Template talk:DRAM

Including the redirects... or not
Hello, ! As I've described it in, this navbox is simply much more usable in its near-original form – that way, it allows a really good insight into various DRAM types, some of which are covered with separate articles, and some aren't.  Also, the related guideline (WP:NAV) doesn't explicitly forbid the use of redirects. Maybe could provide us with a third opinion on this? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * Codename Lisa here. I myself am very famous for removing redundant redirects from navboxes but I have allowed exceptions to remain in the past. (But because the act of letting it be is not editing at all, it is invisible.) I have removed redirects and pipes where a whole fleet of neighboring terms lead to the top of the same article. Template:Microsoft Windows family is an example. But a counter-example is Template:Compression formats, which lists some links more than once and has some section links too, e.g. its H.222.0 link.
 * Whatever you guys do, please remember to bypass the redirects. Redirects are really not navbox material. For example, GDDR2 should become GDDR2.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Codename Lisa! That's pretty much why I've seen those multiple redirects to the same article(s) as usable in this particular navbox, as they redirect to various parts of the articles that describe different DRAM types, not just to the top of the same article.  Izno, would you be Ok with replacing the redirects with links to particular sections? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)