Talk:Capacity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Untitled[edit]

I put links to an ITIL glossary in Availability and Business Relationship Management since these pages are targeted by links from the main ITIL article but they do not provide the ITIL definition-context in any of their text. I noted I have the link in the correct place on the Capacity page, my bad for not knowing your Quality of Workmanship that is expected. Honestly, though, the ITIL specific context needs to be referenced. The best definitions, the most comprehensive, are at the link which remains in this article. The ideal situation would be to have the glossary come up when an ITIL specific context is desired. Is there any way to shorten the process and just include their text, with their knowledge and blessings of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.63.133.8 (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "large capacity magazine" listed under means for Capacity. All of the other means are scientific measurements; for this reason I'm removing if from the list.has to deal with math and science

Cleanup[edit]

This disambiguation page had a cleanup note, so I cleaned up per WP:DAB, which says "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)."

This would also mean that almost all terms on the disambiguation page should be listed under "See also", because none of them seem to be used as the standalone word capacity on their article's page. I am unsure in how far descriptions should be used in the "See also" section, so I deleted the descriptions but still list them with the descriptions here. So if someone thinks the descriptions should really be included, just copy-paste it back.

sgeureka tc 21:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]