This is pretty simple. I think we should get rid of all the disambig pages that feature only two articles. They are unnecessary and the same effect is achieved by having Template:For at the top of each article. Joe Copp 02:02, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
Support — They are indeed useless. http://i.imgur.com/TLfINDf.gif This username better work http://i.imgur.com/TLfINDf.gif 02:06, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
Support — I agree with this. T4DZ talk
02:07, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
Support — I do this with songs on the K-ON! wiki when there are only 2 songs, it's much easier than having a disambiguation page for two things. http://i.imgur.com/GhKJh.pngP90Deathmanhttp://i.imgur.com/uceaHlB.png02:08, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
Somewhat Oppose but understanding to the situation - Unnecessary? Somewhat. However, they don't really "hurt" the wikia and do help with searching for something that is similarly named to another. I can see why they should be gone, but I feel the good for it does over-weigh its unnecessary. 
Argorrath おしゃべり
02:14, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Thing is, the disambigs add a 50% chance that you get an unnecessary step. If I'm looking for Scavenger (perk) and the redirect for "Scavenger" brings me straight to that page, then it's a one-and-done search. However, if there's a disambig page in the way, that's a whole additional page I have to navigate to get to where I want to go. Not the biggest deal, but it's enough of a neusance that it should be eliminated, especially when Template:For exists. Joe Copp 02:20, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
- True, but there also exists the issue of 'choosing' which page should get the first link spot. The Perk could be considered more important since it's in MP and people may want to search it. However the Scavenger is a unique weapon in zombies mode, and not as straight forward as the perk, which does what it says on the tin, and as such it may be better to have that placed on the main spot. I can understand in cases where one thing may be obviously more searched than the other, but at least the Disambig page, even for two pages, allows us to keep the pages separate so we don't have to worry about whom gets top spot. 04:55, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Another example would be All In. While linking straight to the mission may make the most sense, the trophy may be getting searched by more users in order to look up how to unlock it, or for any hints or tips we may have had on said page. 05:02, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose — - Sam and Argo basically summed up what I was going to say.-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.
05:02, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support — Per all, also I hate disambigs in the first place. 
Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly 06:30, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to ask to change your opinion about the disambigs, but I see no clear reason to hate them. They keep the wiki tidy and pretty much in order. It's like hating a vacuum because its job is to eliminate dust.-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.
23:57, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Because I would prefer a wikipedia like style of handling disambigs, for example the "China" thing Sam wrote about earlier, it gets in the way and it is rather annoying. --Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly 00:25, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
- But vacuums are loud :c -- laagone (talk) 00:14, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Because I would prefer a wikipedia like style of handling disambigs, for example the "China" thing Sam wrote about earlier, it gets in the way and it is rather annoying. --
Oppose — Per Sam and Argo. -- laagone (talk) 11:12, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose — Per MLG. Redskin-26 16:33, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose — Per Redskin. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png SmilularTalk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 01:35, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
Support — This is standard practice on wikis. The default redirect can have text placed at the top or a template inserted that achieves the same effect without having a disambiguation page for only two articles. Here's how Wikipedia does it. AppleButter180 (talk) 02:28, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, but if you put "China" into Wikipedia, it's more than likely you want the country. Whereas a few other instances may take you to a page you didn't want to go to and then you need to click another link to get where you wanted to go, such as Brony takes you to the "My Little Pony fandom" page, and not the town (which if you're on Wikipedia seems more likely you'd search more as "Brony" is just slang), also if you search "Call of Duty" it takes you straight to the franchise page, and not the first game of the series. So while it works for instances where it's obvious where the user wants to go, it works, but with instances such as Out of the Frying Pan… we can't gauge which of the two the user needs, as such, while it may be an extra click needed, at least we're letting the user see the options instead of forcing them on to a page we consider the more correct. 11:24, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- For the example you give, it would seem most logical to redirect to the MW3 achievement, as it is more recent, and hence more likely to be relevant. Anyone searching for the MW2 version would have essentially the same experience as if there were a disambiguation page, and anyone searching for the MW3 version would already be where they wanted to be. I see no reason for such a conclusion that this means one or the other is more correct. It is merely a means to reduce the necessary of pages which only serve to say that you're probably looking for one of these two things, and rather offering one up initially and providing text immediately at the top saying that you might also be looking for another page. A good example of this effect is the second line of disambiguation text in this Wikipedia article. This does not imply that referring to Russia when it was a Soviet Republic as the "Russian Federation" is any less correct than referring to the modern nation as same, but for those searching for the modern nation, it is one less click, and for those searching for the Soviet republic, it's essentially the same experience. This may mean changing the redirects when new games are released and have achievements with the same name, but it would not likely negatively affect anyone, only positively. AppleButter180 (talk) 22:12, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Well then what about Big Baller. The Call of Duty: Zombies app is more recent than World at War, but a user could easily be looking for either. Again with Ozone, Modern Warfare 3 is a more recent game, but he had a larger role in MW2, but a user could be searching for either character just as much. And finally there's Frost, the map is the more recent addition, but it's also the name of a main character, that's not easy to gauge which should go first even if we use the chronology. And in your example you've used another country, something that is somewhat obvious to go to on your first search. Further cemented by the fact it's now known as Russia today, but when it was Soviet it was known as "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", also, the USSR was just a former version of Russia, as opposed to a different country entirely that just happened to be called Russia. 23:40, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Then the wiki would collectively decide which page would be the default redirect on the disambiguation page's talk page before deleting them by discussing which is more relevant and/or more likely to be what is being searched for. Additionally placing a template box on the disambiguation page stating that the page is a candidate for deletion and directing editors to the talk page would be a good plan of attack in doing this. AppleButter180 (talk) 00:44, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I like where you're going with that AppleButter, but I feel like that would take an unnecessarily long amount of time. What if we just collectively decided that the newest iteration always gets the redirect? Joe Copp 01:22, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe we could make that the default, and then for redirects that users think would be better placed somewhere else, they could raise this issue on the talk page of the default redirect, making the process of implementing this process fast, and allowing those who believe a different topic would be more relevant to the search, or more likely to be searched for to give their input and then from there it would either remain the same or be changed on a case-by-case basis. AppleButter180 (talk) 11:21, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I would agree. Joe Copp 17:27, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe we could make that the default, and then for redirects that users think would be better placed somewhere else, they could raise this issue on the talk page of the default redirect, making the process of implementing this process fast, and allowing those who believe a different topic would be more relevant to the search, or more likely to be searched for to give their input and then from there it would either remain the same or be changed on a case-by-case basis. AppleButter180 (talk) 11:21, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I like where you're going with that AppleButter, but I feel like that would take an unnecessarily long amount of time. What if we just collectively decided that the newest iteration always gets the redirect? Joe Copp 01:22, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Then the wiki would collectively decide which page would be the default redirect on the disambiguation page's talk page before deleting them by discussing which is more relevant and/or more likely to be what is being searched for. Additionally placing a template box on the disambiguation page stating that the page is a candidate for deletion and directing editors to the talk page would be a good plan of attack in doing this. AppleButter180 (talk) 00:44, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Well then what about Big Baller. The Call of Duty: Zombies app is more recent than World at War, but a user could easily be looking for either. Again with Ozone, Modern Warfare 3 is a more recent game, but he had a larger role in MW2, but a user could be searching for either character just as much. And finally there's Frost, the map is the more recent addition, but it's also the name of a main character, that's not easy to gauge which should go first even if we use the chronology. And in your example you've used another country, something that is somewhat obvious to go to on your first search. Further cemented by the fact it's now known as Russia today, but when it was Soviet it was known as "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", also, the USSR was just a former version of Russia, as opposed to a different country entirely that just happened to be called Russia. 23:40, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- For the example you give, it would seem most logical to redirect to the MW3 achievement, as it is more recent, and hence more likely to be relevant. Anyone searching for the MW2 version would have essentially the same experience as if there were a disambiguation page, and anyone searching for the MW3 version would already be where they wanted to be. I see no reason for such a conclusion that this means one or the other is more correct. It is merely a means to reduce the necessary of pages which only serve to say that you're probably looking for one of these two things, and rather offering one up initially and providing text immediately at the top saying that you might also be looking for another page. A good example of this effect is the second line of disambiguation text in this Wikipedia article. This does not imply that referring to Russia when it was a Soviet Republic as the "Russian Federation" is any less correct than referring to the modern nation as same, but for those searching for the modern nation, it is one less click, and for those searching for the Soviet republic, it's essentially the same experience. This may mean changing the redirects when new games are released and have achievements with the same name, but it would not likely negatively affect anyone, only positively. AppleButter180 (talk) 22:12, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Honestly, it just makes it sound like if this passes we'll be forced into even more debates over which page is more valid, as opposed to the current system where a user can just search something and click what they need. And in all fairness most users use the auto-finish option in the search bar and skip the disambiguate page anyway. And there's another issue with naming. Would we then start calling one page just "Page" and the other retains its brackets, such as "Page (Modern Warfare 2)", it looks ununiform, and in the autofinisher in the search bar that could easily lead to some confusion. Unless these issues can be allayed I'm just not sure that this system could function that well. The system we have now may be a bit slower, but it functions fine.
20:13, August 21, 2013 (UTC)
Support — Per Joe. http://i.imgur.com/GYKM9PK.jpg feargmtalk 23:51, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose — Per Crazy sam10.Zombie DropperTalk
21:51, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose — Given I feel that my concerns raised cannot be dealt with effectively should this forum pass, the current system is more effective for our needs.
11:05, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose — Per Sam. http://i.imgur.com/VwuEI.pngSXe Fiend · talkhttp://i.imgur.com/VwuEI.png 18:09, September 4, 2013 (UTC)