https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49854
--- Comment #12 from Zebediah Figura z.figura12@gmail.com --- Well, that wasn't particularly an answer to my question, but after inspecting the Fedora package source for wine, I think I see the problem. Granted, this is a bit of guessing on my part (answering the questions above would help confirm, and also knowing whether /usr/lib/wine/wldap32.dll.so is present if wine-ldap.i686 is missing), but:
Fedora breaks off several pieces of the wine package, which themselves require dependencies. Specifically, it makes the Unix libraries (*.dll.so) part of those packages rather than the core "wine" package. wine-ldap is an example of such.
The problem, for you, was that wldap32.dll.so *was* missing. This wasn't obvious because there are two instances of wldap32.dll.so, one for each architecture, and you had the 64-bit wine-ldap package already installed; hence an instance of wldap32.dll.so did exist on your computer, but for the wrong architecture.
On the Wine side, the easiest thing to do is probably explicitly print the architecture when a library is missing.
On the Fedora side, I really have to wonder why they're shipping parts of Wine separately like this. Presumably they're optional dependencies, but then, why not just cut out the middleman?