Talk:Participants in wedding ceremonies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Photos and Education/Media

This ringbearer image was removed with the reason "no model release" this evening, but I have readded it. This is why:

  1. The photo is already released under a GFDL license, giving anyone permission to copy, reproduce, edit, etc. the image.
  2. 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).
  3. 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) :-)
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)
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)


[edit] MERGES DISCUSSION

[edit] from Celebrant (United States)

[edit] from Celebrant (Australia)

  • 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)
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)

[edit] from Marriage officiant

  • Do it! Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] from Officiant

  • 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)

[edit] from Humanist officiant

  • I've also removed this from consideration because these people do more than just weddings. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not merge -- SPLIT this entry

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)

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)

[edit] Possibly rename

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Unmerge

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)

[edit] Do not merge

The term maid of honour has two other meanings in the UK as this article explains and as that page redirects here, the explanation given is important. These definitions would be removed should this article only cover weddings.

[edit] I disagree with the merging too

Lets split this article again. There is absolutely no need to merge so many good articles. More smaller entries are much better for a fast overview. Wiki is not paper --77.64.135.107 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. IP,
They were not good articles. Most were no-section stubs.
By all means, split them and turn them into real articles.
But one very good article is better than 5 pathetic ones.
A couple of these could be standalones, but most... forget it.
Unless you're going to go and rewrite them all to a decent size, in which case, Go For It!!!
  VigilancePrime   •   15:16, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)   :-)  

I disagree again. This article is now much too long and will become perhaps even longer! As I said before short articles are much better for a fast overview and encourage to add some information. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with short entries or even stubs. --77.64.135.107 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A better merge

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)

[edit] Heteronormative

This article is very heteronormative. A wedding party does not consist necessarily of a male and female part nowadays.