Talk:Party

Archives (Index)

2014 2015 2016 2018 2020 2022

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2024

A "sundown party," also called a "sundowner party," is a social gathering typically held around sunset, where people enjoy drinks, light snacks, and music while admiring the view, often at a scenic location, with a relaxed and casual atmosphere; essentially a party that starts in the late afternoon as the sun is setting down. Tejassura (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ultraodan (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2025

Please add the following paragraph:

"The ideal number of guests was found to be between five to nine people by Michigan State University. The minimum size for a party is two, although that can be considered a date, three people leads to the "Third Wheel" effect, while four quickly devolves to two couples. There is no maximum limit to the number of people in a party as long as the venue can sustain it. However, it was determined that the maximum number of people for a single host to comfortably maintain is Dunbar's number: 150."

Source: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/the_right_size_for_any_party 2600:8800:97:E200:41E7:D835:68F8:9C52 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Not a high-quality source. Day Creature (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

how is it not high quality? It meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP in that it's a secondary source published by a well-regarded academic press. 68.2.224.56 (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not published by an academic press of any kind. It's some random article that appears on the website of Michigan State University's extension school and is clearly not a real academic publication. Day Creature (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. It was published as it was prepared, reviewed, and distributed to the public. MSU extension school is a place for academics. And it's not just a random article, it is a newsletter which is considered a press. 2600:8800:97:E200:41E7:D835:68F8:9C52 (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are really unable to distinguish the article you linked from an article published in an academic journal, then I would recommend spending some time familiarizing yourself with what academic journals look like before you attempt to add sources or content to Wikipedia. Among other things, their articles contain citations and lists of sources, and they are not distributed as email newsletters. Day Creature (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't specify that all academic sources have to be from journals, and news is cited in wikipedia all the time. The article does link to a source which is this:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20130703050458/https://www.leadingleaders.net/articles/entry/does_the_size_of_your_group_matter/

which in turn, references this:

• R.I.M Dunbar, “Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates,” Journal of Human Evolution (1992), vol. 20, pp. 469-493.http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.dunbar.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20130606172158/http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html
• Christopher Allen, associate faculty member at Bainbridge Graduate Institute, for the academic understanding
• The Goretex Company, for the application of this knowledge in business
• Bruce Schneier, an expert in security, for the application of this knowledge in the military

2600:8800:97:E200:43AB:8E65:4E19:D164 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The latter is an excerpt from a journal. That said, the source you intended to use is not up to the journalistic standards used in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you can find the publications used in the news-ite you wanted to use, perhaps we could refer to the academic studies based on that. Happy editing. Slomo666 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

again, I'm confused which specific wikipedia criteria is missing for this to be considered reliable? 2600:8800:97:E200:43AB:8E65:4E19:D164 (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This article is akin to schoolground/student journalism or a general newsletter, which can be useful in narrow contexts, but is not reliable as a source. The weight your intended edit gives to the source is not supported.

Basically: you are saying, "scientists proved x" and using a newsletter to support it. The statement you are using demands a source with equal weight to the claim, which would be an academic publication, not a /news page by "Ben Chamberlain, SNAP-Ed/EFNEP State Coordinator".

Academic journals generally require findings to be reproducable, conclusions peer reviewed or at least review-able. This does not qualify any of those criteria.

In the page I linked, you can see that the examples for academic publications (secondary) are still publications that make extensive use of references.

Again, the website you provided does not do this. It refers to a study by a prof, but without citing the specific paper. It is not verifiable.

Slomo666 (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I linked to WP:SCHOLARSHIP as well, which is the section in WP:RS. The source I listed was a secondary review article, not a journal. Again, the requirement doesn't state that all academic sources have to be from journals. It's a WP:SECONDARY review article that interprets the ideas taken from primary source (Dunbar's number) and links to the secondary source (

https://web.archive.org/web/20130703050458/https://www.leadingleaders.net/articles/entry/does_the_size_of_your_group_matter/

) as evidence. As far as I know, that is within Wikipedia's standards unless I'm mising something 2600:8800:97:E200:43AB:8E65:4E19:D164 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not. It is a newsletter and it does not use references for the main claim despite referring to Dunbar's number. I have already explained what kind of weight the source you need for this claim "The ideal number of guests was found to be between five to nine people by Michigan State University. The minimum size for a party is two, although that can be considered a date, three people leads to the "Third Wheel" effect, while four quickly devolves to two couples. There is no maximum limit to the number of people in a party as long as the venue can sustain it. However, it was determined that the maximum number of people for a single host to comfortably maintain is Dunbar's number: 150." has. Slomo666 (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

So would something like this resolve the weight issue?

"Michigan State University extension school published that the ideal number of guests to be between five to nine people. The minimum size for a party is two, by definition of it being a gathering of people. There is no defined maximum limit to the number of people in a party. However, Robin Dunbar proposed in the 90s that the maximum number of people for a single host to comfortably maintain is 150." 2600:8800:97:E200:43AB:8E65:4E19:D164 (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

if you don't consider MSU reliable, we could also just leave that sentence out. 2600:8800:97:E200:43AB:8E65:4E19:D164 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the source you provided is not adequate and cannot be used. Making minor changes to the proposed wording won't change that. You will need to find other sources if you want to include something about the ideal number of guests at a party, but as this is inherently subjective I doubt there is any actual scientific research on it. Day Creature (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue is not that this is from MSU. The issue is that it is a newsletter. If it had been a UvA or MIT newsletter, it would also not be RS. Slomo666 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)