Wikipedia talk:Coherence (historical)

While I understand the basic idea of this proposal, I must object to adding Yet Another type of guideline, per WP:NOT a bureaucracy and instruction creep. Please stick to the existing Category:Wikipedia guidelines that everybody knows and understands about. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea came from wikipedia talk:easy navigation Any suggestions there? --Francis Schonken 07:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll crosspost. But since we're not very formal on Wikipedia, if something doesn't exactly fit in any of the given categories, it's better to take the cat descriptions with a grain of salt than to create a new subcategory. Honestly, this will only confuse others. If in doubt, please keep relevant pages simply in Category:Wikipedia guidelines, which contains all guidelines that aren't strictly about deletion, behavior, etc. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please let this page die. -- Beland 05:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the drama that speaks from that sentence --Francis Schonken 07:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"What to keep and what to throw out" stuff should go under Category:Wikipedia notability criteria (which could possibly be renamed to something more inclusive). Things like "easy navigation" belongs solidly under Category:Wikipedia style guidelines as an overview of style guidelines having to do with navigation. -- Beland 23:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 01:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Tx for the suggestions! For the time being: --Francis Schonken 07:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I recategorised trivia to Category:Wikipedia notability criteria; Category:Wikipedia coherence is empty now. Well, normally one shouldn't empty cats while the CfD is running, but I think everyone agrees on this one.
 * I marked "coherence" as deprecated on Template talk:Wikipedia subcat guideline
 * I removed "coherence" from Template_messages/Project_namespace
 * For Easy navigation: might indeed end up as a style guideline, but that ENAV thing is still in its early stages, so maybe wiser to work on that first, and worry about categorisation when there's more certainty about the v. 1.0 shape of that guideline.
 * For Coherence I'd move it to "outdated" with Historical has anyone a problem with that?
 * Regarding wikipedia subcat guideline: I'd like to see that as a different topic. Regardless of the fate of the coherence stuff, I think the subcat guideline template useful. I added the possibility to use that template for the "notability criteria" set of guidelines.
 * This page is now dead. The discussion has resurrected itself here. -- CQ 18:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was actually kind of wondering at what the heck Coherency was. Not looking to find out what Wikipedia Coherence was, but finding out whether what makes atoms stick to one another was Coherency or Adherency.. Neither Coherency nor Adherency gives me the information needed, however. Which is regrettable.. -- Maki 17:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)