Talk:Wedding dress of Meghan Markle

Flowers & red links

I have restored the list of flowers embroidered on the veil. This is clearly pertinent information. I would also remind colleagues that red links to viable topics should not be removed, per WP:Red link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: You are definitely right about the red links, but I can't realize how the list of flowers can be considered pertinent information. It's pure trivia, and makes the whole article look awkward and unbalanced. A single sentence which mentions the reason behind having 53 flowers on the veil is enough; there's no need to list all of them. I would also like to remind you that the article should focus on different details of the dress equally. Right now there's too much emphasis on the veil and its flowers. Keivan.f^Talk 01:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

One possibility is to have a list article for the national flowers of the Commonwealth, and link to that. My experience, as a regular plant article editor, is that, although I'm not, many readers are interested in national (and other political units) flowers, animals, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Definitely looks unbalanced, especially with the photos. A list might be a nice idea (& pretty easy to create from this). ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  07:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

By all means start such an article; but these are not "national flowers". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the title that you suggest then? Keivan.f^Talk 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If Peter wants to start an article about National flowers of the Commonwealth, I suggest he calls it exactly that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought they were national flowers, since those I looked at definitely were. But if some of them aren't, clearly my idea won't work. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Then what is your suggestion? Should we just keep that huge list here on this article? I think CJinoz is somehow in favor of removing it. Keivan.f^Talk 21:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: sorry, I've no interest in this topic other than ensuring that the scientific names of the plants are correct, so I'm happy to leave it to others. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If I'm "definitely right about the red links", why do you keep removing them? Desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that you were right about adding red links to every single part of the article though. The names of plants are definitely notable in my opinion, and articles can be created for them using printed and online sources, but Israeli designer Inbal Dror is not necessarily a notable figure, especially since she was not the ultimate creator of the dress. Keivan.f^Talk 15:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that I am not "adding red links to every single part of the article", your response appears to be a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems that we are unable to find a common ground. I will probably open an RfC and ask for other users's opinions. Keivan.f^Talk 16:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge?

I'm sorry, but do we really need a separate item for a dress? It would just as well fit into the general item on the wedding. 213.46.43.3 (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we need to have a separate article, as the dress is notable in its own right. Keivan.f^Talk 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say merge. I can't see that the dress is notable in its own right, there is nothing to distinguish it from other tailor-made, designer wedding dresses. Doesn't look likely that there'll ever be an eligible picture of it, either. Centrepull (talk)

There are several articles about royal bride's dresses: See wedding dress of Queen Victoria and Wedding dress of Lady Diana Spencer among others. ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the dress

Should we have a picture of the dress? I would do it myself, but I do not know how (i’m new) Hannek01 (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You can upload a picture of the dress, but you either must be the copyright owner of it or prove that it is in public domain. Keivan.f^Talk 23:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on Flickr Creative Commons for a public domain image, but nothing has come up so far. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: List of flowers on the veil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article include a huge list of flowers that have been embroidered on the veil? It's pure trivia in my opinion, and definitely makes the whole article look awkward and unbalanced. I tried to include a single sentence which mentioned the reason behind having 53 flowers on the veil but my contributions were reverted by a user who called the list pertinent information. I would also like to remind everyone that the article should focus on different details of the dress equally. There's too much emphasis on the flowers right now, without a clear reason. Keivan.f^Talk 23:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• SNOW Remove: I'm afraid I must agree with the OP, this is substantially WP:TRIVIA and massively WP:UNDUE. Though to be blunt, having come here by bot summons, I'm pretty shocked this article has survived deletion to this point; I don't doubt there are plenty of sources discussing the dress is exhaustive detail--such is the level of obsession with a royal wedding--but surely the amount of content that is truly WP:DUE for inclusion (which is significantly less than what I see here, even flowers aside) could be covered in the wedding article. The fact that its been spun out here is the immediate (and predictable) cause of the clearly over-the-top flower situation--and, I'm sure, more similar problems to follow. If there is a future AfD or merger proposal, I'd appreciate being notified, but if the article stays, the flower section surely needs to be concatenated. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep This is far from trivia; it's core detail about the features of this object. It's significant enough to be listed on the Royal Family website (albeit with errors of spelling, typography and nomenclature which are fixed in this article); and is precisely the sort of detail for which one refers to an encyclopedia. If the feels there is "should focus on different details of the dress equally" (an assertion for which no substance is provided), they are welcome to add detail to the other sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep relevant to an article that is clearly notable and would survive AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The list of flowers, each of which has symbolic meaning, it the kind of encyclopedic detail I would expect to see in an article about this dress. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - the BBC article discusses the lace veil as being the key ornamentation of the dress, and so the list of flower names should remain. The lace bodice of Kate Middleton's wedding dress is similarly discussed in great detail. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep but reduce the length... It is information of sufficient detail to be referenced in a primary source about the topic - hence, worthy of inclusion. However, I would suggest that it is too long in the context of the article and should be truncated somehow. The primary footnote for this section[1] groups the flowers by continent and I suggest that might be a way to reduce the length on the page of this section. Wittylama 12:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You mean physically shorten it while retaining the content? I wouln't be averse to dual columns, but I dropped the sort-by-continent in order not to overly-closely paraphrase the source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as clearly relevant and one of the most significant features of the entire ensemble, but given the length, either collapse the section, or move it into its own article, or perhaps usa our technical wizardry to make it into a sidebox of some sort, with a "show" button, something akin to a collapseable feature in infoboxes (such as is sometimes done for long lists of honours in other biographies.) Montanabw^(talk) 14:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We don't collapse valid article content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Good to see the thought on what "we" do and don't do, but I too think making this list collapsible would be a good move. MichaelProcton (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
      • That would become a web accessibility issue for this article, as discussed in MOS:SCROLL. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The overall article is not so large that this is a problem and it's good to have such a meticulous and well-linked account of this unique feature. Andrew D. (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• KeepThe monarchy inclusion of the Commonwealth in this wedding is significant whatever the form. A wedding veil is often an aspect of the wedding clothes that can be passed down through generations so the significance of a veil embroidered with flowers representing the entire commonwealth becomes doubly significant to a bride and the day.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC))
• Keep per Diannaa and others. Like it or not, this is a historically significant object, the flowers a very significant feature of the object, and the flower -> country lookup is the level of detail I expect in our articles. The current layout - list with supporting images - is well balanced. A two-column layout also looks good, albeit we'd need to lose a couple of flowers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - This is sorta a protest vote, but I move to simply delete this article. It's a sad commentary on humanity that this subject rises to the point of notability. On a more serious note, this entire article seems like trivia. The flower selection only seems to garner coverage in second rate RS's (thank god). If we're not going to delete this article, let's shrink it by removing some of the nonsense. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, if only for the innocent fun of trying to work out how/why the Anthurium was chosen to represent Vanuatu! Marginally more seriously, it's difficult to see what prompts editors to think that how these various countries were each represented by flowers is trivia - but some 'talking head' thinking that the dress looked a bit like Audrey Hepburn in a 1950s film is noteworthy. If we must have a dedicated article on the dress (as opposed to content being within the wedding), this is properly sourced relevant info. And what about Belize? Pincrete (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep At last I have been summoned by Legobot to tackle one of the big issues. I find it difficult to express how little I care but since the article somehow survived its birth then it may as well mention the only interesting thing about it (which is that there is a flower for each commonwealth country). Jschnur (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. I find that information (the flowers, the relation to countries) interesting, almost regardless of the dress. As it seems a concern, I edited the wedding article, and noticed this on my watchlist. I noticed it there before but had no time then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep (Summoned here by Legobot on my talk page): The list of flowers and countries is interesting and informative. As for the length of the list, if Britain had colonized fewer parts of the globe, the list would be shorter. HouseOfChange (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep (Summoned by bot) agree with HOC above me. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep (Legobot) I think the list is encyclopaedic, quite interesting, and not too long. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I watched the wedding and added this list after hearing it mentioned in the broadcast as I thought it was interesting and relevant to the way the dress was a symbolic statement. At the time I had to do a double take because I couldn't see the edge at all and would otherwise have never guessed the edge was actually made up of individual hand-embroidered flowers. I was not surprised that my list was reverted, but I am pleasantly surprised to see it back in place. Too bad others disagree about notability. I think the flowers, invisible as they were on the wedding day to the general public, are notable for reasons already mentioned above. I must admit I knew the moment I added the list (copy-pasted with some modifications from the Royal site) that it would be controversial on Wikipedia. After all, the dress article is here to answer questions coming from the public, not to create new ones (why the extra flowers? why not complete? why the inaccuracies?). That said, I definitely find it relevant, as the dress is so simple and understated and this is a hidden amount of detail that will probably be on show some day in the V&A or wherever. Jane (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Procedural concerns

I'm just going to assume that Pincrete's proposed explanation of the rapid influx of !votes is the correct one. Only three editors have responded to my inquiry so far, but none of the three has indicated they received a private message or came here via selectively-placed notification, so I will assume that this is the case for all parties. If any other respondents wish to indicate otherwise, they can always re-open this sub-thread, but my concerns have been eased and I don't wish this to become a distraction to the main editorial inquiry. Thank you to those who responded, even though they may have not liked the question. Snow let's rap 22:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There was a truly massive deluge of !votes (all of them urging in the same direction) here in the first few hours of this RfC--far more than one usually sees for even RfCs at our most high traffic and high profile articles, so I decided to take a look and as best I can tell, most of these users did not receive an RfC notice. Now I recognize some of these participants and would not expect them to heed an effort at WP:CANVASSING (and I would like to think I would AGF regardless), but just so the rest of us participants can be sure this discussion is proceeding in an appropriate fashion, can I ask how Pigsonthewing, Diannaa, wittylama, Montanabw, Andrew Davidson, Littleolive oil, Tagishsimon, and NickCT arrived that this discussion? I make no implication of bad faith motive on the part of respondents, but I would like to be sure that someone did not invite you all here because your response to the question could be presupposed, nor pick a forum for promoting this discussion for the same purpose. Snow let's rap 18:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Snow Rise. I never comment unless I have an interest in the discussion and would never vote in a situation I didn't care about. Equally, I would never vote just because someone asked me to support their position. And I cannot remember the last time someone specifically asked me to vote for their particular position. Maybe never. The editors I admire do not ask to have their positions supported. I become aware of multiple discussions everyday that I come to Wikipedia and some I care about others I don't. Some I have an opinion on some I don't. In this case Markle's dress and veil are akin to art works. They are created specifically for this occasion by design artists. I am also a Canadian and the nod to the Commonwealth is an important aspect of this world-wide viewed ceremony. This was not just a dress or veil. (And as an aside, frankly living as I do in the US now, the beauty in a veil designed and articulated as this one was is a striking antidote to another shooting-kids-in-a-school situation.) By the way, I have seem many RfCs with many many more votes than this one has. There was a response here but it was modest relative to other topics I've seen. I would assume good faith given the votes are logical and well meaning.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)) Right at the top of this section is a big yellow box that says, in part: "This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Society, sports, and culture" As for how I arrived here, have a look at the article history, and the history of this talk page, before you cast aspersions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Hey guys; I tried to be as explicit as possible that I was not accusing anyone of misconduct; I just wanted to be certain that everything is above board here. For the the record, both of you were amongst those editors I was referencing when I said I recognized editors here that I assume would not respond to an attempt to canvas. But you have to understand that this situation as whole looked fishy to me, even so; I respond to hundreds of RfCs every year, and (outside of the village pump) I've never before seen twelve people respond within a 10 hour window on the first day the RfC was up--not even on our most editorially busy articles. Add in that there was a streak of !votes leaning in the same direction and that only one of them came from a bot notice, it just seemed highly unlikely. But of course I take for granted that your explanations for how you got here are genuine and I thank you for taking the time to answer and put my mind at ease. It may very well be that this is a just a collision of atypical circumstances, but in any event my question was not intended to give offense, nor to suggest it's not possible that the consensus would lean strongly towards include (I'm a little gobsmacked by that, frankly, but its not the first time I've been in the minority in an editorial discussion and it won't be the last), but rather I just wanted to do a quick check to be on the safe side. I do try to AGF on all editorial matters, but sometimes you see something that seems off enough that you have to make a polite inquiry. Snow let's rap 22:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC) User:Snow Rise having been in the last couple of days to an AfD on Meghan's mum, a 'rename discusion' on the lady herself (it seems some upstart editor called J Wales renamed the article to the 'Countess of Wherever-it-is-on-Sea', almost before she said "I will" - against local consensus), ALL of which had unusually high editor turnouts - the most likely explanation for the high turnout here, is that a disproportionate number of WP editors spent Saturday watching the same TV coverage and are as curious about/susceptible to the 'Cinderella becomes Mrs Windsor' story as the rest of humanity. Just a thought! Pincrete (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Hi Pincrete: that is a reasonable explanation, I suppose; a royal wedding does tend to pack in a huge amount of attention mostly focused over a small period of time. Snow let's rap 22:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC) (ec) Does Snow Rise suppose that he is the only person with an interest in the royal wedding? Does he not realise that it was watched by billions of people; one of the biggest events of the year. When I checked the Top views recently I found that about 50 of our top 100 articles related to the wedding in some way. And I have added to the number of articles by creating Claire Ptak and relevant links such as the Wedding cake of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. When vexatious attempts are made to delete such content, a furious response is to be expected. For example, the much-praised mother of the bride, Doria Ragland, was nominated for deletion. I was there for that discussion too and it generated a different kind of snow -- a Snow Keep. Wikipedia is crowd-sourced and there are large crowds for these topics. Deal with it. Andrew D. (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Hi Andrew. No, I do not make any such presumption (though actually I'm not here out of any profound interest in the wedding, but rather because of a random bot notice), and I did try to phrase my inquiry to make clear that there might be a reasonable explanation for all of this. However, even other high traffic articles rarely get such a response as was seen here. I don't think my inquiry was unreasonable under those circumstances, especially as I made every effort to make clear that I was accusing no one of misconduct, but rather just wanted to do a quick check. This was not done out of antagonism but rather just an effort at procedural diligence. I'm sorry to have given offense, but I'd ask you to please take me at my word that it was not personal, but rather a reaction to a rather irregular response pattern. I'm about to close this subthread so it will not provide further distraction, but I welcome further comments on my talk page if you have more to say in response to my assurances. Thank you, and I am sorry to have wasted your time. Snow let's rap 22:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blue links next to each other

Why are there several blue links directly next to each other that link to different articles? (e.g. Diana, Princess of Wales's wedding gown and worse still, Duchess of Cambridge wore) I thought this was frowned upon, per MOS:SOB as it is confusing for readers. I tried fixing it but it was reverted without a human explanation. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Your first example includes non-linking text between the links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The point of the sentence isn't Diana herself, the point of the sentence is Diana's wedding dress. Additionally, the gap between the two multi-word blue links is all of two contracted letters, which is difficult to see. In comparison, I had fixed it so that it was one link to the dress for the full phrase "Diana, Princess of Wales's wedding gown", which I felt would be more helpful. There is a "'s" between these two multi-word blue links, but the principle of guiding the reader to the most relevant article remains. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Veil section

The section "Veil" does not display well on a phone. Those who expressed an opinion to keep the current format in the RfC (May 2018) ought to consider smart phone usage and not just how it displays on a PC. -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Title

I suggest that the title of the article should to changed to Wedding dress of Meghan Markle (2018) or Second wedding dress of Meghan Markle, as it was her second wedding. If the current title is to be retained, then the details of the first wedding dress, which she wore at her wedding to Trevor Engelson, should be covered. Peter Ormond 💬 16:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not think either of that would be a good idea. Whatever she wore at her first wedding has not seen significant coverage in reliable sources (or any coverage, to be precise). Wikipedia does not disambiguate playwright Stephen Jeffreys from non-notable men named Stephen Jeffreys just because they exist(ed). Therefore it should not disambiguate Markle's notable wedding dress from any non-notable one. An article titled Second wedding dress of Meghan Markle would naturally prompt editors to create First wedding dress of Meghan Markle, and that is not a notable topic. Surtsicna (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

What about "Wedding dress of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex"? Peter Ormond 💬 15:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be as correct as the present title but would set the article apart from others in Category:Royal wedding dresses. I think the present title is better because it is more concise. Surtsicna (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It should definitely remain as Meghan Markle as for all of the brides their maiden names and titles (Lady Diana Spencer, Catherine Middleton) or the surname they carried from their first marriage (Camilla Parker Bowles) have been used. I think the current title is fine as her first wedding dress is not notable; just as Camilla’s or Wallis’s weren’t (with the exception of Princess Anne, who due to her status has both her wedding dresses covered in the same article). Keivan.f^Talk 23:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite. Edwardx (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)