I was under the mistaken impression for the longest time that gpg 2 was a fork (maybe a GUI fork?) or otherwise unofficial successor to gpg, and I should continue sticking to gpg 1.x. I figured that gpg2 must have a more complex relationship to gpg than just being the next version of it because otherwise they'd just call it gpg instead of going through the effort to let people keep using gpg 1.x by default.
That was my impression also. A couple of years ago I put gpg2 in a script and whatever option I used would spawn a GUI window asking for information. I could not stop that from happening so I have stuck with gpg v1.x since.
Now any reference to /usr/bin/gpg2 is broken. Every wiki that told people they had to specify gpg2 to use XYZ feature is lying. Every script and environment variable that depends on /usr/bin/gpg2 existing is now broken, depending on if your packager decides to --enable-gpg-is-gpg2.
Do a search for '"gpg2" inurl:wiki' to see a bunch of now-broken documentation.
This is something I really dislike about the use of 3rd-party wikis for documenting software.
They always seem like a good idea at first, but then they slowly become misleading as contributors move on. You can't even call them "irrelevant" at that point because readers don't know they've become irrelevant.
And, by spending energy on the wiki, people don't try improving the upstream documentation. I assume they were motivated to make the wiki due to some problem with the upstream doc but, in the end, the upstream docs don't get improved, and you have a confusing wiki.
Please work with the upstream project on documentation instead. And if you are the upstream, consider a policy of rejecting patches that don't amend the docs appropriately.