Talk:Group

message: There is no correct entry for Galaxy. The Galaxy entry applies to "galaxy" (uncapitalised). "The Galaxy" should have an entry - it is our home galaxy centered in the constellation Saggitarius. The disambiguation page does not help.
To repeat:  "Galaxy" is our home galaxy
"galaxy" (astronomy) is generic
Disambiguators of the world, converge - you have nothing to lose but your confusion.Carrionluggage 23:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Group Talk 28 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)

message: Does any one know why the article entitled " group " was removed,and by whom? I will try to revert to 23January 2006 if not adequately explained.68.220.36.16 19:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was already an article here and you've written a whole bunch of poorly formatted stuff that at first glance doesn't seem to fit in an encycolopedia.  Is your information related to Group (sociology).  If so, please edit that page.  If not, perhaps you can put your information at Group (FIELD) and simply leave a link to that on this page.  [[User:Tedernst
----
----
|Tedernst]] | talk 20:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I ask you again, is your information about Group (sociology)?  If so, please edit that page.  If not, let's come up with an appropriate name for your page.  What would you suggest? Tedernst | talk 21:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I moved it.  Have you looked at the MoS at all?  That would be a good place to start, in terms of how an article should look.  I've taken a first pass at cleaning it up for you.  It seems likely that the page name will have to change again, but don't worry about that for now.  Now it's the time wikify it.  And let's move this conversation over there. Talk:"Group" Definition and Development Tedernst | talk 22:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The talk page just needed to be created.  It's there now: Talk:"Group" Definition and Development.  Also, don't feel you have to discuss all changes to your page on the talk page first.  Just go ahead and impliment the manual of style, and ask questions as you need to.  Others might also edit the page as well, as you know.  Tedernst | talk 16:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [["Group" Definition and Development]]

message: :Perhaps Groups of People should be merged into Group (sociology). 149.167.208.40 07:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. TheKhakinator 07:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Groups of People

message: I think this disabmiguation page falls under the definition of a broad concept article.
This fits the following guideline about BCAs vs. disambiguation pages.
 ...if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page.
An example provided in the guideline is Particle, which is an article and not a disambiguation page.  Group is like particle, and the related articles in the dab page are examples of the concept.
What do others think?  Coastside (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  broad concept article 

message: What about the unix command ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.242.20.219 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unix 

message: I added a social science section, and linked corresponding topics. Shawna Echols (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: people is used when referring to a collective group or indeterminate number, and persons serves better when referring to individuals (or a number of individuals)
A number is always individual.Just like a person in a group as been given a number 18.That person should not be called as 18 people.He/she is an individual with that number calls himself as "I am number 18"
People is an indeterminate number.Just like a lock of hair.
On earth  "all" are people.There is  "none" not to be called people.
So the correct definition for group should consist of persons instead of people.Plural is the opposite of singular and are not same.In definition to group the word number is individual and shows singularity whereas "peoples" and other 's' consisting words are showing plurality.The word "person" is correct with "number". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.50.64 (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  group in a collection of individual number