The article discusses only the Imperial eggs. The House of Fabergé also made eggs for the aristocrats. The role of workmasters, especially Michael Perchin should be mentioned, and the extraordinary range of materials and techniques referred to. --Wetman 20:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
should "have survived" be changed to something like "are known to have survived"
never know who might be hiding one of the lost eggs in their basement.
All this unnecessary disambiguation is contrary to policy
Folks, you can't just make up new guidelines out of thin air that are contrary to how all the other articles on WP are titled. I just found Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg) and Danish Palaces did not even exist. Of course I moved Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg) to Danish Palaces to fix that. The reasoning in the above close is absurd: "... can be confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject". We have NEVER titled WP articles to be recognizable for people who are unfamiliar with a given topic or topic area. If we did that, we'd have to rename most of our articles. The guiding principle has always been recognizability for those who ARE familiar, not those who are NOT familiar. Now all the other ones that don't require disambiguation have to be fixed. Or do we have to go to move review? --В²C☎ 03:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed all unnecessary disambiguation from those titles where the disambiguation is unnecessary except for Memory of Azov due to a technical issue. If anyone wants to propose adding all the unnecessary disambiguation, you need to make a proper multi-move RM per the instructions at WP:RM, which will cause all the necessary notification to be made correctly, and an admin needs to close it. --В²C☎ 04:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Local consensus can "override" policy guidelines. The correct response to "I don't agree with the move RFC" isn't to simply revert all of the page moves. You first ask the closer to reconsider (which you have done), then you request a formal review of the closure. This avoids starting move wars and other unpleasantness. I'm not sure where the whole "an admin must close", as I've seen plenty of valid non-admin closures. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
As a participant in the RFC who supported one of the unsuccessful options, I would like to say that I felt the close was appropriate. It's not just about counting supports and opposes. The closer addressed objections that had been raised with an accurate description of relevant policy (WP:PRECISE).--Trystan (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou for that Trystan - I appreciate that my closure wasn't going to please everyone, but I do feel that I paid attention to all relevant policies and having re-checked my closure of the above RfC I still think it was appropriate. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I see my reverts have been reverted. That's fine. I'll start a proper multi-page move request at RM when I have time. --В²C☎ 16:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
New RM discussion affecting Fabergé egg article titles