. Do you think that it's important for this article to explain that Zilpah's name means "drooping" and that her father's name was Laban? Does the meaning of her name tell you anything at all about bridesmaids?

Finally, you assert that in-text citation is to be discouraged because you personally dislike the font size used in the ref template. Leaving aside the existence of larger-font templates (<references />, for example), the actual guidelines, as opposed to your personal preference, say that all citations for a given article need to use the same, consistent format. Your choice is between using the citation style already in the article, or changing all of the refs to the new style. Adding "just yours" in a special, different style is not permitted under WP:CITE.

Your changes were inappropriate, and your edit summaries were rude and insulting. I do not accept "I may have been wrong" as an adequate apology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I added two sections of which one was unrelated to your edit, but simply separated the origin of the tradition from the development of the tradition.

<references /> is not available from the formatting toolbar

Given that Wikipedia caters to all users and not only those with 20-20 vision, the use of small fonts is to be discouraged, and I will bring it up in the relevant talks. I'm sorry if you were insulted, and that you are unable to accept the apology as given. I admitted my mistake, but I am not going to drop to my knees if that is your expectation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no need for you to drop to your knees. I do, however, understand the difference between "I may have been wrong" -- an unimportant admission of the possibility of an error -- and "I was wrong." If you intended it as an apology, and not as weasel words, then I accept it.

This still leaves us with the problems in the article: I maintain that the order needs to be changed so that current practice is not physically part of the history subsection, and that the details of the two women's names and parentage are out of place. Do you have any further comment, or shall I boldly make the changes I believe are appropriate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Young bridesmaid? Or flower girl?

About the photo captioned, "A young bridesmaid at a wedding in Thornbury Castle, South Gloucestershire, England". She's wearing a white dress, and she looks like she's too young to be even a junior bridesmaid. I think this girl was actually a flower girl. Does anyone else have any thoughts? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In the broad western wedding tradition there is a continuum along the matron (or maid) of honour/bridesmaid/junior bridesmaid/flower girl line that a female in a supporting role can be "cast" as. The lines are blurry and change depending on local custom, individual circumstances and even the personal whim of those involved. Since the photographer who uploaded the photo lables it "bridesmaid" it seems like that's the most "official" lable. But if we want to illustrate the flower girl section it wouldn't be a terrible photo to use - one with a young girl actually holding flowers would probably be better though. -- SiobhanHansa 01:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a hard cutoff for the age, but there is a strong convention that only the bride wears white at a white wedding -- the sole exception being the flower girl, if she and the ring bearer are dressed up to look like a miniature bridal couple.

I agree that a flower girl who is actually strewing flower petals from her basket would be preferable. Surely there's such a pic floating around somewhere on Commons? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I really think you're reading more into these rules than is justified. Where I grew up young girls would often wear white to weddings (whether they were in the bridal party or not) because their "best dress" was white. I never heard anyone say anything negative about the practice (other than the odd comment about how she was bound to get grass stains on it...). But not all girls wearing white were flower girls and not all flower girls wore white. Since that time I've known women who think even a baby dressed in white is a bit of an insult to the bride. I think culturally these things are very fluid and we do a disservice to our readers by portraying them as strict. -- SiobhanHansa 12:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So I had a look on commons but there don't seem to be any better flowergirl images there. There are several on flikr that have appropriate licensing. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] among others. Personally I like number 2 best. Alternatively (if folks don't like any of those and there's opposition to using the Thornbury Castle girl) we could try posting on the talk:wedding photography page to see if any of the people there have access to one (there seem to be several wedding photographers who contribute photos to that article). -- SiobhanHansa 16:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And of those options basically work for me (although I don't like the little blonde girl wearing makeup) and several seem somewhat more descriptive than just "little girl wearing fancy dress". I like the one where the girl is walking on the scattered petals, as showing a bit more of the "job" in context, but I'd take your favorite as my second choice (and perhaps third choice, too). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the one I think you meant. If I misinterpreted feel free to change it to the one you actually meant! -- SiobhanHansa 20:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I meant. I do like your favorite as well -- it has the best "picture" qualities of the bunch -- if you wanted to add two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Groom/groom wording

I understand that ignoring the fact that same-sex weddings have been very uncommon until recently and are still virtually unheard of in some parts of the world does not make sense. But I think we need to be careful that the wording does not mistake legal recognition of marriage with wedding ceremonies - which do not always have legal recognition and may not be a part of a legally recognized marriage. At the moment the wording is:

The female partner is known as the bride, who is typically attended by one or more bridesmaids and a maid or matron of honor. In recent years, some countries (and to date, two states in the USA) have recognized same sex marriages which allow for two grooms or two brides.

I suggest changing this to:

The female partner is known as the bride. In cases where two men wed they are both known as grooms.

(The bit about bridesmaids etc. seems like duplication with other bits of the article) -- SiobhanHansa 14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been wondering whether the whole bit about the groom's partners could be deleted. I suspect (but haven't checked) that it dates from when Bridegroom was an entirely separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. the other sections would probably benefit from similar edits. I'd support this proposal (and even be happy to have a go at doing it if there's agreement). -- SiobhanHansa 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over the bridegrooms

A bridegroom in India

I find the edit war over the same-sex grooms to be boring, and I'm inclined to revert its deletion simply out of stubbornness, but the fact is that 99% of weddings don't involve two gay men marrying each other, so it might be a WP:DUE weight issue. What do you think about replacing it with a non-Western wedding picture? With the exception of the recently added Asian bride (wearing a rather Western outfit), all of the people in the main article are white. The image involved in the edit war could be put in the gallery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. However, it should be noted that the original picture was removed on the basis that it didn't depict a "wedding" which is patently false. I would have done the same thing Icarus did under those circumstances. On the other hand WhatamIdoing makes a good point about WEIGHT. Put it in the gallery.PelleSmith (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed multiple times, usually by an anonymous editor who leaves no edit summary. Having a large percentage of the pictures in the article depict a comparatively rare sort of wedding would be undue weight, but having one (or two, of someone wanted to include a female same-sex wedding photo too) is not. I would not support moving or removing the image if that were the sole reason. However, I do agree that the article would benefit from more non-Western photos. Since the proposed alternative here improves the article by giving it a more global perspective, I support using the Indian picture as the main image in the "Groom" section. The same-sex wedding picture can go in the gallery where it can serve to illustrate the variety found among wedding ceremonies, hopefully without being the same constant target for removal. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made the changes we agreed to here. It will be interesting to see what happens next. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The picture you are discussing seems to be missing from the gallery, if someone could put it back?
Hmm... research suggests it was deleted due to “lack of sourcing”. I will encourage the groom to re-upload it. In the mean time, can anyone find a replacement? I think it deserves a place in the gallery, though I will agree it is not necessary in the main article as written. --WikidSmaht (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bridesmaids

The section on bridesmaids as an idiomatic term was deleted today as being "off topic". I'm not sure what to do. This is one of the awkward consequences of merging everything into a single article. Presumably it made more sense when Bridesmaid was a stand-alone article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you and Gilabrand both have good points. It was kind of out of place in the article, but it's also a common-enough usage that it would make sense to at least acknowledge it. How about including a brief explanation of "always a bridesmaid, never a bride" but in a shorter version without all of the trivia about miscellaneous sports and pop culture uses? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Icarus, I would have no objection to that. But I do think a reference is necessary.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Groomsmen image

Bridegroom with his Best Man and ushers.

Gilabrand has been doing a great job of cleaning up the image clutter, and improving the image distribution overall. Thanks for being bold in doing that, I think it's a definite improvement! I'm wondering what other people's opinions are of the groomsmen image, though. I agree that it's not ideal since we can't tell who the groom is (I've attempted more than once to figure out, lol, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who couldn't!), but unless there's a better one (along the lines of what Gilabrand has put in for the bridesmaids, for example) I personally think it's better to have this one than to not have one at all. What do other editors think? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not pleased with the majority of image changes. For example, under Bride/attire, we now have a picture in which the groom is more prominent than the bride, and very little of the bride's attire can be seen. Under Bride/history, we now have a picture of a modern bridal gown. I think we should re-think these changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Granted, there's still room for improvement. I just swapped a couple of images to put a more historical photo in the historical section. I'm thinking more in terms of removing what were clearly personal photos people had uploaded regardless of whether or not they truly improved the article. If the overall changes need discussion maybe we ought to create another section on this talk page to keep discussions clearly defined. Do you have an opinion on the Groomsmen image? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the identity of the groom is important, but he's the second from the left. (See also this one.

I'd rather have an image than no image. That they're all dressed almost identically is in keeping with current "white wedding" etiquette anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The layout was problematic, with many of the images not really fitting in with the text, which is why I put them where they are. If someone can do better, they are welcome to try. It was quite a puzzle to get them in without huge gaps. In terms of photo choices, if there are more suitable ones, please put them in - but as it is there were far too many, they were of poor quality, and they did not illustrate the text. --Gilabrand (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Huge gaps? The previous version of this page had no gaps on my screen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Groom's Outfit

I would like to add [7] as a footnote reference to the Groom section, where it says "British tradition requires groom, male ushers and close male family to wear morning suits". I previously added this reference but it was removed. I am not sure why as the referenced page is carefully researched and receives good feedback from visitors. I am not aware of any other UK based site which has better coverage on this topic. However I do have a (non financial) interest in the referenced site as I run it so it probably makes sense to declare it here and let others decide. Thanks. 82.71.0.62 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a bad source, but I wonder whether a better one could be found? Perhaps an etiquette book would be a better choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of UK specific etiquette books were consulted when the page was being written but they are pretty thin on this issue, and not very recently updated (part of the reason for writing the page in the first place). I would quite like to add the site reference until one is found although I accept there might be a more authoritative citation out there which should replace it82.71.0.62 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Celebrant

I'm under the impression that the "celebrants" in the more liturgical Christian traditions are technically the bride and groom themselves, not the priest (who might be an "officiant" from the perspective of the secular government, but is there solely as a witness from the perspective of the religious institution). The rationale appears to be that the priest can't cause them be married by any action of his, and therefore he's not performing the ceremony.

Does anyone know whether "celebrant" is the (non-marketing) legal or canonical term for the priest/rabbi/pastor/imam/justice of the peace/whatever in any jurisdiction? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Layout

About this reversion to the "better" layout: The so-called better layout causes image bunching, screws up the location of edit tabs, overrides user preferences for image sizes, doesn't follow the zig-zag image placement recommended by the WP:MOS, and moves one of our few images of a groom into the overloaded section on brides.

Can someone tell me why this is "better", meaning "better, and not just on a computer screen of the exact size and settings used by one editor"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)