Talk:Personal wedding website

message: There's a section that says:
:In 2007 there are expected to be 2.29 million weddings in the United States alone. According to a survey by TheKnot.com, 65 percent of respondents indicated intent to create their own wedding website. Top reasons cited for creating the site included listing wedding day details and making online gift registries available to guests.
(I added the in the US alone" wording.)  I presume this is in here to give the reader some idea about the number of individual wedding sites that are likely to be created, but I don't think it's reliable and the paragraph ought to come out.  This is because the Knott poll is simply a self selecting sample of already web-inclined people and the Knott has a huge self interest in promoting high numbers in this regard (since they provide the service free to increase their audience for their customers).  The estimate of weddings seems like a reasonable source (official industry based market research tends to be reasonably accurate) but that data is irrelevant without the percentage data.  Does anyone know of a more reliable replacement for the knott data?  Or another, better source that we could use?  If not I think the whole prargraph needs to come out.
We could also use statistics on other countries - is this an entirely US phenomenon?  Is it more prevalent or different in the UK?  Japan?  Brazil? etc.  Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 08:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wedding statistics 

message: I scanned the external link policy and while I didn't read it thoroughly I didn't quite catch why the last link that I included was invalid.  I don't necessarily think that every wedding website company out there should be included on the page... Wikipedia is not a directory, I get that.  I noticed you SiobhanHansa deleted a link from JustProposed.com.  I agree with that.  But the site I linked to compares a bunch of them side by side and offers reviews in the event that someone was looking for one.  Perhaps I should have linked here http://www.weddingwebsites.com/compare.php?  --Weddingexpert 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So my thinking on that link went like this: It's not a well known or widely respected site, there's no provenance on the site, there's no indication of how the sites are chosen for comparison.  And more importantly, the site doesn't tell us about the subject of personal wedding websites, comparison shopping isn't encyclopedic.   As well as not being a directory, we're also not a portal or a place to come for recommendations. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Policy 

message: === To-Do List ===
Along with the definition at the top of the article, we will add several areas of interest to the reader. To help the reader navigate the webpage, we will construct a table of contents listing all of the sections within our article. We plan on adding visual elements to our article as well to attract the reader's attention. Gina  will be working on a compare and contrast section to prove to the reader how using a wedding website will benefit them instead of using a wedding planner. Also, there will be a section on the history of wedding websites to give the readers some background information. Finally, there will be about 6-7 sections about specific wedding websites. Chris and I split these up evenly, so I have these 3 websites: 
http://www.wedsite.com/?gclid=CMGC4eCCtKsCFUqK4AodmTkycQ
http://www.weddingwindow.com/?ad=go&gclid=COu0jeKCtKsCFYeo4Aod9yLsfQ
http://www.weddingwire.com/wedding-websites.html?pcode=ioenhl&gclid=CPrz1uOCtKsCFYyD5Qodgnmreg
I will be summarizing for the reader what each website offers. Specifically, I will analyze the services that these websites offer, the costs involved (if any), and the features on the page (for example, some websites have a music section while others do not). Essentially, we will do all the research for the readers. 
Additional references: 
Melendez, Crystal and Jason. E-Plan Your Wedding: How to Save Time and Money with Today's Best Online Resources. San Jose, California: Mediasoft Press, 2008. 
Sabino, Catherine. Sylish Weddings for Less: How to Plan Your Dream Wedding on a Budget. New York: Filipacchi Publishing, 2009.
Kds57 (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the links listed above as a laundry list of websites isn't really appropriate to the article. It just invites everyone to add their own website and ends up being a spammy list. See WP:EL for details. Falcon8765 (TALK) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do Lists 

message: Along with the definition at the top of the article, we will add several areas of interest to the reader. To help the reader navigate the webpage, we will construct a table of contents listing all of the sections within our article. We plan on adding visual elements to our article as well to attract the reader's attention. Gina  will be working on a compare and contrast section to prove to the reader how using a wedding website will benefit them instead of using a wedding planner. Also, there will be a section on the history of wedding websites to give the readers some background information. Finally, there will be about 6-7 sections about specific wedding websites. Chris and I split these up evenly, so I have these 3 websites: 
http://www.wedsite.com/?gclid=CMGC4eCCtKsCFUqK4AodmTkycQ
http://www.weddingwindow.com/?ad=go&gclid=COu0jeKCtKsCFYeo4Aod9yLsfQ
http://www.weddingwire.com/wedding-websites.html?pcode=ioenhl&gclid=CPrz1uOCtKsCFYyD5Qodgnmreg
I will be summarizing for the reader what each website offers. Specifically, I will analyze the services that these websites offer, the costs involved (if any), and the features on the page (for example, some websites have a music section while others do not). Essentially, we will do all the research for the readers. 
Additional references: 
Melendez, Crystal and Jason. E-Plan Your Wedding: How to Save Time and Money with Today's Best Online Resources. San Jose, California: Mediasoft Press, 2008. 
Sabino, Catherine. Sylish Weddings for Less: How to Plan Your Dream Wedding on a Budget. New York: Filipacchi Publishing, 2009.
Kds57 (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do List 

message: I will be writing a section about the comparisons between using a wedding planner and using a personal wedding website.  I want to see the price differences between the two, is it cheaper to use a wedding planner? Or is it more economical to use a personal wedding website? I will be researching the cost of a wedding planner and with the help of the other members of my group, I will know the costs of using personal websites.
This is one source I am considering using to cite the price of a wedding planner is at this link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=sIGVWGljsycC&pg=PA90&dq=average+price+for+wedding+planner&hl=en&ei=Rt1_TuSbD-bj0QHFqoTsDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CGUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Also, as I was looking for books to cite, I found a lot of books for personal wedding planning. I'm guessing this is what people did before the internet and wedding websites became the norm so I think it would be important for us to include that in the history section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmz10 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  to-do list 

message: I will be compiling information on the following websites which offer personalized "wedsites". 
http://www.ewedding.com/ 
http://www.mywedding.com/
https://www.weddingwire.com/
I will be recording Services the site offers (checklists, budgets, Guest lists, vendors, etc.), Cost (monthly, flat, free, trial offers, etc.), and Page set-ups (Homepage, wedding party, event information, accommodations, etc.)
From here a table and detailed section of each page will be constructed. Along with this will be a collage of the different sites.
crmatthews89 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2011
Good start. If you cite commercial websites, take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29, and remember that such sources are likely to be biased towards themselves. Google books has about 50 potential sources, they would be on average more reliable than websites. Consider also searching through media reports through Google News and other services. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the links listed above as a laundry list of websites isn't really appropriate to the article. It just invites everyone to add their own website and ends up being a spammy list. See WP:EL for details. Falcon8765 (TALK) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do List 

message: After reading the "grounds for divorce" article, I liked how there were subsections inside a larger section of the article. I thought they were a little disorganized, but for our group I would be interested in seeing how we could improve this format and apply it to our article. For example, I think we could have a large section of "examples of wedding websites" and then subsections of those different wedding websites instead of all larger sections of the different websites. However, I still think we should make a table of contents to jump down to different sections more easily. I'm not sure if the format I'm suggesting would allow us to do that though.
Also, I looked at the Marriage in the U.S. article, and they already have a picture up on their site. I know we were considering this and after looking at their article that had a visual element, I definitely think it would draw readers in. 
Kds57 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  informal review 

message: After reading your discussion page about everything you have planned, this seems like it will be a very interesting article!  At first, when I read your article I wasn't sure how much information you would be able to get about it, since there wasn't much written yet.  However, I think you brought up some really good points in your to-do lists, including, the ideas about visual elements to help people see exactly what these websites are about, also, another good thing is to compare the sites with wedding planners to help people make decisions about what to use.  Overall, I think this is a good topic because it's new and relevant to our society, it will be interesting to read when it's complete.
Nll27 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  informal review 

message: I think this article could be interesting. I would probably like to learn more about the topic. Hopefully you can find reputable sources to back up your information. Maybe you could look into how technology has changed the way weddings take place in the United States. Do these websites have any type of relation to dating websites? Are they like social media sites for weddings? Just questions I'm thinking of as I look at your topic and wonder how you'll elaborate. Interesting topic though! Hope it works out well, I would like to see the finished product! 
Rojast07 (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal Review

message: This specific article's topic is based on a web-based market, therefore a majority of the literature and information is strictly found on these individual websites. In-order to provide detailed information on the subject links to the various pages which offer different services and tools is required. The authors presenting the information are in the process of doing so from an unbiased strictly informational perspective with no intention of promotion or showing favoritism to any specific site. The sections previously deleted were not complete, but simply beginner drafts of a class project. The purpose being to compile and explain the major personal wedding websites different features and services offered. At the end of the term if the information still appears biased and uninformative please feel free to delete it. In the time till then please bare with us as we continue to develop each section. 
Crmatthews89 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for removing it. However, might want to check the external link guidelines. Falcon8765 (TALK) 18:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

text: While the links are relevant, yes, please check the guidelines linked above. For starters, headings should be in plain text, not in the form of any links. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of External Links 

message: See for example Comparison of wiki farms for some ideas on how this can be done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison of wedsites

message: Recently I made an edit to this article that removed many of the details describing each personal wedding website. I am attempting to explain myself. I was following these guidelines with the edit:
* Wikipedia:LINKFARM I felt the links and comparisons composed more of the article than descriptions of the purposes and social impact of personal wedding website. Sure we can use these links as references as to what some of these sites do, but we don't need to list every detail here. You'll notice that I left the external links and even used some as references for features.
* Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING I understand that people feel that the article was not advertising because it was presented in a professional manner. I felt the article was a shopping guide complete with hard to keep up to date prices.
* Each section for an external website was rather short with little contribution to the article that is supposed to be describing personal wedding websites in general. If that website got its own article (like google.com or other websites) I would be very comfortable having more information on each external company.
* MOS:HEAD Most of the section headings were links, which is to be avoided. It was difficult to put the links in the section without rewording the sections to sound more like advertising.
I am in favor of keeping these external links, or even having a comparison page as suggested here. Please feel free to comment with further comments.
--Chrismiceli (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edit 

message: I put in a chart for our article, but I accidentally messed up part of Gina's section and I don't know how to fix it. Help would be much appreciated!
Kds57 (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, enjoy! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  chart 

message: Your two website references need author info. What makes them reliable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References review 

message: The sections of page set-up for two of the websites are missing. I do not know how to fix it, so please help! Kds57 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I screwed the chart up again! 

message: I've unified the citations by using WP:NAMEDREFS and organizing them into the list-defined references system.  I think you will find it a bit easier to edit this way, but if you don't like it, then you can revert it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference formatting 

message: Since I see a lot of work has been done over the past few days, here are few issues from a quick overview about issues that need to be addressed before GA (a more detailed review will follow within a few days).
* the article has no sections; this is an indicator that it needs expansion (so are the empty "Example" sections in the table). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout
* per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, lead should be a comprehensive summary (abstract) of the rest of the article, and should not contain new information. It does not seem to me like your lead is either.
* Daws reference is missing a publisher and date information
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preeeliminary review 

message: I fixed the formatting of the lists. Thank you WhatamIdoing!
Added the missing reference information along with a collage of logos I made. Crmatthews89 (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated 

message: As prompted by this query, I have removed the excessive examples tag. When I added it, the individual sites made up the majority of the article. They are now in one section and seem more relevant. Chris857 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your response.  I'm glad that you agree that it is much improved.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples