Talk:Coordination
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
References on "Coordination" theme. edit
Hello, If you have write something on the theme "Coordination" you are invited to add your work on the references paragraph. Bye. Alessio Bissoli —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alessiobissoli (talk • contribs) 13:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
- I have left several notes on your talk page about the use of this page, which unfortunately didn't seem to get addressed. As it is now, this page has information that can already be found in more detail on wikt:coordination, making such info on wikipedia rather redundant. One of the references seems to be a book you wrote, but WP:NOT#SOAPBOX suggests this reference should get deleted. The "See also" section (as it is now) is also a mess, as the word "Coordination" doesn't even get mentioned in the linked-to articles. Telling from the page's history edit summaries, the consensus seems to be that this page should be a disambiguation page, but attempts to turn it into one have been reverted without giving proper reason. Personally, I can't think of a way that this page can be an encyclopedic entry beyond dictionary usage of the word, and neither does my paper encyclopedia. Then again, I'm not familiar with "Coordination", and I'm willing to see someone turn it into a proper article, which should then be linked to from a main "Coordination" dab page. – sgeureka t•c 13:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a free contribution encyclopedia, so every person can add something if sounds good, and you don't forget that person utilize time for doing this.
- The "See also" section (as it is now) refers on the themes and areas in which every person can deep the knowledge of this term. It's not a page with disambiguation and I don't understand why should be. There is also a reference to a wiktionary.
- Then again, even if you are not familiar with "Coordination" subject, you can add or modify the structure of this page, improving it, but without delete contributions that everyone can give to this theme, and doing well your job. Alessiobissoli 27 April 2007
To Alessio Bissoli:
Colleague, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of wikipedia and a certainn kind of pages called disambiguation pages. First of all, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionary definitions go into the "sister wikiproject" called wiktionary. The term "coordination" besides its very general definition, has a number of specialized meanings in various domins of knowledge. In wikipedia, each separate meaning is described in a separate article: coordination (linguistics), coordination (chemistry), etc. A disambiguation page is a navigation tool, which allows the reader to quickly select which specialized page they must read: either a wikipedia article or a wiktionary entry for various dictionary definitions. For ease of navigation disambiguation pages have a very simple, transparent and standard structure.
Clearly, a number of specific meanings for the word "coordination" is missing in wikipedia. For example, only yesterday I wrote a ridiculously missing article motor coordination, to address the line in your version of text "Coordination in human motion", and added the corresponding entry into the coordination page.
This is how wikipedia works. This is a tremendous job, which requires a good deal of coordination!!! :-) Please follow the rules. You may begin with "Wikipedia:Five pillars".`'mikka 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- And this is the reason why you should let people deepen their knowledge of the term in different fields. Alessiobissoli 27 April 2007
Alessiobissoli, please read your your talk page again. I'll revert Coordination to the disambigation version in about an hour if no-one else has by that time. – sgeureka t•c 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
coorfination edit
what is coordination 2400:AC40:707:EEA4:3C46:8E8E:C8D2:DDD7 (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)