Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 18

E950 → Acesulfame potassium
The result of the debate was disambiguate. I'm going to be bold and convert this into a disambig page as its unclear which the better target is. I also note that a Samsung E950 mobile phone is soon to be released and will be another potential target. If a technical workaround is achieved on the EXIF problem and there is a concensus that the sweetener is the more natural use, it can be restored to a redirect. WjBscribe 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC) E950 is the E number for this chemical, so at first glance nothing wrong here. However, the EXIF data from a Nikon Coolpix 950 records the camera model as "E950". Links from EXIF are currently impossible to trace, so there are an uncertain number of images like this one located on Commons and en.wiki that indicate that they were taken by an artificial sweetener. The incoming links can bypass the redirect to the article on the chemical, but technical limitations prevent the EXIF links being retargeted. Therefore I suggest retargeting the redirect to Nikon Coolpix 950. Nilfanion (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retargeted with a disambiguation hatnote on the Coolpix 950 article. Neon  Merlin  03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good workaround. Still, I would like to see what the "technical limitations" are so the problem can be fixed. Can we ask developers to make sure EXIF data links corectly? Kusma (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is MediaWiki:Exif-model-value links to the value of the EXIF data; forcing the use of R from EXIF to redirect SAMSUNG TECHWIN CO., LTD to a sensible location. This isn't a problem in general (redirects are cheap), but here is clashes with an entirely sensible encyclopedic redirect. I suppose we could move the EXIF links to a different namespace: if we change the MW files from $1 to $1, all the EXIF links will point to project space and could be redirected to articles from there. That is a editor-side solution. The dev-side fix could be to either hard code these values into MediaWiki or to give us a dedicated namespace for EXIF data.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We could just use EXIF:$1 or a similar reasonable pseudo-namespace that doesn't clash with encyclopedic content for these redirects. However, we probably should synchronize whatever we do to the EXIF data with people from Commons (they should have the same problem). Kusma (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that sounds reasonable as a short/medium term solution. A long term one is developer side and will take a long time to implement... I'll take this discussion to VP (proposals) here and drop a line at the Commons VP. As for this redirect I suggest pointing it at the camera until there is consensus for the change - and of course speedily targeting it back to the sweetener if it is implemented.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment going against common sense (if the current target is the best common-sense target) for the sake of a bug seems like something we should avoid if possible. Perhaps a dab link at the top of the sweetener article would serve us best?  On the other hand, I have no idea what the ideal common-sense target actually is here, so I have no formal opinion at this time.  Xtifr tälk  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the camera will be referred to as a "Nikon 950" or "Coolpix 950" but almost certainly not E950; which is certainly in use in European countries to refer to the chemical.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Return To The The Lost World (1992 film) → Return to the Lost World
The result of the debate was delete given the uselessness of this redirect. -- John Reaves 19:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Highly unlikely search term - note the extra "The" in addition to the capitalization and unnecessary disambiguating term. PC78 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete.  bibliomaniac 1 5  15 years of trouble and general madness 00:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Documents a pagemove conducted just today.  The other author who started the page needs to know where to find the page now that you've moved it.  Rossami (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That can be easily remedied. PC78 12:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. General policy is to keep a redirect where a page has been moved or merged, in order to avoid breaking links from external sites or stored on people's hard drives, unless (a) the title is needed to hold another article, a redirect to another target, or a disambiguation page; or (b) the move was vandalism. Neon  Merlin  03:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not strictly the case when the redirect has no useful page history. PC78 12:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't about page history, it's about potentially breaking external links and bookmarks. Redirects are cheap.  Xtifr tälk 23:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, probably WP:CSD'able as well. Any one who has this link stored outside Wikipedia (unlikely as this was only created two days ago!) will most likely check the link and notice it is wrong and use the search to find the correct name. I have notified the original page author, the only other contributor to the page apart from the nominator, of the new page title. mattbr 19:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as harmful. David Pro 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, is this redirect "harmful"? Which of the "delete if" criteria at the top of this page does this redirect meet?  Rossami (talk)
 * Weak delete: though I did have to contemplate this one for a while. Yes, a relic of a pagemove is generally kept, but this really hasn't been around long enough to have meaningful history, which is really the only reason we do that.  And yes, redirects are cheap, but this one looks more-than-usually useless.  I nearly agree with Mattbr—if it weren't a pagemove relic, it would be an obvious speedy/C3 candidate ("recently created implausible typo or misnomer").  As it, I think it's just a little too recent and implausible to bother keeping.  Xtifr tälk 09:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)