Talk:Party
I think this is a very un-useful redirect. (1) Not all guests are party guests. When my girlfriend and I visit her family, we are the guests of whomever owns the home at which we're staying, even if there are no parties occurring during or planned for our stay. Also, when a restaurant serves customers, it calls said customers "guests," even when nobody in the restaurant is partying. (Indeed, the situation may very well be that every guest at a given restaurant may be alone.) (2) A party can be either an event (as in a birthday party or a bachelor party) or a group of people (as in a political party). Partying (e.g., playing games, dancing, playing or listening to music, perhaps even use of drugs or alcohol) is an activity that usually occurs at parties and usually involves some degree of excitement, jubilation, celebration, or other happy social interaction, while being a guest does not necessarily mean there is any excitement or partying or happiness (e.g., funerals have guests, but are not generally "parties" by any stretch of the imagination). Therefore, I recommend we undo the redirect, and that an actual page for party be created. allixpeeke (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- As more articles are created, Party could ultimately become a disambiguation page including
- Revelry (the sense to which "party down" refers)
- Celebration (the sense that is devoted to an object)
- Political parties (but probably not the broad sense that refers to any group of people)
- I would recommend against comingling quotes about partisanship, commemoration, and carousal in a single article. (Regarding funerals: one can certainly refer to a funeral party in exactly the same sense as a wedding party, and in many cultures and subcultures a funeral is indeed a celebration of life.) I agree that the redirect to Guests is not very apt. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I could definitely get behind allowing party to be a disambiguation page. (Even if party becomes a series of quotes about parties (as events) and partying (as an activity) without inclusion of quotes about parties (as a mere grouping of people), a simple "See also: political party" would be appropriate for inclusion. I, too, don't think quotes about political parties (e.g.) should be incorporated into a party article.) Either way, I am pleased to see consensus that the redirect to guests is undesirable.
As an aside, I did not mean to imply that funerals are never "parties," only that they are not generally "parties"—just to be clear. (Suffice it to say, though, even if they were considered "parties" nine times out of ten, the outliers would still provide us examples of "guests" that are not "party guests," as I don't doubt you agree.)
Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- I could definitely get behind allowing party to be a disambiguation page. (Even if party becomes a series of quotes about parties (as events) and partying (as an activity) without inclusion of quotes about parties (as a mere grouping of people), a simple "See also: political party" would be appropriate for inclusion. I, too, don't think quotes about political parties (e.g.) should be incorporated into a party article.) Either way, I am pleased to see consensus that the redirect to guests is undesirable.