Talk:Third party

Redirect or disambig?

Where should this redirect, or should this be a disambig page? Шизомби 00:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should redirect ot Party (disambiguation), but if you look at the history you'll find that someone's been having a bit of fun. Ewlyahoocom 08:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct?

third party or third-party, with or without a dash? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frap (talk • contribs) 15:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphenation depends on usage. Third party (noun), third-party (unit adjective used attributively). For example, "A third party can provide third-party verification." See also compound modifier.— ¾-10 20:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "third party" when only 2 parties are involved

Why is it 3rd party when we talk hardware or software... What happened to the second party... Can someone elaborate... Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.94.114 (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<2¢>Just speculatively, here are 2 hypotheses:

Maybe it's because "third party" was already established in the language as a set phrase for "someone coming into the situation from the outside." In this hypothesis, "third party" as "outsider" originated with the earlier sense of a disinterested arbitrator who could settle a dispute between a first party and a second party. Then that already-established idea of "bring in an outsider" was later figuratively extended to the sense of turning to an outside vendor for a service or business process (that is, outsourcing) instead of doing it inhouse, even though only 2 parties may be involved.
However, looking at what Merriam-Webster has to say at third party (1641) and at third-party (1901), I would say that in respect to software, the need for interoperability adds a dimension beyond simple outsourcing. For example, if you outsource your cleaning service, the vendor's work doesn't have to interact with anyone else's work. But if software vendor A outsources some programming to software vendor B, there are 3 things that need to interact—the customer, vendor A's software, and vendor B' software. In the cleaning service example, there are 2 parties, but in the software example, there are 3. </2¢>

— ¾-10 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother trying to figure out if that response is more than simple nonsense; the correct answer is trivial:

The first two parties are the buyer and seller of a product. The third party is the provider of software included as part of the product.

--Jerzy•t 02:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Belated sig![reply]

You are totally correct. I must have been having a brain freeze when I wrote that reply, because I interpreted the asker's implication as being that the buyer didn't "count" in the counting of the parties, and my brain was trying to work downstream of that assumption. Everyone please accept my apologies for this instance of cognitively "spinning the wheels futilely after derailing". — ¾-10 16:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think i was right as far as i thot it thru, but (going a little further down the rails) how did i omit third-party software that the buyer adds to interact with what the seller provides? Duhhh...
--Jerzy•t 21:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party software entry

Perhaps there should be an entry, but

* Third-party content

is not acceptable in this form, perhaps not at all at this time. Dab entries require a page (perhaps one differently named) discussing the topic, and links from other articles to the name in question. If those can be found, Third-party content can probably have an entry in Third party#See also.
--Jerzy•t 02:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No primary topic

The "lead sent" reading

Third party is often used to refer to a person or entity who is not involved in an interaction or relationship.

could be cleaned up if it were the lead sent of an article, but the accompanying main-namespace page is a Dab, not an article, and a Dab page's first text links elsewhere if and only if the title has a primary topic.
(It would not be out of the question for WP to have an article on Third party (law) -- and/or on something like Third party (relationship), covering instances e.g. of an adviser to a couple, or of a mutual friend who might have insights into a difficult decision or stumbling block between two friends or colleagues. The scope of the law topic could arguably be the primary topic, or instead, the relationship topic one could, if it were treated as a superset of the law (and commercial) one. But it is not my purpose now to come up with a primary topic -- rather, my intent is to repair the stark failure of the current Dab with the least rewriting of articles: specifically, probably no such rewriting.)
Writing the lead of an "equal" (no-primary-topic) is simplicity itself: in this case, with

Third party may refer to:

--Jerzy•t 21:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political vs transactional parties

Dictionaries reflect a clear distinction in their definitions of

(political) party

and

party (to an agreement, or involved in a transaction).

I had expected to easily state similarly clear logic for my notion that the sections

Business and marketing,

Computers,

Law and society, and

Sports

belong (at most: i don't mean to rule out merging some of them) as subsections of a section which i'm calling for now

Acting in third of three roles

with

Politics, and

As a proper name

as the remaining top-level sections; perhaps others can improve it.
I'm pretty sure i'm leaving it less horrible; perhaps it's good enuf.
--Jerzy•t 21:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party accessories etc

Third-party accessories for the Wii Remote etc is a common meaning not currently covered by the DAB... do we have an article, or is it a gap in our coverage? Andrewa (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panel

Aimbot ff gameplyhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Third_party#/editor/8

2400:1A00:BDE0:D7EF:A088:553C:42EF:9AA6 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]