Talk:Bridegroom

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bridegroom article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Culture

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Gender studies

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Restored entries from old talk page

Does anybody have information about origin of the term? I honestly don't know much about the subject, but I and others that I know have wondered about where it came from. Agkeene 03:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Indogermanic root meaning "earth" (for "ghmún"), which evolved into lat."humanus" and Germanic therefore also English) "man" as well, but check Bartleby! --Flammingo^Parliament 09:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who finds the whole garter-stripping tradition kind of creepy, could that section be clarified a bit? I think this is a very recent and very American tradition, and not something that has achieved full penetration into the culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.49.54 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to put this, so I will put it here. I have heard "Bridegroom"'s origin does indeed go back to the Anglosaxon root Guma and was originally written and pronounced Bridegoom. This has sense been changed into the modern Bridegroom and is somewhat of an eggcorn, that is, "an idiosyncratic substitution of a word or phrase for a word or words that sound similar or identical in the speaker's dialect"^[1] --152.228.80.131 (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Eggcorn". Wikipedia. Retrieved 8 December 2015.

Groom Vs Bridegroom

I am not sure that "usually shortened to Groom" is strictly correct, other than perhaps in the US (where many of the wedding customs are different - order of the procession, being one example). While working as a journalist in the UK, prior to living in the US, I was always told that a Groom was someone who looked after a horse and that a Bridegroom was someone who looked after a Bride. --621PWC (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing

Article has been copy-edited as part of the April Blitz. However, it remains Anglo-American centric and should be expanded to account for other traditions. --Mhbeals (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groom as Article Title

I now notice that the main article title has been changed to GROOM when the body of the text makes it clear that "Groom" is a subordinate short-form of Bridegroom. This really should be changed. --621PWC (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well, and completely agree. Any objections to changing it? --Mhbeals (talk);

Agree, change it to 'bridegroom' unless world usage can be shown to favour 'groom'.Malick78 (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has obviously changed it back to "Groom" - without any supporting notes here. How can the opening paragraph make it clear that Groom is "sometimes" a short-form, but then use that as the main article title? --621PWC (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a groom?

An editor recently added the following sentence: "His partner, who becomes his wife after the wedding, is referred to as the bride." This appears to me incorrect: Where two men marry, both are referred to as a groom. See for example this or this. I propose to revise this to address both scenarios. Likewise at bride. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't have an up-to-date edit history - someone's already done it. Forget it. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 08 August 2014

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. 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: moved per request with old version of Bridegroom moved to Talk:Bridegroom/old version. Favonian (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Groom → Bridegroom – Per multiple talk page comments. Also, it's more precise/less ambiguous, and it's where the page originally started—which is the source of the problem. Bridegroom was merged and redirected in 2007, and then it was split into the 'wrong' redirect in 2010 (without attribution to the immediate source, much less to the original source). It might be best to merge the page histories if that's possible. – WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If accepted, also move existing page Bridegroom to something, to get it out of the way of incoming. No history-merge, as there was no direct complete cut-and-paste event; in the time between, the matter about bridegrooms was part of Wedding ceremony participants and then of List of wedding ceremony participants. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support move - certainly more natural disambiguation/title for this article, except that Groom might want to be Groom (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; we have primary topic here, and WP:CONCISE says we should go with the most concise title we can, all else being equal. There's a WP:COMMONNAME component, as well. There's not REALLY any other encyclopedic topic at Groom (disambiguation), certainly none that would prevert groom from redirecting to bridegroom, so WP:PRECISE doesn't apply. Red Slash 20:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the other uses of the word 'groom' are widely understood and 'bridegroom' is the precise form that is appropriate for use as the article title. Out of the context of a wedding the term 'groom' is ambiguous. Imc (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Groom" is ambiguous vis-à-vis other topics, some of which have encyclopedic notability (and unlike bridegroom, groom (profession) has no common alternative). Move the dab page to groom. — AjaxSmack 03:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Ambiguous with Groom (profession), among others. Not the original etymology. "Groom" is only used for bridegroom in the established context of a wedding ceremony. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2014 (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.

Etymology

This sentence can't be right: "The first mention of the term bridegroom dates to 1604, from the Old English brȳdguma..." People did not speak Old English in 1604. By that point, people were speaking Early Modern English (like Shakespeare and the King James Bible). I added a "citation needed" tag there. Let99 (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence

"In some circles, it is a modern alternative to bride or groom."

What does the second sentence mean here? It's not really explained how a bridegroom is a modern alternative to a groom; to my knowledge, they have always been synonyms, not just in a "modern" context. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Eggcorn". Wikipedia. Retrieved 8 December 2015.

[1]