Talk:Village

message: What is the reason for the odd selection of country chapters in this article? It would make more sense to remove these and replace them with cultural regions. E.g. why is there a huge section on Lebanon, but nothing on the Middle East or Africa ; a hefty paragraph on Britian but nothing on the rest of Western or Southern Europe; plenty on the US but nothing on Latin America. --Theranos 19:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing odd about this. Remember that contributors write about what they know about i.e their own surroundings, so patchy coverage is inevitable. We need someone who has worldwide knowledge of villages but who would that be? - Adrian Pingstone 22:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it's not odd, perhaps problematic, tho, as inventorying risks becomeing heavy on the admin or legal part of the word's use in each state or jurisdiction, and,  the battle resulting from one overtaking the other. I see there is a flag for improving the many headings. Spooninpot (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: An odd geo-biased article

message: Make a content for Indian village plz 49.205.82.48 (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian village 

message: We need at least one other picture documenting what was is commonly referred to a "tribal village" or indigenous traditional village. We have one for Nigeria but I think we should also include a traditional Amazonian village too. We should mention all the uncounted "Amazon tribes" living in the Amazon Rainforest in traditional villages and include a picture that represent at least one such village with the inhabitants still living a traditional lifestyle. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a picture and mention of at least one isolated/semi-isolated Amazonian village 

message: I really appreciate it 102.89.33.155 (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's America Samoa villages name or community 

message: A number of wikipedia users have created/edited village articles en masse, claiming consensus, about communities that are villages, were villages according to state legislation, but are now in official language “former villages”. This is because of the term’s legal designation applying now to a region that includes the villages, which is out of compliance with the meaning of the word. It’s argued the use of “village” should cease except for its application according to the legislation.
So, an article about a village in New Brunswick, Canada begins… “Canterbury is a former village in York County, in the Canadian province of New Brunswick. It held village status prior to 2023 and is now part of the village of Lakeland Ridges. The community is west of…”
The lead would seem to me to over-emphasize the status. Would others agree there is a need to make the article more accessible to an inquiring reader. In my opinion, this is easily done by adding further description of what is meant as is done at Lakeland Ridges by placing “municipality” after village, lest the language get further corrupted.
Of note perhaps is that the county is a former jurisdiction in New Brunswick, at yet it remains as if in official use. PonapsqisHous (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving incorrect usage discussion