Talk:Ai

message: My wording of Game AI is a little off, I'm going to bed, but hopefully you guys can fix it.
*Also, i think game_ai is a valid entry in here. I immediately think of it, instead of "real" ai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steamrunner (talk • contribs) 
Air ina Aminuxa43 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  game ai 

message: This article is now many pages long, and lagging on supplying the 'quick and easy' navigation assistance set forth in WP:MOSDP.  I think that Ai (disambiguation) and AI (disambiguation) should be separate.  I have no position on whether Ai continue to be a disambiguation page versus an article.  Thoughts? ENeville 20:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thought is that the dab page should be at AI, not Ai - almost every other 2LA dab page uses both capitals. Grutness...wha? 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AI seems better than Ai - Even better to split them and let each refer to the other as EN suggested. - Rod57 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ai & AI disambiguation 

message: (I started this as "Split by Casing?", but realized my error as i wrote.)
_ _ I consider to be a failure the concept of lumping the words and abbreviations together on one page, and  subdividing by subject. It does not serve users' needs.
_ _ There is a general guideline at MoSDab#Introductory line reading #: 
_ _ This suggests, but need not imply, that 
: variations of capitalization or punctuation of the same alphanumerics should be covered on the same Dab page.
In any case, MoSDab#Break rules can apply here. And i expect most users to have a pretty good idea from the context, whether they are looking for a word/name or an abbreviation/initialism. 
_ _ Thus my suggestion is two Dab pages: 
Ai, covering everything written either Ai or ai:
AI, covering everything written otherwise, including AI, aI, and any punctuation that implies a non-word, plus any cases of Ai or ai that are not words:
BTW, i fully intend that the two pages overlap, even beyond "plus any cases of Ai or ai that are not words"; on the tip of my tongue is ".ai", which should be 
# explicitly in the "See also" section of Ai, 
# probably also in an entry 
#:: ai, re-abbreviation of .ai
#: on that page, and 
# at least once on AI.
--Jerzy•t 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split by Words from Abbreviations and Initialisms? 

message: _ _ IMO, it is important to distinguish the uses of Dab pages in five situations of human names:
# people whose names don't include separate and clearly assignable and recognizable given and sur-names (Hirihito, Saddam, Caesar)
# people widely known, and usually referred to by surname alone (Shakespeare, Kant, Einstein, Hitler), in some cases to the extent that their given names are unknown to many who know their significance (Rimbaud, Goethe, Hegel, Tojo)
# people widely known, and usually referred to by given name alone (Elvis, Oprah), in some cases to the extent that their given names (nicknames, or names by birth) are unknown to many who know their significance (Madonna, Pelé, Prince)
# people distinguished within their respective fields to the extent that they are commonly referred to and recognizable, in the context of those respective fields, by a single given or sur-name.
# notable people identifiable by a single name only when at least their given and sur-names have already been mentioned, throughout or recently, in the same work.
_ _ I think it is abundantly clear from MoSDab/Dab that Dabs must support cases 1-3. 
_ _ IMO, it is desirable for Dabs to support case 4, not as part of the purpose of Dabs, but as a low-cost fringe benefit to users who prefer recognizing the given name within the Dab, over the effort of remembering, spelling, and/or typing the given name; IMO it must be done in a way that does not significantly impair cases 1-3. 
_ _ There are editors who give significant effort to compiling lists of people (mostly notable ones) who share the same or related given names. IMO such lists are unencyclopedic (and harmful not just as clutter, but in encouraging other kinds of contributions motivated by forms of vanity, by catering to vanity of either of these two sorts:
: There's an article on my [given] name!
: Aha, my [whole] name is still camouflaged from deletion by all the other Algernon given names on the list! 
But i have too little energy, and too little confidence in the feasibility of deleting those lists, to try to do much about them. I mention them here at all because of the many names beginning "Ai", which are mostly Japanese, and subject to the ambiguity of whether the first name mentioned is given or surname. I'd like to explore whether it suffices to move all the multi-word-name-of-person Ai entries into a (late!) section --  or better yet a page or two (one given names, one surnames) that can be linked (early, if any of them are surnames) from the Dab page. --Jerzy•t 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of Persons 

message: From a usability point of view, I'd prefer grouping by categories. Most of the time you're looking something up you have a general idea of what you're looking for (is it a person? a technology? etc.) so breaking it down per category or kind would facility fastest lookup, I think. Shinobu (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: Ai (あい、アイ、愛、藍、亜衣) is Japanese given name(219.160.56.135 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ai is Japanese given name 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Rather than move to AI; given the size, wouldn't it be better to separate Ai (disambiguation) from AI (disambiguation) ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: Okay, I get it:  Some high school in Delaware, Alexis I. duPont High School (whose initials should be AID anyway, it seems to me) – that qualifies as being listed in 'Ai (disambiguation)'; but the Appraisal Institute (to which I belong), the leading American organization in the field of real estate appraisal – which shows on their website that they have copyrighted "AI" (see http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/ ) – they do not.  The second time I added the organization, I pointed that out; and someone still took them out of the list.  What is the deal anyway?  It is bad enough that I have to fight for 'notability' on albums and rock bands and artists that I have written entire articles on; but now, we have to keep the disambiguation lists short?  When I first started writing in Wikipedia, it was a lot of fun; and I really felt like I was contributing.  I am no big deal, but I am closing in on 3,000 edits and have written over 100 original articles.  Now almost every time I put something in, somebody reverts it immediately – and just to rub it in, I get a message saying that this has happened.  If you people are trying to run me off, it is working. Shocking Blue (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you add that information from the website to the article Appraisal Institute? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#To the Guardians of Wikipedia (whoever they may be). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:    Said resolution is recorded at a section on an archive. Perhaps it's not worth noting every instance of cluelessness in a talk complaint, but I'm noting one of the non-reasons for the resolution of this complaint: SB cites the copyright on the Web page, as if it could  conceivably bear on the question. No one can copyright "AI", and all SB should have inferred from the page is that copyright was claimed on the literary work that the page embodies, and therefore various extensive quotes from the page might (or not) infringe on rights of the org'n. Many individuals or orgs may have registered trademarks or service marks, of the form "AI", which grant each of them with a theoretically exclusive right to use the name, for promotional purposes, when it refers to something in the respective category of product or service that their TM states their mark applies to. (My  WAG is BTW that the presumption that the range covered doesn't overlap the range of an earlier mark with the same text is weak at best, and that all the copyright office does is either to document your request, or search superficially, so that you have to sue the infringer to enforce your TM/SM. So holding, or claiming, a mark is not very relevant to any desire to have us acknowledge it.)   Having said that much, the criterion for having an entry on a particular Dab page is not whether an entity has some (exclusive or non-exclusive) legal right to the term, but whether the term is likely to be used by some of those seeking info, on a topic that has been written about, and is sufficiently notable to have survived deletion. Presumably that is what is reflected by whatever resolution was reached or is currently in effect.--Jerzy•t 05:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the Guardians of Wikipedia (whoever they may be) 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ai →  – In 2008, this page had the disambiguation name removed from the title due to WP:MDP. Given the rise of artificial intelligence, the reason no longer applies to the title and should be redirected to that article. 1989 (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 October 2023