Content-Type: text/html
Let me work with some examples, and draw some principles from how I would decide them. Apple can mean either the fruit or a kind of computer. But probably, it would be wisest to let apple mean the fruit and include a link on the apple page to Apple Computer.
Here's a similar example, using the recently-edited article icon. Originally, some programmer type, in all seriousness (and doubtless without meaning any harm to anybody), innocently went about writing the article as though there were no such things as religious icons and that "icon" unambiguously meant a programming language. In actuality, icon in its religious sense is probably the very most important sense, and nobody but programmers gives a rat's patoot about Icon-the-programming-language (with all due respect to the programmers!). So we might just let the icon page discuss the religious sense--rather than putting it on [[icon (religion)]]--and on the icon page include links to [[Icon (programming language)]] and [[icon (computers)]] or [[icon (computer jargon)]] (or something like that).
I believe that consideration of these cases supports the following principle:
Here's another issue that needs adjudication: given that we've decided we're going to use parentheses to disambiguate topics, what should we put in the parentheses? Take the icon example again. Suppose we've decided (for whatever reason) to make icon just a pointer page, and we needed parenthetical qualifications for our three senses of "icon." How do we decide what to put in parentheses?
I might choose [[icon (religion)]], [[icon (programming language)]], and [[icon (computer jargon)]]. Why?
In the first sense, I wouldn't choose [[icon (religious symbolism)]], because "religion" is probably going to be useful in disambiguating many other titles. Another possibility is [[icon (art)]], I suppose. Again, though, my favorite for the religious sense is just icon, because the religious sense is after all the most basic sense.
I might choose [[Icon (programming language)]] (much like the already-existing Icon programming language), rather than [[icon (computers)]], because the latter is too broad: there are at least two things that "icon" (or "Icon") means when discussing computers (the language, and the little clickable image). I also wouldn't use [[icon (language)]], because "language" here is insufficiently precise: when presented with the word "language," what most people immediately think of is an ordinary, natural language like English or French.
Finally, I might choose [[icon (computer jargon)]], because that's something the nonspecialist could understand. I imagine there is some piece of computer science jargon to describe the general sort of thing an icon is, and you could title the article [[icon (that-piece-of-jargon)]], but that wouldn't be clear to the person who, after all, needs to know what "icon" means. Besides, "computer jargon" is probably going to end up being a very useful way to qualify various titles; think "disk," "processor," "processing speed," "mouse," "keyboard," etc., etc.
So there are a few principles/remarks that seem reasonable to me:
Well, that's my first stab at these issues. I'm sure others will have lots to say too.