විකිපීඩියා සාකච්ඡාව:බහුරුත්හරණය

message: I came across the new look of , and I don't really like it. I would like to go back to the old style and explained my reasons at Template talk:Disambig-cleanup#Ambox style. More comments? (Reply there.) – sgeureka t•c 09:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambox style for dab templates 

message: First of all, "hence" is a word that few people use every day. Also, removing "the process of" leaves us with "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is resolving conflicts in article titles", which can be taken as the answer to "what is dismabiguation currently doing?" as well as "what is disambiguation?". This is removing clarity, not adding it. The deeper question here is what the editor finds unclear in the opening; let's discuss and jointly decide if a change is warranted. Chris the speller (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of rewording in the opening 

message: Here is an interesting case at AFD involving a disambiguation page that disambiguates foreign language (non-latin) characters. I've voiced my opinion there, so I won't repeat it here, but I think it raises interesting questions for disambiguation on WP:EN. older ≠ wiser 15:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting case at AFD 

message: There's a major pitfall, and the need now for "CJKV disambiguation pages" is very real.  We have long had redirects (Wikipedia-wide) for non-Latin script names, redirecting to their corresponding English Wikipedia article, such as 中国 and 東京.  We believed that this worked within the guidelines of WP:ENGLISH.  However, there was a large pitfall in this reasoning, because not all Chinese characters map to a unique English Wikipedia article name.  And in such cases, disambiguation becomes necessary.  We are now faced with a rude awakening that, short of banning all redirects from foreign scripts, we must now disambiguate between foreign scripts names, outside the frameworks of WP:ENGLISH.
Previous discussions never led in the direction of eliminating dab for CJKV scripts:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mon (currency) (Discussed Sept. 4 thru 11)
*Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/archive7#Creation of a CJK Taskforce to handle Chinese characters (Discussed Sept. 5 thru 13)
*Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#What's the policy on non-Latin characters for article titles? (Discussed Nov. 18 thru 19)
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/東北大學 (Ongoing discussion, since Nov. 23)
I believe the consensus so far is that we cannot ban or eliminate such dab pages.  Hence we find it necessary for WP:WPDAB to cover (and regulate) dab's using foreign scripts.
At this point, Chinese characters (CJKV characters) are the only ones I know of, which urgently needs some DAB guidelines.  We propose a joint DAB task force as discussed here, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals‎#CJKV disambiguation pages.  WP:WPDAB will be the main parent, and we will need to create a subpage under WP:WPDAB.  Please discuss the feasibilities there.--Endroit (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CJKV]] disambiguation pages 

message: A discussion recently came up concerning this edit, and how it relates to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions which specifies that "there should be just one disambiguation page for all cases (upper- or lower-case) and variant punctuation". I thought the guideline was just talking about situations like mm/Mm/mM/MM, (milli/mega metre/mole or people's initials or other things listed at MM,) but not where the acronym is also a word, like  SAP/sap or RAID/raid. My basic logic was that the do disambiguation page was already so long as to make it hard to find what you're looking for, and someone looking for the acronym would be more likely to type it in uppercase letters. But perhaps wiser minds than mine have already considered this idea and rejected it. Is that part of the guideline strictly followed? Is it a good idea?--Yannick (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your quotation of the guideline, you left off the preceding "Usually". That leaves room for editors to use good judgment. So does WP:IGNORE. Finding one case where the guideline does not seem to lead to the best solution does not invalidate the guideline. If what you are doing improves Wikipedia, go for it. Chris the speller (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguating acronyms that are also words.