Talk:Bride

message: Look, I'm new here and I don't want to stir up anything, but I'm questioning the inclusion of that chibi illustration of a bride on this page. It's cute, I agree. It's very nicely drawn. It's also the third picture on an article that is three (short) paragraphs long. It's making the page display funny for me and I'm running 1024x768. Also, it's not GFDL on a page that already has two very nice GFDL images.
I also don't feel that it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Yes, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it's still an encyclopedia, and I don't expect to crack open the Encyclopedia Britannica and see chibi drawings. Engravings and illustrations, yes, but not a cartoonlike representation such as this illustration.
I've gone ahead and commented it out. Please feel free to chide me if you feel I have removed it inappropriately. (janeway216 02:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chide you?  When I could instead strew (?) rose-petals in your path for a few minutes, at least? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bride drawing 

message: There seems to be way too many pictures on this article, and not enough content. The reference to Brigid is taken out, as well. Im sure you only need 1 or two pictures. Disinclination 07:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The largest adds least information: veil and white color are in the first picture, no flowers, I'll hide it here (check "edit", let's see how people feel. --FlammingoHey 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw that the same pic had been hidden before, so we may have to talk about this maybe?? --FlammingoHey 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it was suggested that we need photos that disseminate more information regarding the topic, I have done such. --Mactographer 10:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I dislike the gallery - it's huge with fairly low variety (the vast majority are very same-ish).  We have Commons to provide a pig vault of images.  We ought to be choosing the most appropriate ones to illustrate this article and providing a simple link to the rest.  The gallery isn't really any better than when we simply ha too many photos.  -- Siobhan Hansa 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this one is more aesthetically pleasing than what has been left up top.  But then I'm biased.  And I'm not fond of the gallery either. --Mactographer 08:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 
Well, an opposition seems to be building, so I'll just present a full argument for keeping them, and then we can do whatever is decided.  Basically, no matter what we do with pictures on this page, it will still be pretty lame, until it gets more content.  I think that the gallery is poor, but is the best option we have available.  Removing it makes it western-world-centric.  It also leaves the article wide open for people who want to post their latest wedding picture and mess up the format, or who argue that only a certain race is presented. I added the gallery as a response to someone who added a wedding picture of a young black woman, saying, "Why not have a black bride?" (take a look at the page history). In my mind, this was a legitimate concern, so I scoured wikipedia for good, diverse bride pictures. 
All in all though, the real way to improve this article is not to delete or change pictures, it's to add content.  When we have content, we will have more room for pictures.  Either way, though, I think galleries will only become more valuable as the article develops, given the nature of the article.  Pictures say a lot more about bridal customs than any article could.  If we do decide to remove them, I ask that they be commented out, rather than deleted, so that we have them to look back on whenever we want to add another picture. Many of the pictures in the article are very notable, high-quality, and/or have been nominated as featured pictures. Wrad 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pictures, not enough content? 

message: This 1854 portrait of Victoria and Albert in court dress in 1854 after a Drawing Room never stops cropping up as some kind of "wedding photo" or "recreated wedding photo."  I've altered the caption to reflect that there is no basis for this.  Victoria did wear white to her wedding:  she wore court dress.  Court dress is white, with a veil, and with feathers and sometimes flowers in the hair.  But this photo is completely unrelated to wedding or bridal dress.  There are many images of Victoria in her wedding dress.  She was painted by Winterhalter wearing it more than once (there are several copies on Commons), and her dress has been exhibited several times so there are modern photographs of the dress itself.   But if you add an image of Victoria in her wedding dress, you'll probably want to leave the 1854 court dress photo in place with explanation too;  otherwise, someone will just add it again later claiming it's her wedding dress.  Laura1822 (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Queen Victoria's wedding dress 

message: Currently, the Etymology section states:
The word, possibly, comes from the Old English 'bryd', which in turn is derived from the Proto-Germanic verb root *brū-, meaning 'to cook, brew, or make a broth,' which was the role of the daughter-in-law in primitive families.
I can't seem to back this up - perhaps it was once in the cited source, but it now redirects to a page that doesn't mention Proto-Germanic at all. Etymonline seems to me to suggest that the link with cooking is theoretical at best. Personally I'm not confident enough with etymologies to update the article myself, but I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be saying that bride possibly comes from 'bryd' and implying 'bryd' definitely comes from *brū-.
twotwos (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology? 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.deseret.com/2018/12/2/20794441/5-special-occasions-when-you-should-wear-white, https://historyofyesterday.com/a-brief-history-of-the-white-wedding-dress-80ac81b1a113, http://www.color-wheel-pro.com/color-meaning.html, and https://theconversation.com/why-do-brides-wear-white-144395. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  DanCherek (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed