Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 20

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. Deryck C. 15:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 01L Andrea → Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More than one storm named "Andrea" has the number "01L", may cause confusion B dash (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there's no mention anywhere. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Tropical cyclone naming doesn't mention what 01L means, and as Tavix says 01L isn't really used. I did find an explanation of sorts at Hurricane Catarina#Naming, and having just read South Atlantic tropical cyclone, it seems 01L just means the first named (North) Atlantic storm. As such, I suppose we'll see a few of 01L Andrea storms in existence of the coming years. For now though, Andrea (disambiguation)#Weather lists just Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007) and Tropical Storm Andrea (2013). If everything I just wrote is correct, won't the first named Atlantic tropical cyclone every sixth year be another Andrea 01L? I suppose we could create a separate disambiguation page, but I think a retarget to Andrea (disambiguation)#Weather will be just fine, as all the content we have is there. Retarget to Tavix' target. This whole comment is basically TIL ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Andrea would be a better target, should consensus not develop to delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, good target. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. None of three articles listed at Tropical Storm Andrea mention "01L", so this seems potentially confusing even without the multiple possible targets. If there's no consensus to delete then the disambiguation page looks like the best target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @B dash: Would you mind clarifying your preferred action? Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godsy: It is delete. --B dash (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Virtually unused, and while 01L is indeed the numerical designation given to the first tropical cyclone in the Atlantic basin each year people usually refer to the storm by its assigned name so 01L is not really a plausible search term. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not covered at the article. If someone comprehensively integrates these designations into such articles (in infoboxes maybe?) then they could be redirected as no longer unhelpful/confusing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:43, 24 July 2018 (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.

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 09:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Avargal (2017 film) → Richie (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The film was retitled Richie, so there is no need to keep this redirect; anyway, there's another film named Avargal. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. the former name of the film is bolded in the lead of the target so there is no risk of confusion and it strongly implies that this is a useful search term - that the article used to be at this title is another point in its favour. The over Avargal film was released in 1977, so there is no risk of confusion from a redirect that explicitly references 2007 - confusion over a small number of years is entirely plausible but 40 years is not. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes can be added in case searchers are looking for the different Avargal films. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but my point is that someone using this search term will not be looking for a different film. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the hatnote to Avargal. The reciprocal one from Richie isn't needed for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf. Both accurate and cheap. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 25 July 2018 (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.

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. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Intel Confidential → Engineering sample  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of this in target. Either that needs to be corrected (and I have no idea whether that is appropriate), or this should be deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Intel ES chips often have "Intel Confidential" printed on the IHS. (It may be a good idea to mention this in the target page, but I'm not a skilled English speaker.) Magic sergeant (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:NOTJARGON. How a company that isn't the government classifies its materials is not notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AngusWOOF. Not encyclopedic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:38, 24 July 2018 (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.