Talk:Wedding dress of Catherine Middleton

A note
Excellent article! James norquay (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the fact that this article even exists is an slight indicator of wiki admins slacking. 76.247.134.35 (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL, my thoughts exactly. Will there be an article on her shoes, too? – Alensha   talk  18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this article should not exist? That it does not meet notability standards? That is absurd. This dress will be remembered for decades. It will influence wedding dress designs for long, long time, not unlike the fact that brides wear white today because Queen Victoria wore white… almost 200 years ago. This is an interesting, well-written, and well-referenced article. Eric Cable |  Talk  13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Naming?
I've moved this article from "Wedding dress of Kate Middleton" to "Wedding dress of Catherine Middleton". Should we be using this, her name upon entering the Abbey, or "Wedding dress of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge", the name that she left with? -- Zanimum (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently, we're going for what will bring in searchers? It was moved back for the reason that "that's what people will be searching for". --  Zanimum (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to find object naming precedents, from the perspective of this dress as an artifact, which it will no doubt become quite soon. The Canadian Museum of Civilization seems to only have three wedding dresses in its collection, one of them a suit. That suit is described as having been at the wedding of 1939-1945 Second World War, 1943, August Marriage of John and Gwedoline McDonald: it refers to the bride by her married name. In two different fields, this dress accession record reads "Comments on this dress worn by Margaret Jane Young, née Buchanan" (the married name takes precedent) but then "Associated party, Buchanan, Margaret Jane" (the maiden name).


 * I'm digging through the Canadian museum best practices documents on a site called CHIN, no real luck. That said, I work on-call at a museum, and can ask Monday, if we haven't come to a consensus by then. (I should note that museum object don't have "titles", persay, just a heck of a lot of fields filled with standardized terms. --  Zanimum (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it should remain at the current title, which was her WP:COMMONNAME at the time of the wedding. See also the articles in Category:Royal wedding dresses which also follow this naming convention (though it must be said that they were created quite recently). Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All British?
According to this the lace was made in France, http://www.vancouversun.com/life/French+lacemakers+discover+their+work+Kate+dress/4697779/story.html which is contrary to the entry saying all fabric was British. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is backed up by an article from Vogue USA that talks about the french lace.http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/lace-to-the-altar-the-story-behind-catherine-middletons-dress-sleeves/ --Tayang (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor style point
Apologies if I've done this wrong - I'm new! It would seem sensible to me that the first main sentence of the article, starting with the words "The Wedding dress of Kate Middleton" (all but "The" in bold) should have a lower-case "w" for "wedding", and a link to the article "Wedding dress" with the following two words. And the "Wedding dress" article should perhaps have some suggestion of the existence of this article and the other new articles which are currently appearing on royal wedding dresses (to be followed by other famous wedding dresses??). And I would make the same minor pair of edits to those other new pages. (I would have actually made those edits but as it seems clearly to be a style point I thought I'd leave it to someone more experienced.) Counterbalanced (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC) - Edit: just noticed the link at "bridal gown" - is that new? That'll do. However a similar link is needed in each of the other royal wedding dress articles (well, Diana's at least - I haven't checked the others.) Should the "see also" section perhaps include all four of those rather than just Diana's? Counterbalanced (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, changed to lowercase. "Bridal gown" was chosen just to avoid repetition. I'll have to make a template, perhaps? Bob talk 11:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Negative reviews?
Our text said that reviews were "mostly positive", which I've changed to "almost all of it positive". But were there any negative reviews at all? If not, "almost all" is as bad as "mostly"... If there were, we might quote some. Ericoides (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry that was me - I didn't want to claim they were entirely positive just in case there were any that said it was unimaginitive or something, but I haven't read anything criticising it. I mean, there was some pretty blunt criticism of some of the other dresses and hats (I think you know what I'm referring to), so I imagine there must be something out there. Whether it's from a notable fashion critic, though, is another matter. Bob talk 20:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I've seen suggestion that it was too plain, but I don't remember if that was anyone notable. Well, relevantly notable.


 * Apparently Pippa was trending higher on Twitter during the ceremony, and one of Canada's national level newspapers has this report about how many feel she "stole the show". I'm wondering if we can find any fashion designers or notable critics stating that Pippa's dress was better, which is sort of a negative review of Kate's dress, in a way. Would you all agree that such a quote would be relevant, for lack of a straight-forward negative review? --  Zanimum (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, not really; that Pippa stole the show doesn't mean that K's dress wasn't well received. I've removed the "almost all" bit pro tem until we can have some sources saying it was dull, ugly or whatever, and replaced it with the somewhat anodyne "[it] was very well received". Ericoides (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Context and construction
I fully appreciate that dresses matter and I admit that the effect was impressive. But as a man, when a female relation comments that a dress on television is pretty or fashionable my reaction is either 'what dress' or 'how can you tell'? I don't think I'm alone. What would, I think, help some readers and make the article more encyclopedic is explanation of what makes the dress special and different, and how it fits into tradition and contemporary style. And how did the designer achieve her intentions? I apologise if all those matters seem obvious, but I have occasionally read or heard an explanation of some item of female apparel that has successfully done that and I do think it would be useful here. --AJHingston (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. It might take a short time before we can manage such analysis - ie, for reliable sources to become available - but, yes, absolutely; perspective on its influence would really help. Good suggestions,  Chzz  ► 08:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it needs time. But don't be afraid to treat us as idiots. I was well into adult life when I was walking through the costume gallery of a national museum and noticed a late 19th century French dress, and it came to me as a revelation that the effect depended heavily on the fit, and that necessarily distinguished it from today's off the peg wear. And I'm afraid it has had to be explained to me that if the convention is to wear full length garments then showing off the fabric becomes important, and also how changes in fashion have reflected ideas about body shape. I admit that it has occured to me to wonder how the train on this wedding dress can work behind (when she is walking) and in front (when seated with the bridesmaids in the official photograph). It may be obvious to anyone who has ever worn one, but it must be the male desire to see how it works. I'm not suggesting, of course, that costume articles should be written to suit men, just that costume historians sometimes fail to appreciate that some people just don't see things in the same way they do. Insofar as the same approach can then be taken for the other wedding dress articles, then it should be very informative. I'm guessing that those who say 'it's just a dress' are similarly lacking in understanding. --AJHingston (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No point in this article
This is frankly trivial, and surely isn't notable enough to be on wikipedia. Request deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.177.63 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree! The sheer presence of this article is one of the lowest points ever reached by Wikipedia! What amazes me is that there's acculturatede people (since the article was well written) who has such interests, and free time to lose to devoted themselves for such totally irrelevant arguments. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you could consider this in terms of our policies and guidelines, instead of mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Chzz  ► 17:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

 * Complete useless to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.69.230 (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Totally irrelevant. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposed deletion is not appropriate, because the article has already been to AfD.


 * Also, it is well-sourced, and clearly notable, with enormous amounts of "significant coverage".  Chzz  ► 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The matter has been debated at length and the overwhelming consensus was that it should stay. The test case is whether a really good article can be made out of it, and I believe it can - and that has nothing to do with whether it is a topic of general interest or not. Most articles in Wikipedia aren't. But one of the weaknesses in Wikipedia's coverage of fashion at the moment is that there is not nearly enough coverage of specific examples. There is an analogy here with painting. There are articles on movements and schools in art, there are articles about particular artists, often illustrated by examples, and there are some articles about particular works of art. It needs to be that way - there is a need to understand that there was a Dutch fashion for painting interiors in the 17th century, or that painters were heavily influenced by Caravaggio, that there are a number of painters who are considered particularly fine or influential, but in the end it is the paintings that are the point of it all. Whether Girl with a Pearl Earring is on a par with this dress (or any other) isn't relevant there. And for goodness sake, there are hundreds or articles on characters in TV dramas, so why worry about ones on dresses? We are free to read the ones that interest us. --AJHingston (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, It's closed. You can't change it now. This article has basically been perfected so any counterargument gets shut down. Also, if it was well sourced, you would've nominated it as a good article. --[User:Fun81]

Please move back
Please move this back to Wedding dress of Kate Middleton (over the redir); most people (in AfD, on talk, and elsewhere) agreed that 'Kate' was more appropriate - her correct name *at the time*. Users can use WP:RM if they wish to discuss it. Thanks.  Chzz  ► 17:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. --KFP (contact | edits) 17:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done; thx KFP.  Chzz  ► 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "most people (in AfD, on talk, and elsewhere) agreed that 'Kate' was more appropriate" Link to "most people" who share this view? And yet the main two articles use Catherine. I guess this is dumbed-down for the simpletons.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the reasoning is that the wedding dress would be associated with her name before the wedding, which was "Kate". I can see the case for either name, though.  Probably something that deserves a full discussion.  Canada Hky (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts, just to clarify: are you accusing myself, KFP, and others of being 'simpletons'?  Chzz  ► 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of press release by media
The section regarding design contains some errors due to the fact that the media have misunderstood the content of the Royal School of Needlework's press release available here: http://www.royal-needlework.org.uk/images/uploaded/Documents/Press_and_publicity/press%2Brelease%2B-%2Broyal%2Bwedding%2Bdress%2B-%2B29%2Bapril%2B2011.pdf Any reference cited from a newspaper or news report is very likely to be incorrect. The lace on the bodice was inspired by Carrickmacross lace, however the technique was not used to create any part of the dress. As you see from the press release, Sarah Burton sourced lace motifs (ie. pieces of pre-made lace)and these were stitched onto net by the RSN. In addition, refering to the embroiderers at the RSN as "dressmakers" is incorrect. The RSN specialises in traditional hand embroidery, not fashion or couture. 80.176.84.184 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It is a useful reminder to us all in Wikipedia that it is wise to check back to and reference the original or authoritative sources for things like this, such a formal report or press release. It is disturbing how frequently journalists either over simplify or misunderstand. There is a misconception in some quarters that Wikipedia always prefers second hand information but that is not how I read the guidance, especially WP:SOURCES. Obviously if a designer claimed that she was the first to do something, or whatever, we should look for independent confirmation. But if a designer says that there are five metres of lace in a costume we should prefer her word over that of somebody who may just be guessing or has misremembered, unless that person has really been in a position to check. --AJHingston (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, if you can fix it, citing appropriate reliable sources, please do. What was cannot do is, to add info that is based on 'personal knowledge'. I can't quite understand the objection to using the term 'dressmakers', on the basis that, despite whatever other qualifications and titles they might have, they were in fact making a dress. However, if you can amend it to be clearer, please do. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 19:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK! I'll have a bit of a tutorial, create an account and get to it. BTW the RSN simply created a piece of fabric which was then passed on to the Sarah Burton. The trained embroiderers at the RSN would be appalled at being referred to as dressmakers! 80.176.84.184 (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not think there is any basis for even saying that the lace on the bodice was inspired by Carrickmacross lace. I have recently updated the Wikipedia entry to describe Carickmacross lace in some detail. Carickmacross techniques bear only the remotest similarity to the technique used to appliqué the Caudry machine-lace. I have not seen any photographs that show the supposed national emblems of the British Isles, and until someone can direct me to one I shall continue in my belief that they were another case of the press inventing what it wanted to believe. The lace was made in France and the only thing British about it were the machines that were used. I propose the sentence "The lace bodice design was handmade using a technique that originated in Ireland in the 1820s called Carrickmacross, which involved cutting out rose detailing (symbolising England), thistles (Scotland), daffodils (Wales), and shamrocks (Ireland),[14][15] individually applying them to the ivory silk tulle.[16]" be replaced by a more factual phrase such as "The bodice design incorporated motifs cut from machine-made lace which were then appliquéd on to net." I am interested in the Wikipedia textile project and lace in particular, not the Royal family. But if Wikipedia has articles about the Royal family that make reference to lace, people will read them, so they should be correct.

Socialambulator (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

pictures of Kate Middleton's wedding dress replica
I have uploaded to wikimedia some high resolution and quality pictures of a Kate Middelton Wedding Dress Replica. Here are the links to the 4 images:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kate_Middleton_Royal_Dress_Replica_-_Full_Front.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kate_Middleton_Royal_Dress_Replica_-_Front_Bodice.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kate_Middleton_Royal_Dress_Replica_-_Full_Back.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kate_Middleton_Royal_Dress_Replica_-_Back_Bodice.jpg

I think they may be of interest and use on the following articles among others:

Wedding Dress of Kate Middleton, Replicas, Wedding Dress, Fad

Thank you very much for your time and contribution. Nookatm (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Chaudry Lace
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9551571.stm Quite a good article for expanding a bit about the lace for the dressRafikiSykes (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales/Wikimania reference to this article's AfD
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/07/13/kate_middleton_s_wedding_gown_and_wikipedia_s_gender_gap_.html

"During yesterday’s opening session of Wikimania—the annual Wikimedia confab, held this year in Washington, D.C.—co-founder Jimmy Wales took a question from the audience about the persistent gender gap. One contributing factor, he said, was topic bias... Wales gave the example of Kate Middleton’s wedding gown. The day of the royal wedding, a Wikipedia article about the dress was flagged for deletion." -- Zanimum (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gender gap? This link takes to a disambiguation page. Topic bias? There is NO wikipedia article that talks about it... and anyway I deem a bit offensive stating (or even thinking!) that the majority of women are so obsessed about Kate Middleton's wedding gown that they accept its "encyclopedicity". Duh?! For the news Denis Diderot (1713-1748), the chief editor of the 18th-century French Encyclopédie was accused of "propaganda" when he made the entry for "Geneva", which appeared in the seventh volume, too long. I quote from encyclopedia.com: "It was clearly an article meant to be propaganda, for the space devoted to the city was quite out of keeping with the general editorial policy and this marked the end of his friendship with the other main editor: Jean le Rond d'Alembert 1717-1783'' - And this shows that this comment it's not just an Americocentric one but is pretty Eurocentric. Thanks. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revision of Design section to provide correct information about the lace
I propose to rewrite the Design section in order to clarify and consolidate the description of the dress (it is inconsistent and repetitious) and to remove factual errors regarding the lace. The revised form of words proposed is currently as follows, although this needs some further minor changes:

---Start

"The ivory satin bodice was padded slightly at the hips and narrowed at the waist, and was inspired by the Victorian tradition of corsetry that is a particular Alexander McQueen hallmark. The bodice incorporated floral motifs cut from machine-made lace, which were then appliquéd on to silk net (tulle) by workers from the Royal School of Needlework, based at Hampton Court Palace. On the back were 58 buttons of gazar and organza, which fasten by means of Rouleau loops. The skirt, underskirt trim and bridal train (which measured 270cm - 110in) also incorporated similar lace appliqued in a similar manner. The main body of the dress was made in ivory and white satin gazar, using UK fabrics which had been specially sourced by Sarah Burton, with a long, full skirt designed to echo an opening flower, with soft pleats which unfolded to the floor, forming a Victorian-style semi-bustle at the back, and finishing in a short train measuring just under three metres in length. To partially fulfill the "something blue" portion of the British wedding tradition, a blue ribbon was sewn inside the dress. The design for the bodice of the dress featuring lace in the style of the 19th Century was the "something old".

---End

A paragraph will follow to clarify the situation regarding the lace. In summary the points that will be made are:

1. The lace was machine lace from three different sources, two in France and one in Britain.

2. Motifs were cut out from it and sewn onto silk net (tulle).

3. The effect produced is similar to late 19th Century decorated nets such as Carrickmacross and Limerick. However the technique is modern, original and completely different.

4. The machine lace was chosen from stock patterns and not specially commissioned or designed. Therefore the floral motifs were those present in the designs chosen.

5. Because no daffodils or thistles can be seen on the lengths of machine lace used for the bodice, it is unlikely that they are anything other than wishful thinking on the part of the press.

Certain references will be removed, the justification for which is as follows:

[14] This is about a wedding cake, not a dress.

[15] Although from the BBC this includes the statement that the lace "was hand-made by the Royal School of Needlework". This is so misleading that the article should not be quoted.

[16] The link is alive, but the article no longer there.

[17] The link is alive, but the article no longer there.

[18] This Sky News Article states that the bodice was made "made according to the Irish Carrickmacross lace-making technique'. This is plain wrong, as is clear from a comparison of the Wikipedia entry for Carrickmacross lace and the following.

[19] This Guardian article also wrongly states that the Carrickmacross lace-making technique was used.

[20] The link is alive, but the article no longer there. (At least I searched hard, but couldn't find it.)

The point of this post is to give anyone the chance to argue against the changes on factual grounds. It is also intended to document the reasons for the changes in more detail for anyone coming across them later and considering a reversion.

Socialambulator (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the update. I decided to retain the references 15, 18 and 19 above, although indicating that they were incorrect. That way readers can see what points are at issue and pursue them themselves if interested. Some may think that the section on lace is a little off the point, but as this article is classified in the fashion section, I would argue it is in fact extremely relevant. Naming and giving references to the fashion houses that produced the machine lace has, I think, also improved the information in the article. I would hope that anyone wishing to make changes to this would discuss them first.

Socialambulator (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, Yeah your emotions told you they were relevant? User:Fun81 What happened to IDONTLIKEIT above?

Merge
Given this article passed AFD, the content is fine. But I think we could consider a merge. Otherwise you'll start seeing articles like "Tom Brady's car" or "Arnold Schwartzenegger's House" where people will cite this article as a basis for notabilty. For those who would say her article would be too long, wikis don't limit the size of articles and long articles load in typically less then a few minutes. Buckingham is a no brainer, but would someone write about the bed the Queen or Princess sleeps in? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "x has an article, so x" has not happened, as far as I know, and the AFD here was the basis for a sequence of similar articles about notable fashion items. If this went into the Duchess article it would have undue prominence, and it probably would in the Royal Wedding article unless it was heavily trimmed. We do have articles about notable objects and possessions, for example DeLorean time machine or KITT, or Fabergé egg and Barbara Streisand's house. Bob talk 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is an article about the wedding itself, would moving it there be in issue? Back to the future's time machine is one of a kind, and the house is borderline.  You could argue it's a popular singer's residence.  But if that's the only reason then that should be merged, too.  VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If Tom Brady's car was custom-designed by a notable car designer or if Arnold Schwartzenegger's house won an architectural prize then we obviously could have articles on those subjects. The reason for having a separate article on Kate Middleton's dress is not simply because she owns the dress, but because it is a unique object created by a famous dress designer that was worn by a notable person at a notable event.  I agree with Bob that if this article were to be merged with the Kate Middleton article it would have to be heavily trimmed to avoid undue weight, and that would not serve our readers. BabelStone (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously supports the "one of a kind" issue I discussed above. The reason this one isn't is because:
 * all wedding dresses are custom made.
 * most are rented, not owned by any particular bride. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim that it would make the article prohibitively long and give it too much prominence is borderline. Both are modest in size, but I'd support moving it to the wedding article, not her bio as I originally proposed.  VegasCasinoKid (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC):
 * Oppose, as discussed in my reply above. Not sure what it is about this article that generates such disdain for its existence by some Wikipedia editors. Will you be expecting to merge or delete all of the other royal wedding dress articles? Bob talk 11:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to merge the wedding article of each person, yes. To merge every dress article all together into one article, no.  Too long.  For example: Princess Peach's gown + Mario's suit = .  VegasCasinoKid (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if there can be around 99 articles related to USB types then I think this one dress can also have a page of its own. It is an article that is of interest to a significant number of people that has gained a lot of notoriety in its own right.--Discott (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppose some wrote an article about the wedding cake. Like the dress, every wedding event has it's own uniquely designed cake.  Would such an article pass?  VegasCasinoKid (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you so bothered by this article? Each article can be considered on its own merits - this one is reasonably well referenced and of a good length, about a notable piece of fashion that was widely discussed at the time and, as demonstrated above, it gets a consistent number of unique page views several years after the event so it wasn't just a bit of recentism. Bob talk 19:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking this personally. I was curious as to the merits.  If it was a good conversation piece in the media then probably it passes.  VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevance
I am in shock because there is a full Wiki-article about the wedding dress of who was that again? I think every sane person would agree that this article qualifies to be one of the most irrelevant reports ever. Can we please work on preventing things like this happening, at least from now on?

This shouldn't even be a C-class article but rather not have come to existence, in the first place.

--Felix Tritschler (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The article cites 41 reference. I have no idea what exactly shocks you. Are you seriously wondering why the article about the most important fashion item of 2011 is rated C-class by WikiProject Fashion or are you joking? Of course we will never "prevent" the creation of articles on fashion simply because you or anyone else among Wikipedia's editors (of which nearly 90% are male) do not care about fashion. I, for example, have no interest in fashion, sports or physics. Should I ask that we do not allow articles about people who do nothing but hit balls or about particles that are only suspected to exist? Of course not. Surtsicna (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Picture
Why is there no good picture of the dress itself? There's a terrible low-resolution image with most of the dress out of view, and two pictures of replicas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1045:F:7CD6:E072:69F9:6E28 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictures have to be free on Wikipedia - high resolution images from the day would have been taken by professional photographers, so can't be used here. Bob talk 11:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2018

 * The following is a closed 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: Page moved. The consensus is that this title should be moved to be consistent with similar titles. (closed by non-admin page mover) --  Dane talk  05:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Wedding dress of Kate Middleton → Wedding dress of Catherine Middleton – Kate Middleton is her nickname. We use full names for people in article titles. 75.67.58.188 (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Per WP:COMMONNAME. An article of high traffic like this should have a discussion regarding a page move before being moved. &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article on the wedding is called Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. There is some inconsistency between the two pages. I think either this page should be moved or the wedding page be moved. 75.67.58.188 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as long as the last name 'Middleton' is used on the page, I'll opt for "Kate". "Kate" is the very common, maybe the most common, name for her (book, films, the article Kate Middleton effect, etc.). She wore the dress to the wedding while she was not yet married, so who chose and wore the dress, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, or Kate Middleton? She came into the wedding as Kate Middleton, left as Duchess Catherine, and wore the dress during that transition. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom - and it would be also consistent with the article title of the Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. The versions with "Kate" instead of "Catherine" (or vice versa) already redirect to those pages. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, per Paintspot and after reviewing the template links that show the Kate Middleton effect is the outlier. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per CONSISTENCY.  CookieMonster755 ✉  22:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. We do NOT use full names of people in article titles, we use WP:COMMONNAMEs. "Kate" is and remains the common name. Furthermore, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, so arguments based on other article titles or redirects are not valid. James (talk/contribs) 15:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason Wikipedia titles are taken into consideration is site consistency and topic consistency. Everyone may call her Kate, but long-term historically, and within articles here except for "Kate Middleton effect", she has settled into 'Catherine'. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support She has become increasingly known as Catherine, as that's the name the court prefers to use, and it's also common to call her Catherine Middleton. Changing the title of this article would put it in the same line as Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, Engagement announcement dress of Catherine Middleton, Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, etc. Keivan.f  Talk 18:12, 23 May 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.