Talk:Wedding dress

70.105.181.237 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Josephine Shaffer[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fefost.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Qing dynasty dress; it is Ming dynasty

Chinese Dress: From the Qing Dynasty to the Present ISBN-13: 978-0804836630

It is a princess phoenix crown--it has two bobins only. This style head piece and dress are mirroring Ming dynasty formal wear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_crown 192.33.240.95 (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ming style yuanlingshan as wedding garments in Ming Dynasty. The photo you are using is already modified during Qing dynasty, which continues to be used in modern days. The phoenix crown is also heavily modified in Qing dynasty, and is very different from the Ming dynasty version. Also, I don't see any bobin on the phoenix crown. Such traditional dresses have strict guidelines on how to make and wear them; any slight deviations and it's no longer 'Ming style'. If your photo is Ming style, it should look the same as those in portraits from Ming dynasty like this or this, or the clothing should look the same as Ming dynasty artifacts, but obviously it doesn't. Here is another example of Ming dynasty wedding dress. FYI, I was the one who made the phoenix crown wiki page. Supersentai (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Ok. 192.33.240.95 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of some information

I shortened the bit about the Taiwanese wedding and reorganized the information. This section is specifically for wedding dresses, and I felt that the wedding banquet information while interesting, belonged in the wedding reception section. I attempted to arrange the thumbnails in some sort of rational order, for example, more western-looking gowns in a section, more Chinese looking gowns in a section, and more Indian looking gowns in a section, etc. Previously, they were sort of just however, and the arrangement was a little confusion. I wish people had taken more pictures of the surroundings of these weddings though! I know there are a lot of details on wedding gowns, but I find that a lot of the times, the dress of the folks attending is really cool too. =)

Kelidimari (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have some pictures of non-western wedding dresses? Intrigue 02:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

File:Ska sailor jupiter wedding dress010219007.jpg

Kigurumi of Sailor Jupiter, in a wedding dress

Here are three photo of Japanese Kimono worn at wedding. These are copyrighted, and the second photo is not in color. [1], [2], [3]. Revth 00:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

commons:Wedding dress has a couple. A-giau 20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah - this is really western - we might even want to rename it.

Are these Wedding Dresses?

I agree with the person who says that this is very westernized...I went over to Wedding and I found this "Different wedding traditions call for different wedding outfits:

Qipao, Chinese traditional formal wear Batik and Kebaya, a special garment worn by the Javanese people of Indonesia. Barong Tagalog, an embroidered formal garment of the Philippines Kimono, the traditional garments of Japan Sari, Indian popular and traditional dress in India Ao dai, traditional garments of Vietnam Morning dress, a particular category of men's formal dress Kilt, male garment particular to Scottish culture"

I don't know whether these garments would be considered wedding dresses, but they're worth a try.24.151.101.55 00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many of these people wear white dresses for weddings, but some still wear them for a traditional wedding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting the last image of a wedding dress seen in New York. It is not the least bit appropriate. Yes, I know Wikipedia is not censored, yet this image does not help readers in any way. It's just meant to shock people, and it's only illustrative of the woman's bosom more than anything else. Deus Caritas Est (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brides of "lower social standing"

I removed a sentence today about how poor people imitate rich people "as best they can". Obvious and totally worthless information, in my opinion. Anyone who misses the sentence: why not write a well-sourced article about People of lower social standing and how some of them imitate the wealthy in every way they can? There may be someone out there who would find that interesting? Or maybe a section in the article on Arrogance about people who classify others as "lower" in various ways? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red and black

This article:

prior to the Victorian era, a bride was married in any color except black (the color of mourning) or red (which was connected with prostitutes)

White wedding article:

Royal brides before Victoria did not typically wear white [...] with red being a particularly popular color in Western Europe more generally.

Also on that page, there seem to be a few photos of brides in a black dress.

So which article is correct? 82.152.217.203 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. I am correcting the misinfo here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed lead image - reasoning below:

I believe it's best for a lead image to be as absolutely unquestionable as possible, and when I saw the image (shown to the right) chosen for lead image, I noted that it appeared to be more akin to a typical Court Presentation photograph than a bridal photograph. (See Court uniform and dress in the United Kingdom#Women's court dress ) - especially as the sitter had the Prince of Wales feathers in her hair, which is not usual for brides, and was wearing a low cut bodice with bare arms and long gloves (again, very atypical for a Victorian wedding dress, and not really considered appropriate for a church ceremony in the 19th century). So I went into Wikimedia Commons and found a similar image of a similar date, which, with its high neckline, long sleeves, and orange-blossom trimming, cannot be mistaken for anything other than a bridal gown. It's a very common mistake - many Court presentation photographs are mistaken for wedding photographs because bouquets, veils and long white dresses were part of the dress code for Court. To further confuse the matter, aristocratic brides were often traditionally re-presented under their married name at Court wearing their wedding dress (with an alternative low-cut bodice substituted) but it's best to have an image that definitely shows a bride rather than leave room for doubt. Mabalu (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding dress → Wedding gown – Per WP:PRECISION. See also footer template section for explanatory context. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per this ngram which shows "wedding dress" as the consistently preferred term (although in 1838 'gown' came close). The "See also" section lists some of Wikipedia's many pages using 'wedding dress', and the notes and External links sections also consistently use 'wedding dress'. The Wedding dress (disambiguation) is also consistent per its list of songs and a film. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per English In ictu oculi (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per common name Red Slash 13:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Common name. Even if not in the US, it certainly is in the UK so ENGVAR applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't quite sure myself. Thanks for the replies everyone! Sorry if this proposal was not useful. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was useful, as I added nine articles on various wedding dresses to the See also section of the page. Wouldn't have done that without the RM, as an RM tends to focus editors on the pages themselves. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but Support the erroneous proposal shows us that the article name is not as clear as it could be. ~~How about~~ If the article is supposed to be about a style of dress (dress as in attire, as in full dress) used at weddings, it should be called Wedding attire?. If it is only supposed to be about the gown itelf, not about accessories, veils, trains or anything else, it should be renamed as per nom. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That would also cover outfits worn by others at a wedding. This article only refers specifically to the dress worn by the bride, which is definitely a notable topic in its own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point, but not clear enough. Have embroidered above. Thx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The common name for the entire outfit, including the veil, is wedding dress. Compared to that wedding attire is a blip in this n-gram. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dubious

@Yamacyan, I believe that a need for modest dress is why some brides wear jackets during their church ceremonies, not why they might wear gloves. Strapless/sleeveless wedding gowns weren't common anywhere until the 1990s, and they are still banned by some churches. (The Mormons, for example, require wedding dresses to cover the bride's temple garment.) Gloves don't solve a dress code problem when the venue says no bare shoulders or no bare upper arms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the noted divergence from mainstream Western fashion in the 1960s has anything to do with miniskirts? I don't think most brides of the era would have considered a mini-gown Chrismorey (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko Ono wore a mini dress when she married John Lennon, so it did happen.

I suspect that in the 1960s, weddings (of the type big enough to buy a special dress for the occasion) were mostly happening in a church or other religious organization, and both the religious organization and the bride's mother would have insisted upon a more modest hemline. Looking through some old photos, I do see some knee-length (including just above the knee) wedding dresses, but not much in the modern mid-thigh length. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information on West Asian/North African dresses??

Hello, I was just reading through the article and believe when it comes to West Asian/ North African dresses it is lacking information. This is due to the pictures from these cultures found in the gallery but no information on them in the Eastern culture section. Could this be due to a lack of information?Lkm4gn (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Crown Prince Akihito & Michiko Shoda Wedding 1959-4.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

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: dozens of websites including https://symbolsage.com/white-wedding-gown-dress/, https://www.weddingbee.com/ceremony-and-reception/4-christian-wedding-traditions-for-your-ceremony/, https://historyofyesterday.com/a-brief-history-of-the-white-wedding-dress-80ac81b1a113, https://www.deseret.com/2018/12/2/20794441/5-special-occasions-when-you-should-wear-white, etc. 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) 06:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Professional Writing

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2024 and 5 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Glittersparkle16 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Glittersparkle16 (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I am a technical editor who will be reviewing Wikipedia articles for the next few weeks. I've identified a few areas in this article that could use some improvement. I plan to rework and organize the paragraphs to enhance the overall flow. Additionally, I will correct several sections that need additional citations for verification. This will be done by including scholarly citations to improve the credibility of the information presented in the article. I'm open to any discussions or feedback on these changes before finalizing them!

Glittersparkle16 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]