| 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. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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]
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
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]
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]
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]
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 thisorthis. I propose to revise this to address both scenarios. Likewise at bride. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 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]
"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]
