Talk:Sony ARW 1.0

Contested deletion
I contest the deletion of this redirect because it is not an "implausible typo or misnomer" and certainly not uncontroversial as stated by the nominator. ARW is Sony's raw image file format in their α series of cameras, and 1.0 is one of the ARW version numbers, as for example reported in Exif data. It is important to distinguish the version numbers in image file processing and to distinguish feature sets. It is common in Wikipedia to have redirects from all version numbers in order to allow editors to specifically refer to different versions in articles, when required. In this case, the target article does not distinguish between the different versions yet, but it may do so in the future, and this is no reason to delete the redirect, anyway. Even now, it already allows reverse-lookup and helps to build the web. None of the deletion criteria for redirects (per WP:R) applies, but several of the reasons to keep (per WP:R) are met. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the reason why we would need to have as many as seven redirects with the name "Sony ARW [version number]" as seen here, all of them being broken links to nonexistent sections of a much more general article. --uKER (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally "failing to see" is not a valid reason to nominate for deletion. Obviously another editor took the time to create them, so he found them useful. See WP:REDIR:
 * Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
 * We are creating redirects with version numbers also in many other cases - even if not all version numbers resolve at present, they may do so in the future. Wikipedia is a work in progress - Rome wasn't built in a day.
 * It is useful for readers and editors to have redirects for version numbers, so they can reverse-lookup specific version numbers, and have the redirects available when they discuss specific version numbers in other articles - easier than having to retrofit them at a later stage.
 * Putting it in another way: If you do not envision this and don't find them useful, nobody forces you to use these redirects, but what do you gain in destroying other editors' work and hindering them contributing to the project their way? I mean, they were deliberately created, not the result of some accident. Nominating them for deletion is not a maintenance task, there are no typos or misnomers to fix, there is also no name conflict with another redirect or article for a different topic. These are not some random numbers, but they reflect only existing version numbers.
 * Also, there's nothing necessarily "broken" if an anchor does not exist yet (although something might be broken and needs adjustment if an anchor existed previously and has been renamed without fixing up the incoming links). Anchors are optional. If they don't exist, browsers will just set the focus to the start of the page - this is a well defined part of the URL scheme, so you don't need to rely on some random behaviour. Providing anchors prophylactically already serves the purpose of logically grouping incoming redirects to different (potentially) existing sections, and thereby it helps in planning and organizing future content expansion.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)