Talk:Personal wedding website

Wedding statistics
There's a section that says:
 * In 2007 there are expected to be 2.29 million weddings in the United States alone. According to a survey by TheKnot.com, 65 percent of respondents indicated intent to create their own wedding website. Top reasons cited for creating the site included listing wedding day details and making online gift registries available to guests.

(I added the in the US alone" wording.) I presume this is in here to give the reader some idea about the number of individual wedding sites that are likely to be created, but I don't think it's reliable and the paragraph ought to come out.  This is because the Knott poll is simply a self selecting sample of already web-inclined people and the Knott has a huge self interest in promoting high numbers in this regard (since they provide the service free to increase their audience for their customers).  The estimate of weddings seems like a reasonable source (official industry based market research tends to be reasonably accurate) but that data is irrelevant without the percentage data.  Does anyone know of a more reliable replacement for the knott data?  Or another, better source that we could use?  If not I think the whole prargraph needs to come out.

We could also use statistics on other countries - is this an entirely US phenomenon? Is it more prevalent or different in the UK? Japan? Brazil? etc. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 08:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Wedding statistics
Yeah, I agree that the Knot's poll is far from a stratified random sample. But I don't think it's devoid of any informational value and think it's better than providing no hard data at all for the potential number of wedding website users. I agree that the poll represents a web-savvy group which may be misrepresentative of the wedding industry as a whole, but I don't think the Knot has a "huge self interest in promoting high numbers". How would this help them? At any rate, I have not been able to locate any better stats, but I'll keep looking. --Weddingexpert 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Knott has a vested interest in promoting high numbers because it implies to users that everyone is doing it and they should too. Getting users to use their tools is in the Knott's financial interest because it brings users back to their site where they will view the listings and ads that bring in the Knott's revenue. That's one of the reasons sites like that do those sorts of polls and promote the results when they find it useful.


 * Hard data would be good. Unfortunately the poll doesn't provide hard data.  That sort of poll is only useful for entertainment value (and, obviously, marketing!).  The juxtaposition of the poll with the good data on anticipated weddings implies that 65% of those weddings will have associated personal websites.  There is no justification for giving that impression and the inclusion amounts to original research.  No data is better than demonstrably bad data. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

External Link Policy
I scanned the external link policy and while I didn't read it thoroughly I didn't quite catch why the last link that I included was invalid. I don't necessarily think that every wedding website company out there should be included on the page... Wikipedia is not a directory, I get that. I noticed you SiobhanHansa deleted a link from JustProposed.com. I agree with that. But the site I linked to compares a bunch of them side by side and offers reviews in the event that someone was looking for one. Perhaps I should have linked here http://www.weddingwebsites.com/compare.php? --Weddingexpert 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So my thinking on that link went like this: It's not a well known or widely respected site, there's no provenance on the site, there's no indication of how the sites are chosen for comparison. And more importantly, the site doesn't tell us about the subject of personal wedding websites, comparison shopping isn't encyclopedic.   As well as not being a directory, we're also not a portal or a place to come for recommendations. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam Below See Also
Hi, I just registered, so I'm trying to be careful about edits. I noticed that there is some text below See Also that is obviously spam, and fulfills the wikipedia definition of spam. Is someone able to take appropriate steps to clean up this article and/or notify the user who placed the info?

I took care of it. Thanks for noting it. --Weddingexpert

To-Do List
Along with the definition at the top of the article, we will add several areas of interest to the reader. To help the reader navigate the webpage, we will construct a table of contents listing all of the sections within our article. We plan on adding visual elements to our article as well to attract the reader's attention. Gina will be working on a compare and contrast section to prove to the reader how using a wedding website will benefit them instead of using a wedding planner. Also, there will be a section on the history of wedding websites to give the readers some background information. Finally, there will be about 6-7 sections about specific wedding websites. Chris and I split these up evenly, so I have these 3 websites:

http://www.wedsite.com/?gclid=CMGC4eCCtKsCFUqK4AodmTkycQ

http://www.weddingwindow.com/?ad=go&gclid=COu0jeKCtKsCFYeo4Aod9yLsfQ

http://www.weddingwire.com/wedding-websites.html?pcode=ioenhl&gclid=CPrz1uOCtKsCFYyD5Qodgnmreg

I will be summarizing for the reader what each website offers. Specifically, I will analyze the services that these websites offer, the costs involved (if any), and the features on the page (for example, some websites have a music section while others do not). Essentially, we will do all the research for the readers.

Additional references:

Kds57 (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

to-do list
I will be writing a section about the comparisons between using a wedding planner and using a personal wedding website. I want to see the price differences between the two, is it cheaper to use a wedding planner? Or is it more economical to use a personal wedding website? I will be researching the cost of a wedding planner and with the help of the other members of my group, I will know the costs of using personal websites.

This is one source I am considering using to cite the price of a wedding planner is at this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=sIGVWGljsycC&pg=PA90&dq=average+price+for+wedding+planner&hl=en&ei=Rt1_TuSbD-bj0QHFqoTsDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CGUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also, as I was looking for books to cite, I found a lot of books for personal wedding planning. I'm guessing this is what people did before the internet and wedding websites became the norm so I think it would be important for us to include that in the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmz10 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

To-Do List
I will be compiling information on the following websites which offer personalized "wedsites".

http://www.ewedding.com/

http://www.mywedding.com/

https://www.weddingwire.com/

I will be recording Services the site offers (checklists, budgets, Guest lists, vendors, etc.), Cost (monthly, flat, free, trial offers, etc.), and Page set-ups (Homepage, wedding party, event information, accommodations, etc.) From here a table and detailed section of each page will be constructed. Along with this will be a collage of the different sites.

crmatthews89 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2011

Good start. If you cite commercial websites, take a look at Reliable_sources, and remember that such sources are likely to be biased towards themselves. Google books has about 50 potential sources, they would be on average more reliable than websites. Consider also searching through media reports through Google News and other services. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the links listed above as a laundry list of websites isn't really appropriate to the article. It just invites everyone to add their own website and ends up being a spammy list. See WP:EL for details.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

informal review
After reading the "grounds for divorce" article, I liked how there were subsections inside a larger section of the article. I thought they were a little disorganized, but for our group I would be interested in seeing how we could improve this format and apply it to our article. For example, I think we could have a large section of "examples of wedding websites" and then subsections of those different wedding websites instead of all larger sections of the different websites. However, I still think we should make a table of contents to jump down to different sections more easily. I'm not sure if the format I'm suggesting would allow us to do that though. Also, I looked at the Marriage in the U.S. article, and they already have a picture up on their site. I know we were considering this and after looking at their article that had a visual element, I definitely think it would draw readers in. Kds57 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

informal review
After reading your discussion page about everything you have planned, this seems like it will be a very interesting article! At first, when I read your article I wasn't sure how much information you would be able to get about it, since there wasn't much written yet. However, I think you brought up some really good points in your to-do lists, including, the ideas about visual elements to help people see exactly what these websites are about, also, another good thing is to compare the sites with wedding planners to help people make decisions about what to use. Overall, I think this is a good topic because it's new and relevant to our society, it will be interesting to read when it's complete.

Nll27 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review
I think this article could be interesting. I would probably like to learn more about the topic. Hopefully you can find reputable sources to back up your information. Maybe you could look into how technology has changed the way weddings take place in the United States. Do these websites have any type of relation to dating websites? Are they like social media sites for weddings? Just questions I'm thinking of as I look at your topic and wonder how you'll elaborate. Interesting topic though! Hope it works out well, I would like to see the finished product! Rojast07 (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of External Links
This specific article's topic is based on a web-based market, therefore a majority of the literature and information is strictly found on these individual websites. In-order to provide detailed information on the subject links to the various pages which offer different services and tools is required. The authors presenting the information are in the process of doing so from an unbiased strictly informational perspective with no intention of promotion or showing favoritism to any specific site. The sections previously deleted were not complete, but simply beginner drafts of a class project. The purpose being to compile and explain the major personal wedding websites different features and services offered. At the end of the term if the information still appears biased and uninformative please feel free to delete it. In the time till then please bare with us as we continue to develop each section.

Crmatthews89 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)crmatthews89


 * My apologies for removing it. However, might want to check the external link guidelines.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 18:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While the links are relevant, yes, please check the guidelines linked above. For starters, headings should be in plain text, not in the form of any links. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of wedsites
See for example Comparison of wiki farms for some ideas on how this can be done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edit
Recently I made an edit to this article that removed many of the details describing each personal wedding website. I am attempting to explain myself. I was following these guidelines with the edit:
 * LINKFARM I felt the links and comparisons composed more of the article than descriptions of the purposes and social impact of personal wedding website. Sure we can use these links as references as to what some of these sites do, but we don't need to list every detail here. You'll notice that I left the external links and even used some as references for features.
 * NOTADVERTISING I understand that people feel that the article was not advertising because it was presented in a professional manner. I felt the article was a shopping guide complete with hard to keep up to date prices.
 * Each section for an external website was rather short with little contribution to the article that is supposed to be describing personal wedding websites in general. If that website got its own article (like google.com or other websites) I would be very comfortable having more information on each external company.
 * MOS:HEAD Most of the section headings were links, which is to be avoided. It was difficult to put the links in the section without rewording the sections to sound more like advertising.

I am in favor of keeping these external links, or even having a comparison page as suggested here. Please feel free to comment with further comments. --Chrismiceli (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

chart
I put in a chart for our article, but I accidentally messed up part of Gina's section and I don't know how to fix it. Help would be much appreciated! Kds57 (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed, enjoy! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

References review
Your two website references need author info. What makes them reliable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I screwed the chart up again!
The sections of page set-up for two of the websites are missing. I do not know how to fix it, so please help! Kds57 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Chart
In the section labeled Wedsite under Cost, I would like to have the costs displayed 1 under the other. For example I would like it to say $69 for however many months and then right under it have $100 for however many months and so on. I had the set-up correct for cost section 2 rows above it, but I can't seem to get this one right. Kds57 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all sure that a list of prices is "encyclopedic" material, but there are at least two ways to achieve what I think you're after: either add the HTML line break code manually, or turn it into a bulleted list.


 * {| class="wikitable"

10.99 a month with 25 MB video and audio space $59 for 6 months with 50 MB video and audio space $79 for a year with 75 MB video and audio space $99 for 18 months $119 for 2 years with included hidden copyright
 * 10 day free trial
 * 10.99 a month with 25 MB video and audio space
 * $59 for 6 months with 50 MB video and audio space
 * $79 for a year with 75 MB video and audio space
 * $99 for 18 months
 * $119 for 2 years with included hidden copyright
 * 10 day free trial
 * $119 for 2 years with included hidden copyright
 * 10 day free trial
 * 10 day free trial
 * }


 * If you edit this section, you'll see how I did this. (Note that for the bulleted list, the asterisks must be the first character on the line, so you have to start one line lower than you normally would.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference formatting
I've unified the citations by using WP:NAMEDREFS and organizing them into the list-defined references system. I think you will find it a bit easier to edit this way, but if you don't like it, then you can revert it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Preeeliminary review
Since I see a lot of work has been done over the past few days, here are few issues from a quick overview about issues that need to be addressed before GA (a more detailed review will follow within a few days).
 * the article has no sections; this is an indicator that it needs expansion (so are the empty "Example" sections in the table). See Manual of Style/Layout
 * per Manual of Style/Lead section, lead should be a comprehensive summary (abstract) of the rest of the article, and should not contain new information. It does not seem to me like your lead is either.

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Daws reference is missing a publisher and date information

The Daws reference is a dissertation from a student published at the University of Kentucky, therefore U of K is the publisher. I will try to find an exact date but all I could find was that it was from 2008. Gina Zidek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmz10 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Further comment: do we know who and when created the first personal wedding website? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 05:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Updated
I fixed the formatting of the lists. Thank you WhatamIdoing! Added the missing reference information along with a collage of logos I made. Crmatthews89 (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Chart changes
The apps that I included in the chart were capitalized because they were the names of the apps that the site offered. Is that ok? Or would you like us to change that as well? Also, the "and more. . ." description of the services in the chart was not copied from the website. I changed it, though because it is not consistent with the rest of the sections in the chart. Kds57 (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that things like "Homepage, Welcome Page, Our Story, Wedding Events, Wedding Party" are "apps"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean in the chart under services for Wedding Wire I named apps such as "Blog, Car Rental, Carbon Calculator, Blog, Night Life. ." Kds57 (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, my first question is really whether these things are properly called apps. Except for the carbon calculator, those sound more like services or information pages than apps.  But I think overall that they're probably not proper nouns (e.g., this is just a carbon calculator, not ExampleCompany's Carbon Calculator® software), so I think that I would take out the capital letters on all of these.
 * Also, the goal here is really to provide a brief summary of the main categories of features (e.g., event planning, guest list management, customizable website) not a laundry list of every possible detail (e.g., by default, the customizable website templates at TheKnot.com include pages named Welcome, About Us, Our Proposal, Ceremony, Reception, Wedding Party, Our Registries, Guest Information, Photo Album, Guest Book, RSVP, Honeymoon, Map of Event, and two "Bonus Pages", any of which can be re-named or deleted). Some of the items listed seem silly:  One offers a service called "Free of Cost"?  How about "Site Security", which every single website has to provide (assuming they don't want to be hacked), and "Privacy Options", which all reputable websites offer?
 * I'd also lose some of the meaningless "peacock" terms. For example, do we really care if these websites offer "designer" templates or "beautiful" backgrounds or "unique" designs?  I think that a substantial re-write is in order.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I made many of the changes you have suggested. Please let me know if you see anymore problems with the chart. Kds57 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

External links and POV
As noted by the GA reviewer, the external links in the article sections violate the guidelines. Since the external links are being used as examples and aren't vital to the article, please get rid of them.

There are a couple of point of view statements in the article. Some examples are as follows:-


 * It is important to compare and contrast each website when choosing one to use.
 * The wedding websites are convenient for people who are not technology savvy as they are easy to use.

These statements are based on a person's point of view and might differ from others' point of view. We discourage POV usage in articles and it'll be great if you can weed out these statements.

I'll be giving this article a quick copyedit after this to fix some errors. Bejinhan  talks   14:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I took out all of the links, let me know if you see any that I missed. I took out the second POV sentence that you saw. But with the first, I changed to say that experts said that, because I did find that from a reliable source, I didn't make that up myself. Let me know if that's okay or not. Thanks for the help!! Gmz10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmz10 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the examples. While they are not external links, examples aren't necessary and don't contribute much towards the article.


 * I also suggest removing the comparison chart. It isn't necessary and can sound promotional.


 * No problem, and please don't forget to sign all your messages on this page by typing in 4 tildes ( ~ ). Bejinhan   talks   10:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We disagree with deleting the comparison chart. There are other comparison charts on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_smartphone so why is ours any different? However, we realize that the chart can sound promotional. If you were to edit what we had, what would you change to make it sound less promotional? Kds57 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Before you compare this chart to the smartphone comparison chart, you need to note the difference between that chart and this chart. That chart doesn't contain pricing info. Most items listed on the smartphone chart are notable items. They have Wikipedia articles. I know that some are still red-linked (meaning they don't have articles yet), but the majority are notable. As notable subjects, they fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The websites listed on this chart has not fulfilled the notability guidelines. The services section of the website chart is pretty much free promotion for the sites. If you read the smartphone chart, you would notice that the features listed are all "universal" features. Nearly every smartphone has them. The chart is just pointing out the different types of these features the smartphones offer.
 * If you really want to keep the chart, trim away the cost and services section. It is an eyesore and wouldn't serve well if this article is going to reach GA status.

Bejinhan  talks   06:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that at the very least, price should go, and services probably as well, unless we see any good counter-arguments for keeping them? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It might not be unreasonable to simplify "price" down to "paid" versus "free", but the specific prices should go.
 * I can image a much briefer description of services. For example, some of them are really just plain websites, with pages, text, images, etc.  Others are websites plus planning services, so they have the same pages/text/images/etc., but they also have budget software and links to (or perhaps "advertisements from") vendors.  Knowing whether a site is primarily about the website or primarily about the planning tools might be a desirable way to show some of the differences between them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your point about the smart phone chart, they are able to link to those smart phones on wikipedia. I looked for our websites on wikipedia and was able to link to one of them so hopefully this helps a little. Some of the services are the same such as "personal domain name" and things about RSVPs. What if we made these more uniform? I did change the prices so it basically just says "paid" "free" or says the length of the trial period.Gina Z (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that a more uniform description would be helpful. Also, we want to be thinking about the "big picture", so categories of features, rather than exact details, would be best.  For example (and this may not be a very good example; you could probably think of a better way to put it), you might say something like "multi-page website to provide information to guests" rather than "website with the following long list of suggested page titles".  Does that make sense?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That does make sense and I think that's a good idea/compromise for the chart. I'll work on later tonight/tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmz10 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering if there were any problems with the changes I made to the chart. The only thing I'm concerned with, and I'm not sure if this a legitimate concern, is that with making the descriptions so uniform it makes all the websites sound the same. Gina Z (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it makes them really sound identical. Does "inspirations board" sound a little like a title conferred by a marketing department to you?  Perhaps something more generic (like "ideas") would be better.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Final Update
Hi All,

I have just re-posted the wedsite collage image (with the appropriate tag this time), and added two sections on planning and communication. I hope this all adds to the quality of information provided and thank you for taking the time to review it.

Crmatthews89 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)crmatthews89


 * There are no references for the two sections you added. You will need to add reliable sources to ensure that the facts given are correct.


 * Also, please remove all POV in the sections. Sentences such as "This is an improvement from standard wedding invitations which only allow for limited information about the ceremony and reception." are subjective depending on the opinions of the readers and writers since some might view it as an improvement, some might not, some might think traditional wedding invitations have limited information, some might not. Bejinhan   talks   03:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples
As prompted by this query, I have removed the excessive examples tag. When I added it, the individual sites made up the majority of the article. They are now in one section and seem more relevant. Chris857 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I'm glad that you agree that it is much improved.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)