Talk:List of wedding ceremony participants

message: This ringbearer image was removed with the reason "no model release" this evening, but I have readded it. This is why:
# The photo is already released under a GFDL license, giving anyone permission to copy, reproduce, edit, etc. the image.
# 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).
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Photos and Education/Media 

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  MERGES DISCUSSION 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  from [[Celebrant (United States)]] 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  from [[Celebrant (Australia)]] 

message: * Do it! Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  from [[Marriage officiant]] 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  from [[Officiant]] 

message: * I've also removed this from consideration because these people do more than just weddings. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  from [[Humanist officiant]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not merge -- SPLIT this entry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Possibly rename

message: 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)
thread_title: Unmerge

message: 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)
thread_title:  A better merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Groom/groom wording 

message: thumb |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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit war over the bridegrooms 

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

message: I would like to add  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Groom's Outfit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Celebrant 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Layout