Forum:Removal of two item disambiguation pages

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Removal of two item disambiguation pages
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 January 2009 by Azaz129.

It's a simple idea and I just wish to see if there is a general consensus in support of it. Basically, we remove those disambiguation pages with two items, redirect it to the most likely item and insert on that articles page "X redirects here. For Y, see Z". It's faster and saves one extra click for most people and for the others, it's the same amount of clicks.--Diberville 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per Diberville. I've always hated two item disambiguation pages. Most of them have one item that would be searched more than the other, so it's annoying having to wait for both pages to load. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Better to have a 50% chance of having to click again to find the article you wanted instead of 100%. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - That makes sense, I assume you already have a few in mind. Administrator Hurston (T # C) 09:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Don't go nuts on this concept and make it a life mission to kill every single one of these pages in this wiki, but I don't see anything wrong with eliminating disambiguation pages like is being suggested here. Use common sense here as well. I don't see why a "vote" on this really has to take place either.... just do it! This is something easily reversed and doesn't require any administrative assistance... in other words, any regular contributor to this wiki can perform these actions. --Robert Horning 12:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well there is no "vote" since the wiki is not a democracy. However, history has demonstrated such as in the "Tally" fiasco that these types of small changes can lead to considerable trouble by some users so I'm nipping this possible problem in the bud by getting a general consensus before starting.--Diberville 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I generally support this idea, however care should be taken to ensure that a disambiguation that has only two items is not lacking a tertiary prior to conversion. ~kytti khat 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

support Its a great idea, it will save lots of time!