I agree it can be a bit confusing if reading all the decoder sections, as they contain information specific to that decoder, and perhaps confusing if you try to apply the info to other decoders that do not necessarily use those features. The sections deserve some updating, and wording incrementally changed with successive decoders and updates to existing ones. Naming convention is probably a good idea in a general sense in the preamble, if worded so as to not confuse in other sections later. This might be accomplished by adding that the naming convention applies, but is irrelevant to specific pattern decoders rather than generic ones like Missing-Tooth or Dual Wheel. This is another way of saying the info is good to know, but is not necessary for setup of decoders except the ones the info is in. Gah. It's a fine line.
One issue we face with descriptions of decoders is going beyond basic function info, and into exception description or trivia. For example, missing-tooth placement info and that "+" teeth do not apply is in Missing Tooth, as that info does not apply to other decoders where it is built-in and only confuses the reader in those other sections. The Honda decoder would be an example, where it uses a "+" tooth built into code, but is unnecessary to state that in the description to use it. So, in general defense of the wiki, I would say there is a line between giving the users what they need, and overwhelming with info. I won't say that goal has been achieved, but is part of the reasoning for the way it has been presented so far. Feedback like yours is always appreciated to re-center that line.
PS: I will add that there is a range of users, with some only wanting to know what they minimally need in order to run their engine ("do this"); while others want to know everything about them and how it works ("this is why and how"). I am constantly suggesting new users only read the sections necessary for their specific setup in order to avoid information overload. Realizing we could never make everyone happy, I try to offer basic info for the first type of user as a form of quick-start guide, and add more info elsewhere for the second type. Much of the why and how is in the forums. Perhaps this approach needs a bit of a rethink, but is based on prior experience that one of the largest hurdles to new users is being overwhelmed by information that is not critical at that point
. "Good to know" can be a monster. Opinions and suggestions always welcome for improvements!