Personal wedding website was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships
@Alyo, to be frank, I’m not sure I fully understand what you mean. The diffs you posted showing that the information is in the lead, and as ““lead should summarize the body of the article”, I don’t understand why you are removing that same information from the body. Also, in your edit summary you asked me to add that content to another article and better update it, without doing that yourself. It seems that I’m going to do all the work ... Anyway, I’ll edit the articles to address your concern. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld: Then remove it from the lead too? The lead follows the body, not the other way around. I would encourage you to read my objections here. Unless you have a source comparing wedding websites to wedding planners, us comparing the two in wikivoice is SYNTH, NOTHOWTO, etc. If you feel so strong about the fact "In 2008, wedding planners cost 15% of a wedding's overall cost", please add it to another article where it is relevant. In the alternative, please explain why it matters for us to include that fact here, on an article that is not about wedding planners. The current source attached to that sentence in the lead does not discuss wedding websites at all. Why have you re-added the sentence "Wedding planners are to help the bride while the wedding website caters more to the guests"? Please explain how an aside about wedding planners is relevant to this article, which is not about wedding planners? Why have you re-added the sentence "The former typically consist of 15% of the wedding's total cost as of 2008." That cost is completely irrelevant on this page, which is not about wedding planners. Are my concerns more clear? Alyo(chat·edits)15:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo, re “Why have you re-added the sentence ‘Wedding planners are to help the bride while the wedding website caters more to the guests’?“ What you said is not true. I’m afraid you have misread. It’s *not* added by me, and, I *did not* re-added it, it’s been there for a long time, no one has ever removed it, and it doesn’t need to be re-added. On the other hand, I trimmed it. I encourage you re-read.Re “The current source attached to that sentence in the lead does not discuss wedding websites at all,” if you add an “s” to your search keywords, it does give some results. I don’t really trust a Google book search like this as it looks unreliable. FYI, the lead of this article did follow the body, *before* you removed the cited text from the body. My edit just makes the body and the lead be consistent again. To be frank, I’m not quite comfortable with your questioning tone. For me, not hiring a wedding planner/agent and do the work themselves is just what most people will think about/ will do when they want to save some money, and that’s just so natural. From what I know, some wedding planners do help in the process of sending invitations to guests. If a couple send the invitations with evite+website by themselves then they can really save some money. If you really think we shouldn’t make any comparison between wedding websites and wedding planners, why don’t you find a source to clarify/explain/support that? I see that you feel strongly about removing any comparison, and the fact "In 2008, wedding planners cost 15% of a wedding's overall cost" from the article. (BTW, it's the only sentence that I've re-added since your last large-amount-removal,[8]) It seems to me you’ve been in/attended many weddings (as you’ve mentioned). I don’t want to be rude, but may I ask if you have any COI? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld: apologies, you're right, I misread those diffs. Striking my comment.
I don't what you think this link shows, because it says "no results" at the bottom on the search toolbar, and every instance of highlighting is just the word "wedding". So no, there are no results. More importantly, you can read the actual page that the "15%" number is from, page 50, which is about bridal consultants and the related industry. So no, the source does not support any comparison to wedding websites.
It doesn't matter if the text is cited, if it doesn't belong under this topic. Yet again I ask, why is the cost of wedding planners mentioned at all on an article about websites?
If you really think we shouldn’t make any comparison between wedding websites and wedding planners, why don’t you find a source to clarify/explain/support that? this is asking me to prove a negative, which is not the burden here. I don't have to find a source to justify excluding material, you need to find a source that justifies inclusion. Alyo(chat·edits)18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't what you think this link shows, because it says "no results" at the bottom on the search toolbar, On my screen it says “3 results”, but they seem not related to wedding websites, that’s why I said “I don’t really trust a Google book search like this”. Aside, even if it’s really not in the source, as I’ve said, it’s just common sense and editorial judgement. If people want to save some money, they will do everything themselves, like setting up a wedding website, instead of hiring a wedding planner.
It doesn't matter if the text is cited, I agree. So don’t say synth again. That doesn’t help.
if it doesn't belong under this topic. Yet again I ask, why is the cost of wedding planners mentioned at all on an article about websites? It’s because we are talking about an article about wedding websites.
Hi @Dustfreeworld, you seem to have a fun habit of reverting the edit and then disappearing when I continue the discussion. If you don't respond to the prior comment, I'm going to remove it again, as you have offered no policy-based reason why the content isn't SYNTH. Alyo(chat·edits)05:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=icon}
Done [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
