Talk:Community (disambiguation)

Cleanup of the article page

Because the Community article is so lacking at present, effort should be made for the time being to go beyond "help[ing] the reader determine which page they are looking for" (MoS:DP) to encouraging visitors to look elsewhere (at related pages, the main ones of which I believe need bolding to call attention to them--including links to less obvious alternatives such as Community psychology and governance). Hopefully this situation (on Community) will be remedied soon. On a huge topic like Community, it is essential that perspectives from various disciplines be adequately represented, and that they be identified. (This isn't at all true yet on Community.) For these specific exceptions to MoS:DP, the guideline found there wisely advising that "for every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else" seems to apply well on Community (disambiguation).

Does the page need additional cleanup beyond the good job that Tedernst has already done (except the few items that needed revision by those specifically familiar with the content areas involved)? I thought the cleanup he did (that I didn't revise) was very helpful, but there wasn't space to say that in the edit summary. -DoctorW 05:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

MoS:DP

Doctor feels its important to deviate from the manual of style for this page. Doctor, please give specific reason for:

• bold
• italics
• self-reference
• any other deviations you feel are necessary.

Thank you. Tedernst | talk 17:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to be gracious before, but the harsh fact is that your edits of this section (Main community articles) showed both ignorance of the content and poor judgement. Now you make a shrill demand to have a more detailed explanation than that already given for the choices made for how to present this content in the way that those most familiar with it feel conveys it best to visitors. Read the explanations carefully; if you still don't understand them, perhaps part of the problem is your being insufficiently familiar with the content. -DoctorW 02:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page. There is no such thing as a "person more familiar with the content". A disambiguation page is only to help the reader find the intended article. Unless there is a reason to utilize an exception, the disambiguation manual of style page serves quite well for hundreds of articles and will do the same for this article as well. Tedernst | talk 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

piping on a disambiguation page

Per MoS:DP, piping is not to be used on a disambiguation page. Please explain why this standard should not be used on this page. Tedernst | talk 17:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that part of the MOS to my attention. I was simply trying to avoid possible ambiguity. The article Community (trade union) is not about some special meaning that the term "community" has within the world of labor organisation, which is what the title of the article might imply. Nor is Community (trade union) the name of the organisation. It is just called "Community" so "Community is the name of a trade union in the UK" seemed like the clearest and most natural way to put it. I was not aware of the dispute over formatting that seems to be going on here and I won't be getting involved in it. Mattley ^(Chattley) 18:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Self referenes

this disambig page makes a lot of references to the fact that this is an encyclopedia, I'll try to fix it. MichaelBillington 02:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

List of community topics

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

A List of community topics has been created to soak up a large portion of the extra stuff on this article. It's still under construction.

Done! Can we archive this discussion now? — CQ 19:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work on cutting. Maurreen 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• Community (disambiguation) → Community
• Community → Community (social unit)

– Following on from the WP:SNOW closed Talk:Community (TV series)#Requested move 13 May 2021 I suggest that there is no primary topic for Community/Communities per SoWhy. By usage the TV series gets 121,787 views, the social unit gets 23,718 and the ecology meaning gets 5,302 and Commune gets 8,299.[[1]]. By long-term significance the ecology meaning is also significant even though the article has a "main" template suggesting its a sub topic it actually appears quite distinct and deals with all types of living things rather than just humans and the origin of this term if from commune. Google mainly shows the TV series, Images is split between the TV series and the social unit and Books appears to mainly return the social unit. I'm not sure the best target but I'd suggest based on both primacy criteria there's no clear primary topic so its safest to disambiguate. Also Community (administrative division), such as Community (Wales) have some long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Crouch, Swale's reasoning. Regards SoWhy 08:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The social unit is the primary topic. All other meanings appear to have been named after it. JIP | Talk 22:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per long-term significance. Srnec (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Community" in an ecology context is really just a special-purpose use of "Community" in the general sense. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on grounds of long-term significance. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current topic is the primary. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 00:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.