Talk:Group

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Group Talk 28 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)[edit]

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)[reply]

"Group" Definition and Development[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. Please discuss with me before you change again .I tried to write an original article on "GROUP". I am a relative newbie and searched for the blank page. I even wrote an e-mail to WP, but the answer was not helpful, so I put it on the disambigition page which kept coming up on the Search. I agree with you that there are some errors in format, and I was working to edit them. I can learn the formatting only a little at a time.

I strongly disagree with you about the value of the contents. This is well verified material as listed in references. It is a much needed melding of social psychology, group development,and animal behavior for the evoltionary explanation. As mentioned in the article, most sociologists , for example, have not tended to this facet for various reasons. I'm not sure what "encylopedic" style excludes. I tried to follow the hints provided, and feel that this piece follows the needs of the content.

I agree that it may be misplaced on this page, and would appreciate any help in moving it. Unfortunately, the initial suggestions do not seem any more appropriate than your page.68.220.36.16 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are certainly more experienced about WP than I am so I accept your judgement. Given the alternative, the content is more appropriate for Group ( sociology) than for the disambiguation page, though there is a decided difference in scientific disipline. If you are suggesting a separate page, I would not object. The heart of my article is the use and need for a more precise definition. So how about "Group" Definition and Development, or any modification there of.

In any event, I am at a loss as to how to make the transfer. Can you help? I am a registered User, but what I had listed as my password is not accepted at LOG IN. I have several times requested a new password, but have not received same.68.220.36.16 22:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

So far it doesn't come up , but as the note says there may be a delay. Yes, I have read, printed, and studied the MoS. I was trying to correct errors as indicated in the summary of edits. But the process is not so easy in the learning stage. Thank you for your constructive criticism, and I hope that this works out to your satisfaction.68.220.36.16 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Missing article[edit]

We seem to be lacking an article on a meaning of the word "group" that is somehow related to telephony/signalling. Lots of the articles that link here (which they shouldn't) are referring to this meaning, but I can't work out what it actually is. Anyone? Soo 23:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of the meaning in telephony carrier systems where it refers to a group of channels (a set of channels carried together on the same carrier subsystem)? In this case, you may want to see Frequency-division multiple access where groups, supergroups, and mastergroups are all mentioned.

Atlant 00:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groups of People[edit]

Perhaps Groups of People should be merged into Group (sociology). 149.167.208.40 07:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. TheKhakinator 07:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

broad concept article[edit]

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)[reply]

Unix[edit]

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

Edits[edit]

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

group in a collection of individual number[edit]

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)[reply]