Talk:Wedding March (Mendelssohn)

Contradiction

The information at this page conflicts with the information from the article about Felix Mendelssohn.

In that article we read: "Mendelssohn's Wedding March from A Midsummer Night's Dream was first played at the wedding of Queen Victoria's daughter, The Princess Victoria, The Princess Royal, to Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia in 1856 and it is still popular today".

At this page, however, we read: "The first time it was used at a wedding was when Dorothy Carew wed Tom Daniel at St Peter’s Church, Tiverton, UK, on 2 June 1847. However it did not become popular at weddings until it was selected by Victoria, The Princess Royal for her marriage to the Crown Prince of Prussia on January 25, 1858".

Thus, we can see two conflicts. The first one is that there is uncertainty about the event when this march was first played. The second one is in the dates of wedding of Victoria and Frederick (1856 and 1858).

So I propose to review the facts mentioned in both articles and correct the mistakes which existence is obviously seen from above. Sagalovichm 10:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The engagement was in May 1856 , the wedding was on January 25th 1858 in the chapel of St. James' Palace in London (Source: Victoria,_Princess_Royal ). Today the Mendelssohn page does not contradict this page any longer in both regards. 87.139.35.219 08:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation???

Liszt transcribed the piece for piano, Horowitz arranged it and made a few changes (correct me if I'm wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.218.227 (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Audio sample needed

An audio sample of at least the opening of this piece would certainly be a useful addition. T-bonham (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. There is a clear absence of such a consensus in this case. bd2412 T 03:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Wedding March (Mendelssohn) → Wedding March – Both Wedding March and Wedding march redirect to Wedding music. This is because Wedding March used to redirect to Wedding march when that was still an article, and a bot fixed the double redirect. There is no name conflict for Wedding March, but The Wedding March (disambiguation) exists. If Wedding March (Mendelssohn) is renamed to Wedding March, an About hatnote can refer readers to the disambiguation page.

As of this writing, it seems that all mainspace links to "Wedding March" are intended for the Mendelssohn composition. (The usage in Afghan wedding might confuse "Wedding March" with "Bridal Chorus".) Ringbang (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Ringbang: Better discuss this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Bad idea see The Wedding March, Wagner's Bridal Chorus is frequently confused with the Mendelssohn. By all means let this be a primary direct, but to remove the composer here would be bit of Wikipedia title-legalism that could conceivably mess up a reader's wedding if we are determined to ambiguate. Let readers continue see clearly which wedding march this is in the title. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This is the primary topic for "Wedding March" by common usage and long-term significance, per evidence presented. And this is the first time I have seen the argument "could conceivably mess up a reader's wedding" appear in a move discussion. Fair play, it's good to get as many interesting and whacky arguments out there as possible!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a tossup whether your average reader will be thinking of Mendelssohn, Wagner, or Clarke; so "Wedding March" should either lead to an overview article (i.e. Wedding music) or a dab (i.e. The Wedding March). --Xover (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.