Board Thread:Administrator's Noticeboard/@comment-1250011-20131212214757/@comment-1250011-20131212231006

Fruipit wrote: "The naming conventions that were present..." I would just like to point out that there were no naming conventions. There were. Beds, Keys, and Gem Hooks are all good examples. It was item type + an s for plural wording and there was NOTHING wrong with that method.

The point was not for it to be a "better, faster method", the point was for conformity, and to tell people immediately that the page they are looking at is a disambig page. Conformity of TWO outlying pages. Yea, changing all 70+ of them was totally necessary. Also, to tell people that the page is a disambig page? Like the big honking template at the very top of the page didn't do that? If anything, the "Disabiguation" in the title is redundant because of the template stating that it is, in fact, a Disambiguation page.

The new changes do make sense. No, they literally do not. As stated above, the tag in the title is now redundancy paired with the template, and it clutters the category itself for no good reason. It's horrible to look at and it was COMPLETELY unnecessary, because the previous convention was fine as it was.