Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 16, 2017.

Anti-Trump[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 4#Anti-Trump

National Highway 2A (India)(old numbering)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep, no rationale presented. -- Tavix (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mike Bell (Disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, G6, by Amakuru. -- Tavix (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed qualifier, a leftover from a page move - if linked, User:DPL bot will report an error. I rceommend delete. NB Mike Bell (disambiguation) exists. Narky Blert (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Samsung Galaxy Note[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Samsung Galaxy Note series. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This targeted Samsung Galaxy Note series for the last few years until retargeted to the original last December by TheWikiContributor. I would imagine that the series is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but seeing as it would be controversial to re-retarget, I'm taking it here. (Also: it may be better to move over redirect, but I'm unsure.) -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert the change; redirect to the series. There have been many models in the series, all of which are known as Galaxy Note "something". Just as Microsoft Windows or Volkswagen Golf does not only refer to the original release, it refers to the whole series of releases. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Expand citations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep without prejudice against boldly retargeting in the future. This discussion tried to search for a better target but hasn't found one. As there is a demonstrable need to keep a redirect at this title, I'm closing this discussion as keep, but editors are welcome to find (or create!) a better target and retarget boldly. Deryck C. 17:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this redirect should be retargeted to a guideline in regards to when to expand citations (possibly in regards to bare URLs), but I am unable to find such a target at the moment. The redirect's present target is a "how-to" about installing a specific script to expand citations, but if I recall, the most-used tool of the such is "reFill". Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you thinking of maybe a section link to someplace on Wikipedia:Citing sources? Though the only sections I could find on that page seemed to talk more about the virtues of shortening and avoiding clutter rather than expanding.
    I did find a few other potential targets but all of them were already prominently linked on Citing sources so that seems like it might be the best hub. None of the other targets seemed to have much about the specific sub-topic of citation expansion. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:ExpandTemplates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was convert to soft redirect. WJBscribe (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my experiences, there usually are not redirects that directly target the "Special:" namespace due to possible technical issues. Also, the standard seems to be for "Special:" talk pages to be in the pseudo-namespace "Wikipedia talk:Special:" ... for example, see Wikipedia talk:Special:ExpandTemplates.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to soft redirect, because {{Soft redirect}} will be less confusing on the technical side of things, and it helps to have a project title for this subject. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm curious how prevalent these type of redirects are. I know of a few (e.g. Wikipedia:Userrightslog). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There doesn't seem to be consistency. I've seen a few soft redirects to Special pages and I've seen a few hard redirects. I don't think there's a technical issue with a hard redirect, as there's several at Category:Redirects to special pages. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: hard redirects to special pages don't work, they all act like soft redirects. See for example User:Thryduulf/R to special. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fine with converting them all to soft, but if they already act like soft redirects, wouldn't it just be a formality? -- Tavix (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Godsy/R to special: A list of all pages in any namespace that hard or soft redirect to the special namespace as of March 2, 2017; there are currently 166 hard redirects and 123 soft redirects. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion - I created this redirect to make it easier to find the ExpandTemplates facility (when fixing template problems). Weak oppose conversion to soft redirect unless "possible technical issues" is explained. DexDor (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DexDor: Hard redirects to the special namespace don't work (i.e. they lead to the redirect page itself). Soft redirects are generally used in cases where hard redirects don't function properly; they also give more of an explanation to those arriving at the page. That aside: as there are currently many other hard redirects to the special namespace, I think I'd rather see if there is consensus to convert them all, instead of doing it piecemeal. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not bothered whether it's coded as a "normal" redirect (in this case working as a soft redirect) or coded as a soft redirect. DexDor (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Godsy's search has shown us that a redirect from Wikipedia space to a Special page isn't actually that atypical. Unless there's demonstrable harm in keeping this particular redirect, we have no reason to delete it. Deryck C. 17:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Explaining NFCC[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Non-free content. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking these redirects should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria as Wikipedia:NFCC does. However, Wikipedia:Explaining NFCC was the former name of a page (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in non-free image discussions) that was merged into the redirects' current target page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting to Wikipedia:Non-free content is okay as well. Steel1943 (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Non-free content which is the page that explains the non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC consists only of the criteria with no explanation and is transcluded to Wikipedia:Non-free content). Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargeting is fine with me. I'm the primary author of WP:AAFFD, and I frankly do not remember having created this redirect, even though I did. I think it's no big deal if it stays as is, and no big deal if it gets retargeted. I think that Thryduulf's analysis of the proper target, just above, is a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget; the proposal makes more sense than the current arrangement. If we merge page A into page B, page A must be kept for attribution purposes, but it doesn't have to remain a redirect to page B; as long as its page history is visible, the attribution requirement is satisfied. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Graph (IA collection)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "graph" is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Additional Collections from Internet Archive[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what this refers to since the section no longer exists. Steel1943 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems wholly irrelevant to its target. DrStrauss talk 16:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:European Union Frequently asked questions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. The more complex question (outside the scope of this RfD) is what to do with the discussion on the talkpage. It seems to me that the correct place to have a meta discussion about the FAQ is Talk:European Union and that the historical discussions about the FAQ (dating back to 2008/2009) can be added to the archives of that page in the appropriate places. I will do so as an editorial action (and not part of the closure of this RfD). WJBscribe (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XNR. However, after it was created, it was retargeted by an established administrator, so ... I advocate delete on the grounds alone that it's a cross-namespace redirect, and to an article talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Also, this redirect's talk page has a considerable amount of content... Steel1943 (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it's the result of a page being moved to the wrong namespace. The retargeting by an established administrator was merely to prevent a double redirect after the target got moved. We can move the talk page somewhere else or convert it into a redirect; maybe it could be retargeted to Talk:European Union/FAQ and we could add a note to the bottom of that page saying "For additional older content on this subject, see the history of Wikipedia talk:European Union Frequently asked questions". Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect (1st choice), move FAQ back to Wikipedia space (2nd choice) or keep (3rd choice). The issue at hand is to preserve the discussion log that is stuck at Wikipedia talk:European Union Frequently asked questions. Since the FAQ itself is now at Talk:European Union/FAQ we do need somewhere to have meta-discussion about the FAQ... Deryck C. 12:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Favouritism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. I'll do so at the American spelling as the draft dab uses that variant. -- Tavix (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that different spellings of the same word should have different targets. Originally (circa 2005) both pointed to Elitism, but User:Tim bates retargeted the American spelling to Ingroup in 2011, noting "populists are routinely convicted of favoritism". Elitism is probably not the best target, but I'm not certain what is. Perhaps Favourite (companion of a ruler) or Favorite (disambiguation). Cnilep (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally I think Ingroups and outgroups works best, for both spellings. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto I think Ingroups and outgroups works best for both spellings. Did a check to see if people use favouritism to mean elitism and it doesn't seem to be common (i couldn't find an example). The companion of a ruler page is too specific, IMHO. So I think favouritism should redirect to ingroups and outgroups, until someone makes a favouritism disambiguation page if more reasonable alternatives emerge Tim bates (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to favorite, add the in-groups and such as See Alsos or hatnote. Note "Favored" goes to Favor. Also note "preferential treatment" doesn't redirect anywhere either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi: To favour is to prefer - I favour democracy. Favouritism is preferring one's own over other kinds. So I think either favo[u]ritism need its own page, or should stay redirected to in-group out-group. Probably the best answer is its own page, with brief notes on usage. I worry that if everything goes to favorite, along with favorite icecream, favoritism (which one doesn't show to ice-cream) will be lost and not readily re-found. Tim bates (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a retarget both to In-group favoritism? As AngusWOOF notes, that article features a hatnote to Ingroups and outgroups, which in turn features a 'Main article' link to In-group favoritism. Cnilep (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or alternately, this (though I still think I prefer retarget to 'In-group favoritism'). Cnilep (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to in-group favoritism, which seems the most likely subject. When people think of royal favourites, they're not generally doing so with the word "favouritism". It's not really synonymous with elitism (many elites does not favo[u]r each other but are in competition, they just happen to have a lot of money/power).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The main options on the table so far are 1) retargeting to in-group favoritism, 2) disambiguating (draft dab page is available), and maybe 3) retargeting to Favourite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I like the proposed dab page. Deryck C. 12:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be moving towards disambiguating. I'd like to see if anyone else has any more comments for or against doing so before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - Well suitable to most readers, I hope, by reading the draft. George Ho (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per the draft - a good compromise. And Elitism could be added to the See also Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Democrat Party (United States)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the consensus last decided on 18 Feburary 2007 (nearly ten years ago) to redirect the page to Democratic Party, a dabpage, there have been attempts to change the redirect page's target to "Democratic Party (United States)". The page has been switched back and forth a few or several times. As of now, it redirects to "Democratic Party (United States)" without official discussion. I would have switched the page back to the dabpage, but my common sense tells me to have the discussion first before doing so. Shall we follow the consensus from 2007, retain "Democratic Party (United States)" as the present target, or redirect the page to another target? George Ho (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current target (the Democratic Party disambig) might have been chosen in the mistaken belief that the US party is the primary topic, but I don't believe it has ever been. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is tagged as a misspelling, and there are currently five links flagged for correction at the Linked misspellings list. The rationale for redirect to dab is that between Democrat Party (epithet) (which is a "correct" spelling), and Democratic Party (United States), there is no primary topic for the 'misspelling'. I don't mind redirecting to the disambiguation, and making Democratic Party (United States) the primary topic is fine with me too; the only option I object to (strongly) is making the epithet primary. Though I understand that some right-wing POV warriors might support that. wbm1058 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your history is a little off. The 2007 decision was closed as redirect to Democrat Party, the disambiguation page. That discussion appears to me to have been a compromise between the US party and the epithet. But in my opinion, the epithet has always been a weak claim. The misspelling is much more common. So let's make it official and leave the redirect as it currently is. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at Democratic Party (United States) as with Democrat (United States). Discussing whether it's Democrat Party (United States) or Democratic Party (United States) is more for an RM than a redirect discussion. But I would side with keeping the primary topic article Democratic Party as cited on their own website's About Our Party. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Democrat Party (1st choice), or keep (2nd choice), although I would oppose a hatnote saying something like "Democrat Party (United States)" redirects here. For the epithet.... per WP:WEIGHT, people looking for the pejorative would not likely type "(United States)" as a search term. I see no evidence that either is a primary topic. (By the way, I support Trump). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found other similar redirects: Democrat Party United States, Van Buren Democrat Party, Democrat party usa, Democrat Party (US), and Democrat Party (U.S.). I've not listed them yet. I just mention them. George Ho (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:FARC/Christmas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 2#Wikipedia:FARC/Christmas

Middle Way Meditation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion, because term is hardly used as synonym of Dhammakaya meditation anymore. S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S Khemadhammo, I take it that this term has been used as a synonym for Dhammakaya meditation in the past? Is it used nowadays to refer to something else? – Uanfala (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala:, no it is just hardly used anymore. It was formerly used widely by Wat Phra Dhammakaya, but not anymore. These days the temple mostly uses Dhammakaya meditation.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala:, so what is the verdict? Delete or keep?--S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the term isn't ambiguous, then I don't see the point of deleting. It might not be much used anymore, but if it has been used in the past, then it is something that readers are likely to encounter in a book or other text, and when they come on wikipedia looking for more info, they should be able to find it. So that that means keep. – Uanfala (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kremlingate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 2#Kremlingate

Digital television remote control[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was one confused closer. I don't know what the nomination was meant to accomplish, but a consensus has nonetheless emerged to delete this redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
user:fmadd#disambiguating, why redirects seem so useful I'm trying to refactor to make more sense. the structure is locked down with 100's of pages pointing at3-5 possible places that aren't always right. (with overlapping (and sometimes contradictory) connotations of what 'remote control' means). For example it says 'wireless', and some remote controls are WIRED. Fmadd (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what seems to have happened is remote control started out talking about ALL types of remote control, then got narrowed down to basically mean TV remote. Other 'connotations' of "remote control" are better handled in the article teleoperation. All over the place I've found places where the context is clearly talking about the latter, but it's linked to the former. Fmadd (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What i'm trying to do is - instead of having 100s of articles pointed at 3-5 places that might not be quite right, we have 10 or so redirects in the middle (things like "TV remote", "IR remote", etc) which help narrow down the context. Then it's much easier to fix the article structure (either move remote control to remote control (consumer electronics), or rework the lead section to mean all kinds of remote control, including wired remotes, and drones, and RC cars. Fmadd (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
anyway in this instance I can see you might aswell replace the use with digital television remote control, which is more common. It just seemed messier. What surprises me so much is the intense culture here of deleting things. why not leave the structure open? I've explained above why linking remote control doesn't make sense to me. I think it would be safer to have remote control (consumer electronics) etc, and then we see what people want to do with the article structure.Fmadd (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Jsharpminor and Fmadd: It's unclear what is being sought here, particularly given the lack of nomination statement. Please can you be specific about what you would like to see happen to the "Digital television remote control" redirect (deleted, kept as is, retargetted to a different page (which?) or converted to a disambiguation page). If there are other redirects you would like to discuss, please explicitly nominate them in this or a new discussion being specific about what action you are proposing and why. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no digital television standard for remote controls. The signaling used in remote controls hasn't been modified to deal with digital television standards, or if it has, it hasn't been explained in the article at all. There's always wireless network and Wi-Fi if someone wants to get complicated stuff related to digital, or Home network and how to program your DVR using the Internet. Otherwise adding "digital" to "television remote" is a bit of an WP:XY as with "HD remote". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angus, and for the largely unnecessary redirect created by an overzealous serial redirect-creator. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gefängnis/Gefaengnis[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was nomination merged see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 15#Gefangnis. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion for the exact same reasons as Gefangnis. An unnecessary redirect that is a translation from German. --Necip Necipoglu (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necip Necipoglu: Hi. I added the nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 15#Gefangnis on your behalf. Can I close this as "procedural close", so the discussion can continue there? BTW, there are instructions on nominating a redirect at WP:RFD for future use. George Ho (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_16&oldid=1088107606"