Talk:UNO

Shouldn't this article be split into Uno and UNO, the first for meanings of the word "Uno" and the second for possible interpolations of the TLA "UNO"? For precedent, see Lat and LAT, Pet and PET, Gnu and GNU, etc. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Good point... However, in all of those other examples, the former are actual articles rather than disambiguation pages. Personally, I think it makes sense to just keep Uno and UNO merged instead of having to seperate disambigs. But if other folks want to split it I certainly won't protest. --Brian Z 01:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised that 'UNO' leads to a disambiguation list. Not that I don't understand that there are several uses of 'Uno', but isn't this the wrong disambiguation type? Sorry, but imho the most common use of the word is the United Nations Organisation. I think a disambiguation of the type 'see also disambiguation' at the start of the UNO article would be more appropriate. To be honest, at least to me this looks like an attempt by US UNO critics to understate the importance of the organisation. Gray62 10:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Searching on Google for UNO does bring the UN up first, but the card game, restaurant chain, and diverse other senses are ranked close behind. I think it is therefore almost as likely that someone searching for UNO on Wikipedia is looking for any one of these.--Brian Z 16:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * But now that there is a split between UNO and Uno, neither the card game nor the restaurant chain are "rivals" for the UN. Thus I suggest to do as Gray62 supposed.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Did the deed (split Uno & UNO)
Well, in the spirit of being bold, I converted Uno and UNO into separate disambiguation pages as was discussed above, and formatted them per the Manual of Style ... sort of running it up the flagpole to see who salutes it. -- Muffuletta 19:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)