Talk:Marriage vows

message: At present this only describes Church of England marriage vows. Ideally something on those used by other denominations and religions (and in other countries) should be included.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope 

message: "However, today, this version has generally been abandoned, as it is sexist and out-of-date, for a modern version." is not encyclopedic. If something similar was included it would need a reliable source at the minimum. It also lacks neutrality.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier edit of 29-04-11 

message: It would be much appreciated if someone could find some information on the following to contribute to this article on wedding vows:
* the history of the wedding vow NEED MORE SUBSTANCE
* the etymology of the phrase "wedding vow" OPTIONAL
* cultural differences of the wedding vow NEED MORE SUBSTANCE
* cultural equivalents of the wedding vow in non-Western countries OPTIONAL
* purpose of the wedding vow OPTIONAL (MAY INCLUDE THE REASON FOR BEGINNING THE TRADITION, IF ANY)
* if possible, general formatting of a wedding vow SO FAR, SO GOOD
* related link: wedding vow renewal IMPORTANT
* if possible, wedding vow expiration date (I'm not sure on this part, but if a wedding vow can be renewed, then it has got to have an expiration date.) OPTIONAL
Sneazy (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: These vows do not have expiration dates; renewal of wedding vows is something some married people want to do. In many countries it is necessary to have a civil ceremony as well as a religious one because the stte only recognizes the legality of the civil one, e.g. Hungary.N.B. The history of the Western Church's sacrament of matrimony is described in the section above.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs some work: 

message: «the Church of England usually offered couples a choice»: this paragraph is problematic since it appears to summarize some 450 years of church weddings in the Church of England. The marriage services in the prayer books of 1549, 1662 and 1928 and more recent compilations are better sources.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Church of England]] usually offered couples a choice. 

message: I do not see why the two persons cannot be described as a couple as they have already agreed that they shall be married to each other. Legally they are not married until all the conditions either of the state and / or the religious body have been fulfilled;  if taking of vows is part of the process of becoming married the two persons are acting of their own will and not under the orders of parent or guardian.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple making vows 

message: As the article stands now, it would better be titled "Christian marriage vows in England" and would not provide complete coverage of even that limited topic. If it is to be titled "Marriage vows", it should cover a broader range of countries, cultures and religions. For example, in Judaism, while the couple do not make vows to one another -- since taking an oath or vow is strongly discouraged -- the husband gives his wife a binding contract or promissory note, formulated in ancient Aramaic according to strict religious requirements, which details all of his monetary and non-monetary obligations to her. I have read that in Hinduism the marriage rite includes a pledge of mutual obligations. I am sure the same is true of many other religions as well. Davidhof (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited coverage. 

message: This article uses the writing convention known as the Oxford or Harvard comma, in which a long list of "and" things includes a comma before the "and", as for example in "old, new, borrowed, and blue." Editors should not change this arbitrarily, but should first agree any consensus for change here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And how was I supposed to know this? As I was taught in school years and years ago, in general grammar sense commas are never used directly before the word "and", only used in lists? Since when did this become an exception to the rule? Consensus is not really necessary for a very small change like this either.  Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!)  21:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You were supposed to know it because it was pointed out to you, repeatedly. It's not so much an 'exception to the rule,' as it's a matter of style, not grammar. As such, the Manual of Style's preference for consistency is the key, whether the use of the serial comma is maintained or abandoned. Perhaps when this was pointed out to you you should have considered the information provided rather than rudely telling me to 'go away.' Then you'd've known. 192.252.224.6 (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

text: The information which answers your questions here was given you again and again, clearly and politely, and by two different editors, on your talk page. But instead of reading it you deleted it, and now you wonder why you didn't know it! I have given the gist of it again above here and an IP editor has kindly provided a link to an explanatory essay. I hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford or Harvard commas