This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This article gives way to much WP:Undue weight to pre-marital costuming, whereas the most common use of a bridal crown is that which church parishes all over Scandinavia provide for brides to wear a small coronet like that of a royal princess at their weddings. I tried to add some balance to that which was reverted in total. Then one little sentence was added about a "tiara". Will try again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Also the lede sentence about a British wedding is much too wordy and thus goes off subject. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree with your comment about the lede and have moved that sentence. It may need further work. I think it was intended to be a 'famous' example of the wearing of the bridal crown. Actually it's really a German, not British, wedding: they were both Germans and George did not become King of the UK until some years after the wedding.
I have no problem with the article being improved and better balanced, but just felt there was some unsourced material being added. That said, I'm conscious that the original article which I translated from de.wiki doesn't have any inline sources, just some bibliography. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Yes of course we can discuss. Bermicourt - the source "makes no sense"? Why not just remove the word "massive" rather that reverting a well sourced entry? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh I'm sorry, I've just realised that I clicked on the wrong reference. It's reference 1 that seems to have lost its original article. However, even the right reference doesn't mention the word "massive", although there is a comment from a customer that her veil was made from "several yards of toile". My suggestion is that we restore the wording, change "massive" to "long" and wikify the reference. Would you be ok with that? --Bermicourt (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
