Talk:Flower girl

message: I think it is a cool position, definitely very fun.
:And what about Eliza Doolittle? Isn't she also always referred to as a "flower girl"? <KF> 20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I put up a disambig statement for that. The term in general can clearly refer to girls who sell flowers in addition to those who carry them in weddings. Arguably at one point in history that meaning may have been more common. Ranze (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fun

message: I removed two pictures from the article on the main basis that neither picture was focused on the article's subject (the flower girl). The poor flower girl was just some random element that happened to be in the picture, not the subject itself like the remaining picture is. The ceremony picture was completely inappropriate for this article and, really, any other article on Wikipedia because the key elements are extremely difficult to see unless at its full resolution (which cannot be displayed on any Wikipedia page) and the picture itself is of sub-par quality. I considered keeping the one with the bride and the flower girl facing her (showing the flower girl's back), but decided that the picture focused on the bride too much for an article about the flower girl (not the bride) and the one remaining picture was already sufficient for such a short article (just two pictures was overkill for an article of this length, but there were three!). --74.137.227.117 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture removal 

message: Does anyone know the historical significance of the flower girl?  Why was it pointed out in the article that the flower girl was young since she was to be a virgin?  Why do they spread flowers?  Please advise. - R.H. from New York — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.93.177.13 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 July 2007
:Probably some kinda fertility ritual. Ranze (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Significance of Flower Girl? 

message: I just changed the tense from "is" to "was" under the Elizabethan Era in the third sentence and under the Victorian Era in the first sentence. Absspyridon (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tense change

message: I changed the wording under the Royal Influences section from "not uncommon" to "common" because I believe it helped to clarify the meaning of the sentence and removed the clutter. I would also suggest that someone contribute more to the article by adding a section that goes into detail about the other meaning of the word, a girl who sells flowers, which is mentioned in the lead but never brought up again or explained anywhere else in the article. Amb2008 (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Word Change

message: Removed statement, "For a wedding event, using a flower girl is optional; however, it is a traditional component.[citation needed]" because stating that it is optional to use a flower girl in something as varied as a wedding ceremony states the obvious. The article for Wedding points out that some wedding traditions include the use of flower girls. Additionally, stating that something is a "traditional component" too strongly suggests that something is a popular or established component of all wedding ceremonies across the globe. Alternatively the article could point out that the choice of using a flower girl is based on tradition, but this might also be stating the obvious. Perhaps the link to the article for Wedding makes all of this moot. Knowisnotgnow (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement Removed from Intro