Talk:Bachelor party/Archive 1

Archive 1

South Africa

I've lived in South Africa for 30 years and been to a fair share of bachelor parties. I've never heard anyone ever talk about a 'bull's party'. Sounds like a load of bull, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.181.57 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, so I made it a maanhaar pary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixandhisthoothbrush (talk • contribs) 13:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed SA term – foreign language terms are not relevant for this article. --Regenspaziergang ^!? 13:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That depends. Is the term "Maanhaar partytjie" only used when conversing in Afrikaans, or is it used when speaking in English?

If in English - "I'm off to Van de Merwe's Maanhaar partytjie tonight," then it's a valid addition. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Germany

The section about Germany is completely wrong! The Polterabend has nothing to do with a Bachelor party. Such party is called Junggesellenabend or Junggesellenabschied in Germay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.75.2 (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• I second that. Being from Germany I can assure you that Polterabend is different from Bachelor Party which is indeed called Junggesellenabschied (translates literally to "bachelor farewell"). Junggesellenabschied is usual for close male friends, while Polterabend is for the whole family, friends and acquaintances (in rural regions there often are open invitations for anyone to come). While Junggesellenabschied can become quite crass, the Polterabend is very tame, more like a family party. --79.222.163.227 (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

LAN party ingredients?

Perhaps I am being short-sighted here, but why would an article about a stag party - typically an event teeming with alcohol, possible drug use, strippers, and various other similar activities - have an elaborate list of ingredients for a successful LAN party? Emptyandgray (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why the inappropriate picture?

...or is that a crossdressers' stag party? 68.4.25.202 01:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)John D.

IMO: these events made far more sense back in the 50's, when marriage was the time when you become tied down to the support of a lifetime wife and kids. What with divorce and two income families, it's a little passe. Pmurray bigpond.com 04:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• while tempted to take this bait for a discussion on people's commitments to the oaths they take, i shall decline as that the discussion pages were really meant to discuss the article not our culture. Cavebear42 16:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how they ever make sense, when even among the most liberal people, this sort of activity is usually forbidden to a man with a -girlfriend- not just a wife... and certainly one with a fiancee.

I would agree with your opinion, but I think we can all rest assured that our culture (in the United States anyway) tends to view bachelor parties as a final celebration of "freedom" by engaging in activities the fiance would not necessarily approve of. Therefore, the article's characterization of it as such is accurate. Boiler Bro Joe 18:17, 2 May 2009

Prague?

The article states that Prague is the capital of UK stag parties. But i'm pretty sure that it's actually Amsterdam and NOT Prague (for obvious reasons, not to mention that the city is closer to the UK) Superdude99

Prague might be cheaper... Ericd 18:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well according to the website [1] they list the top 10 stag destinations and Edinburgh comes top, which seems to make more sense.

Yes, Prague is much cheaper for beer, (57p-ish a pint!) it's very liberal, and the women are gorgeous! (no citation to that one!) Ade1982 02:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Maastrict

Looking at the geography, and the fact it's not as liberal as say, the Northern port of Amsterdam, I fail to see how this is a well known spot for UK stags? Ade1982 02:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sparta??

"The history of bachelor party is thought to have originated with a bachelor dinner that was traditional in ancient Sparta (5th century) where soldiers would toast each other on the eve of a friend’s wedding."

These bachelor party's are far more recent and originated in the US. Who believes that it came down from Greco-Roman times?!!

This tradition is spread throughout European cultures and their diaspora, such as Australia and the US, not the other way around.Nazlfrag 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Regardless of how we feel about the state of affair of Bachelor Parties, this state needs some sort of verification or citation.

Also, I am assuming this is 5th century BC, so I am changing it to reflect this fact. Unless of course there were some other neo-Spartans I am unaware of.=

so that all may know 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Penis Funeral

Why does Penis Funeral redirect here???

Duh Derekbd (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to add a reference or elaborate on information sources.

Hi, Thanks for taking the time to look at this edit. I was referred by Shirik would recommended I follow this path. A little background, I was looking over Wikipedia and came across a few instances where sources being used originate from MontrealVIP or are about MontrealVIP. [MontrealVIP][2] is a company that is considered to be experts on bachelor party / nightlife related issues and founders of the vip services for such events. The company has a well established brand and has been used by many celebrities, pro athletes, politicians and common folk like us ;) They have been featured on CNN, Playboy, Playboy TV, the Travel channel, askmen, to name a few as well as having been used in major TV shows and publications as sources on information and reference.

I attempted to make a modification to a source from Crain's used in the below section(the [2]);

the United States, Las Vegas[1], South Beach Miami, Chicago, and New Orleans are popular bachelor party destinations; they are also popular wedding locations. Increasingly, "destination bachelor parties" are replacing standard nights out, with Americans traveling to Montreal or Mexico.[2]

The information cited comes from the interview with MontrealVIP. I wanted to add this to the reference or to add the continuation of the piece where it mentions the information provided from MontrealVIP without coming off as a spammer. There is no article on MontrealVIP as of yet, nor am I aware of any that may have been in the past.

Thanks again for your time!

--Nero Brass (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous

This article is quite ridiculous. The article mentions things such as sending the groom on an aeroplane to a remote location and talks about wild things as if they are common. In all likelihood, the majority of stag nights are just a get together with friends at the pub or somewhere. Most will not involve prostitutes or ridiculous pranks. The article needs to be rewritten by someone aiming to be encyclopaedic rather than silly. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. a_man_alone (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Prostitutes

"Bachelor parties in the US often entail the mass consumption of alcohol, the hiring of a stripper or prostitute, and general rowdiness"

In relation to the above quote, perhaps I'm being naive here, but do bachelor parties really often entail the hiring of a prostitute? As a guy I find that hard to believe. I accept it probably happens at some bachelor parties, but I object to the claim that it is common place without some kind of reference to support the claim. Admittedly I'm in the UK not the USA, but I get the feeling Stag parties here and Bachelor parties in the US don't differ that greatly. I've been to various stag dos which have entailed visiting strip clubs but never have I been to a stag do where there has been any suggestion of hiring a prostitute.92.236.245.163 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that it depends dramatically on the social circle, but it's unlikely in the majority of cases. It's also unsourced, so you can remove the information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"In Countries Like Sri Lanka, this was known as a Formal Pre Wedding Party, and in the ancient times, this was called a "Nomile Badu Hukanna Puluwan Partiya", this happens even today in the exact same way." Which idiot editor allowed this part to be in the main article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.221.60 (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Stag party images in article - copied from usertalk

(Regarding this edit:[3])

How is a picture of three guys walking through a parking lot highly indicative of a stag party? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

They're carrying a polaroid camera & film, the rearmost guy is blindfolded and being led, and their attire is somewhat unlikely for a casual stroll through a carpark. Not conclusive I'll grant you, but as I said - indicative of typical bachelor party behaviour. a_man_alone (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's exactly the kind of thing the image use policy describes when talking about unacceptable user-created images. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly? I can see nothing that would contra-indicate either of the two images. If you are refering to this sentence: "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace; User pages are OK. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images." Whilst you may consider that they detract from the page, I do not, for reasons previously stated. What is the essential difference between either of those two images and the image of the stripper?

The parking lot image doesn't depict a bachelor party; it depicts three guys walking through a parking lot. They are the focus of the image. I don't know what you mean when you say they look too dressed up to walking through a carpark; I walk through parking lots while wearing a suit all the time. The other details you mention aren't even visible without clicking through to the photo page; they add nothing to the article. Same with the other pic; it's just a bunch of guys sitting at a truck stop picnic bench. Inexplicably, one guy is in a bunny suit; evidently it has to do with their party, but it isn't a normal occurrence, and it detracts from the subject of the article.

I also walk through carparks wearing a suit, but rarely whilst blindfolded or carrying a cane, or even with a gold watch chain. Unless I'm at a bachelor party, that is. Saying that details aren't visible without clicking on the photo is frankly a poor excuse, sorry, but true. So click on the picture. View it at a greater detail.

You're only thinking about people who view the article on en.wikipedia. That's not our only focus. That functionality is lost on mirror sites and downloadable database versions. But even if we are just concentrating on the web-based version, if the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, the photo should not be used (because articles should stand alone; they shouldn't require readers to click away to other pages). I'm not making this up; it's from WP:IMAGES. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The image of the stripper is different because it doesn't prominently display anyone in particular (you can't even see their faces) and illustrates a very specific and widely-accepted part of bachelor parties as noted in the article. It's less centered on the specific subjects and more on the overall concept. That's the difference. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree, it's completely focussed on the subjects, regardless of whether you can see their faces or not. In fact, a strippers face is not likely to be the focus of a photograph anway! Whereas I put it that the other two photographs show the somewhat eccentric mode of dress, the accessories, and the blindfold. The second picture again, containing a grown man in a pink bunny suit is hardly regular day wear, but needs the (excuse the pun) the bigger picture to show the context. They fit the Bachelor party criteria. They focus on the overall concept - dressing up, eccentricity, alcohol & somewhat out of character behaviour. a_man_alone (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

PS - I'm finished on Wiki for the night, so whilst you're welcome to reply, I won't be getting back to you until tomorrow at least. Don't think I'm ignoring you. a_man_alone (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

How would I know whether it's "somewhat out of character behavior"? I don't know those guys. I have no idea who they are or what they're doing. It doesn't convey that to me at all. Grown men wear bunny suits at Easter. And on Halloween. Or during Hell Week at universities. This article doesn't say anything about dressing up in bunny suits. Or about sitting at picnic tables at truck stops. It's not typical bachelor party behavior. Maybe the photo would be more appropriate in the "hazing" article.

I agree that the stripper photo is not ideal; it's borderline vanity, and we don't know for certain that it's actually a bachelor party (we have to take the uploader's word for that) but at least it does serve to clearly illustrate something that is mentioned in the article. If the article said something like "Sometimes at bachelor parties people walk blindfolded through parking lots with gold watch chains and canes", the photo would make more sense. But it might be difficult to find reliable sources to support that claim. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just being obstreperous. The article does mention in several places that outlandish dress (which I'm sure includes pink bunny outfits) and alcohol are an accepted part of the party. It also mentions that hazing may be present - so the picture qualifies under that heading as well.

Yes, we don't know for 100% that the pictures are of a Bachelor party, although the licensing, filenames - and the contents of the pictures - are all convincing arguments, but they are examples of what may occur on a bachelor party, and as such have a place in the article.

They're bad examples. It's not impossible to come up with good examples, but these aren't them. I don't understand what you're getting so upset about. I assume you're not the photographer or the subject. And surely you're not telling me you honestly think these are good photos. Articles like this are always rife with self-promotional photos—like this and this) and they are routinely removed.

I'm quite willing to take this to dispute resolution if you feel that's necessary, but I don't think you'll find too many people to defend these. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that you're the one getting upset over the images. Sure - take it to DR, but they might wonder why you haven't first brought the subject up on the actual article talk page first. I'll abide by the overall community decision, but bear in mind that so far the overall community decision has been to leave the pictures in - the bunny suit has been there since at least June 2008, and the car park since at least November 2008. And finally, yes obviously I do think they're good photos - in the context of stag/hen activities, otherwise I wouldn't be defending their insertion into the article. Dare I suggest that others do as well, otherwise they would have been removed long before you edited the page.

In fact, I've pre-empted this, and c&p'ed it to the talk page - see you over there for any responses, as this is quite clearly a content dispute that would benefit from others input, regardless of the direction it takes. a_man_alone (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because they've been sitting there doesn't mean the "community decision" has been to leave them in. It just means nobody bothered to remove them until now. Happens all the time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes it does. Previously no issue was raised, ergo consensus was to have the images included. a_man_alone (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Actually", no it doesn't. (Essays don't mean anything; there's one for every side of any disagreement.) Just because that's how the article has been doesn't mean that's how it has to be. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, and have already said I will abide by a consensus - whether it's a new one, or the old one. You want change, I don't. Impasse. Awaiting other opinions to form consensus, whether old or new. a_man_alone (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)