This badly needs to be split into something like 1) Community (settlement) and 2) Community (sociology), to distinguish between the only tenuously related 1) original human geography sense of the term, based on physical living environment; and 2) the subcultural derived meaning of intentional community, voluntary association, and self-selecting participation. What we have right now is basically a messy WP:COATRACK situation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't split – I think there's way too much middle ground between these concepts. Perhaps you could provide examples of the kind of thing that the settlement article would talk about? Is an office community geographical—they all work in the same place? Are people of a diaspora a geographic community? What if they deliberately distance themselves from that community? What if they grow up with no connection to such a community but "rediscover" it? Aren't almost all communities intentional to some extent? Anthropological questions seem pretty inescapable even when talking about geographic communities. Even if there was a clear distinction between these definitions of community, this article can be hardly be called a coatrack (hook for "irrelevant, undue, biased" information). There are also already many articles on ideas like people, tribe, clan, citizenship. I wouldn't mind separate articles for these specific ideas you suggest, but I do think it would be a shame to get rid of this one and I think there would have to be quite a bit of overlap. It may be that I'm not quite getting what you're saying here. If so, please let me know.—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 16:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Another I just realised. There are already articles Community of place, Community of interest and Community of practice. Would your proposal be merging the content of Community into these?—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 17:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Another approach - keep Community but mark sections that have gone off topic and can appropriately be moved to Community (sociology) (or other discipline). Intuitively, the page name without a qualifier (e.g. tv show, book, scientific discipline) will refer to the basic (popular) concept. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't split -- add a subheader for the sociological perspective given the first subheadings. Ecology is a discipline of thought around community that is distinct from, though it also overlaps with, sociology. I'll have to come back and read the whole article to say more. sheridanford (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support though the distinction between the scopes needs to be better than that. There's a reason why these two subjects are referred to by the same word. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — A location community is just a subclass of a sociological community. If one looks at the table of contents, there's actually surprisingly few concepts that are exclusive to location communities or non-location communities. Content that gives undue weight to and applies only to location communities should be moved to Human settlement. Furthermore, I specifically object to SheridanFord's proposal. I think that section should be deleted. A hatnote should be used to point to the ecological meaning, and the archeological perspective should be generally incorporated throughout this article and the Human settlement article. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also object to I.am.a.qwerty's proposal since the popular concept is the sociological concept. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bollocks. The human-settlement meaning the term itself used for this meaning (in English, and in earlier forms in Middle French and Latin) pre-date the existence of sociology and any concepts we would call sociological by centuries and ultimately millennia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment aren't other articles such as Community of place or Human settlement sufficient for that concept? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Split it or thoroughly edit it, because it's a very poor article, largely a repository of trivia and one-upmanship. It strikes me as… odd to equate any grouping of two people sharing only a single (possibly very narrow) interest to a neighborhood or village or social movement; the former has MUCH more in common with a SIG. Better still might be to strike it entirely, as a grossly overinflated (and poorly sourced — e.g. Community#Ecology, Community#Organizational communication, Community#Location, Community#Overlaps) dictionary entry. — Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I now support I.am.a.qwerty's another approach, since it would retain the central human-settlements material at Community, as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is consistent with the split concerns of others. It would actually address the central don't split concern, too – because if the sociological and subcultural stuff were put into a subsection, it would be split out into a separate article (either immediately or eventually) per WP:SUMMARY, anyway. The secondary don't split idea, that the original human-settlement sense of the term is somehow derivative of the sociological sense, is obviously counterfactual.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]