Talk:Alpha 5 (Power Rangers)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is little support for the Power Rangers character being the primary topic for Alpha 5. If User:Matthiaspaul would like something to be done with Alpha 7 I suggest opening a new RM. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha 5 (Power Rangers) → Alpha 5 – This is to restore the original title of the page which was moved by Matthiaspaul (talk · contribs) when he decided to make a disambiguation for the two items I recently added to the hatnote at the top (dab page here, consisting of just that edit and my revert), despite the fact that they do not have articles. This is the primary topic of "Alpha 5" in English rather than two cameras that are known as the "Alpha 5" (or rather "α-5") in non-English speaking nations. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I have updated this move request to no longer seem malformed. I had created Alpha Five as a disambiguation page not knowing about this discussion. If this move succeeds, then most likely Alpha Five may need to redirect to Alpha 5, but I'm not completely sure of that (but I will be providing my opinion due to creating the disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've undone this. This debate only regards this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally feel that Alpha Five should redirect to Alpha 5 rather than the other way around, I would also be happy with your suggested solution, for as long as the target is a disambiguation page listing the various meanings of the terms Alpha 5 and Alpha 7 with equal weight rather than articles with hatnotes. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthiaspaul: I have no opinion on the title of the disambiguation page (Alpha 5 versus Alpha Five): the title with the number spelled out was just where I created it at the time. I also disagree with Ryulong's above unbundling of the disambiguation page with this discussion (since it is obviously affected), but I'll let the closer of the discussion figure that one out. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just to keep the facts straight, Ryulong added the hatnote entries only after my attempt to make Alpha 5 and 7 disambiguation pages was reverted by him, not earlier. And although he down-plays the importance of entries represented by redirects by writing "despite the fact that they do not have articles",
  WP:DISAMB
  states otherwise.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Alpha 5 should be moved to Alpha 5 (disambiguation), since there are three entries on that list you deleted, and Alpha Five as well, which makes four entries. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't change this being the primary topic of "Alpha 5". An "Alpha 5 (disambiguation)" may be of use otherwise, nor does it change the fact that

  Alpha 5 Digital are just redirects from alternate names not used in English-speaking regions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose. There is no clear assessment on why this has to be the
  primary topic over the topic at Alpha Five (database). Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It is the only topic that is known by "Alpha 5" (with the numeral) in English speaking nations because the cameras are known as Maxxums in the US and Canada, and by some other name in Europe; Japan is the only nation that has these cameras called "α-5". And the confusion with Alpha Five (database) can be taken care of with a hatnote.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Due to the fact that the number and the word are synonymous in the English language, anyone looking for "Alpha 5" could easily be looking for "Alpha 5", or vice versa. Also, this still does not address my concern on how

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over Alpha Five (database). From what I am seeing, I do not see a primary topic at all. Steel1943 (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  They're synonymous in spoken English, but written down there is no such confusion. The database is certainly not the primary topic. Alpha 5 power rangers has a greater google presence than Alpha five database.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You didn't put the search string in quotation marks in the power rangers search, so that it actually inferior to the database: 66,600 for: "alpha five" database vs 41,400 for: "alpha 5" "power rangers" ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I only used quotes for the database because it came up with too many false positives without them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Putting quotation marks is the right thing to do in both cases (and generally in these types of searches), to avoid false positives; if you include them in one case and not the other, you are comparing apples and oranges. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I had more positive results without the quotes when I did the first search.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously, since you're going to have a ton of hits relating to "rangers", "power", or "alpha" that have nothing to do whatsoever with "alpha 5 power rangers" ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Didn't seem like that from the first page of results. Also, stop giving every single one of your comments a god damn bullet point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement above that cameras named α-5 and α-5 Digital were only distributed in Japan is not correct. While they were available as α-5 and α-5 Digital in Japan also, the majority of these cameras sold specifically in Japan were named α-Sweet II and α-Sweet Digital, respectively. However, under their α-5 and α-5 Digital names, these cameras were sold all over Asia, in parts of Australia and - admittedly in considerably less numbers - also in parts of Africa, Europe and America. The Dynax designation was used for the most part in Europe, Australia, Africa and South America, whereas Maxxum was officially used only in the USA and Canada. However, I have also seen Alpha and Dynax cameras in the USA and Canada, as well as Alpha and Maxxum cameras in various European countries - the picture isn't as cleanly cut as one might think. Basically, we must expect readers to type in any of these names looking for information.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. What I am suggesting is:

• Alpha 5 (disambiguation) → Alpha 5 (as a disambiguation page)
• Alpha Five → Alpha 5
• Alpha 7 (disambiguation) → Alpha 7 (as disambiguation page like [2])

As I already pointed out in prior discussions ([3] and User talk:Matthiaspaul#Alpha 4/5/7 moves), the Maxxum name was officially used only in the USA and Canada, the rest of the world used the Alpha and Dynax designations. The Minolta and Konica Minolta cameras are known as Alpha 5 and Alpha 5 Digital in English speaking countries (including the USA) as well. Actually, the whole system was officially named Alpha (A) mount system since 1985. Wikipedia is an international project, US names are not any more relevant than those used in other parts of this world. Camera owners may or may not be aware of alternative names. Readers can reasonably expect that they will be directed to the relevant contents if they type in Alpha 5 or Alpha 7. Guiding a reader to the relevant article is the very purpose of redirects and disambiguation pages.

Even when counting conservatively, we already have four topics (

Alpha 7 (Power Rangers)

), also without a primary topic. It is likely, that there are even more meanings of these terms.

While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, in order to reduce the need for frequent reorganizations

NEX-5

cameras, which are (confusingly, but nevertheless correctly) sometimes referred to as Alpha 7 and Alpha 5 even now. I'm leaving out the Minolta Alpha 7 Limited II (which is a variation of the Alpha 7 Limited) and the Alpha 7 CNM (which combines a mixture of features of the Alpha 7 and Alpha 7 Limited and adds a special display navigation system) since they were available in China only.

Hatnotes are typically used for as long as there are only two topics under the same name that need to be distinguished, and only, if one of them is a primary topic.

WP:DISAMB

suggests that the hatnote should not become longer than one line (it is already two-and-a-half lines on my monitor). So, using hatnotes for disambiguation is impractical here.

The Power Rangers Alpha 5 and 7 are unlikely to be primary topics. I do, however, have frequently heard of the various Minolta, Konica Minolta and Sony cameras under all of their alternative names since 1985, and I have heard about the Alpha Five database on various occasions as well. (And Google also suggests that the Alpha designation is known and used internationally.) As these are real-world items sold in large numbers, they are more likely to be primary topics than some fictional characters, I think. However, taking into account that "Alpha 5" and "Alpha 7" are rather commonplace names in general, I think it is reasonable to assume that there is no primary topic at all, therefore my suggested use of disambiguation pages for them.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact still stands that several of these cameras that you claim the disambiguation is needed for are not known by these names in the majority of English speaking nations, in addition to the fact that all of these are just redirects to sections on the makes of camera models, and in some cases multiple redirects to the same damn camera model's page, in general rather than stand alone articles like this one or the database one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, based on my personal experience I doubt that the majority of English speaking nations does not know these names although they may be more familiar with the Dynax and Maxxum names and some people won't recognize them at all. You will find them mentioned under these names in a lot of forum discussions. While I don't give much about the relevance of Google hits, but for a string like "Minolta Alpha 5" Google turns up some 150.000 to 280.000 hits depending on how I filter languages, and this is only one spelling variant. But that's beside the point, as I don't make the claim that they were primary topics (even if they might be), all I state is that there is no or no clear primary topic. You may like it or not, but our guideline

WP:DISAMB

is clear about that disambiguation pages have to be used then, not hatnotes.

Regarding "all of these are just redirects to sections on the makes of camera models, and in some cases multiple redirects to the same damn camera model's page, in general rather than stand alone articles like this one or the database"

Alpha 7 Digital... These are full blown articles or 1:1 redirects to them - not different from Alpha 5 (Power Rangers)

in any way.

Whereas

Forever Red

, are both redirects to articles not discussing Alpha 7 as main topic. So what? I'm afraid, you are contradicting yourself. (Please don't get me wrong: As I already wrote, I don't think these redirects are "bad" in any way, I am only using them as a counter-argument to illustrate the fact that your reasoning above is flawed.)

Besides, per our guideline

Alpha 7S

, which are redirects linking to sections in other articles, however, these are different cameras not only by nameplate and cosmetics, but also by functionality (while they share some hardware they have different specifications, different internal IDs and need different RAW processing), and someone looking for information on an Alpha 7R may not expect to find information about it in an article named Alpha 7, if there is only one link on the disambiguation page (although with some background about these cameras he may assume it). From the viewpoint of the disambiguation page, what matters is if a term needs to be disambiguated, not if the disambiguated information happens to be found in the same target article in the end.

Further, one might argue that terms with strings like "R", "S", "Limited" or "Digital" appended do not belong on a disambiguation page for "Alpha 7" at all. According to

Alpha 7 (Power Rangers) from the Alpha (disambiguation) page... In either case, even if we'd not include them, there are still enough meanings remaining justifying those disambiguation pages. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• And this debate is only about this particular page's placement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is about both, Alpha 5 and Alpha 7 being disambiguation pages or not. Both were subject in our prior discussions ([4] and User talk:Matthiaspaul#Alpha 4/5/7 moves) and have been discussed in context by both of us. It would be a waste of energy to split up and double the discussion now, given how closely related they are. My suggestion is to make both of them disambiguation pages since they have multiple meanings and there is no primary topic, whereas you claim that those Power Rangers fictional characters were primary topics and want to partially disambiguate alternative meanings through hatnotes. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's called reverting what you did and restoring the status quo. And they were the only such topics until you began making fifty billion redirects for alternate names of cameras.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of restoring a previous Status Quo, if it has proven to be inadequate to solve the current problem? Things are changing, Wikipedia is growing, we have more titles needing disambiguation than years back. In more than one way your suggested solution to partially disambiguate through hatnotes is not backed up by our established editing guidelines, whereas the suggested usage of disambiguation pages and redirects is. So, what's the problem, actually, except for that you "don't like" it for reasons you haven't articulated clearly yet? Besides, the articles

Alpha 7 (Minolta) already existed before I came around, they just lacked explicit disambiguation. I did not create redirects to trample on your feet, but because the cameras are named this way. It's not me, who invented these names. (Please direct your complaints to those camera manufacturers, not me. I don't particularly like these names as well, but that doesn't keep me from doing what needs to be done, given that they exist in the real world.) I'm just trying to make our contents more (and more logically) accessible. We do not suddenly stop adding contents or building the web through redirects etc. just because another article already exists under the same topic name. Instead we reorganize the stuff so that all of it becomes equally accessible, so that everyone is happy in the end, not only you, not me or the other editors who have voiced their opinion here already, but all readers who are seeking for the information. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

There was no "problem" until you produced one by making fifty redirects all to the same topic. If these aren't valid article titles, then hatnotes solve the problem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But they are valid titles. For a camera named Alpha 5 or Alpha 7 how do you want to distort the title to make it not match Alpha 5 and Alpha 7 - and why? The problem of a lack of disambiguation for Alpha 5 and Alpha 7 existed for a long time already, but it became more apparent now that I created those redirects. Basically, you suggest I should have ignored those names, although they are in common use (the fact that other names are even more frequently used in some areas doesn't change that), because we already had other articles under those names. This view, however, conflicts with

WP:DISAMB

.

I could partially follow your reasoning, if the Power Rangers characters were the primary topics under the Alpha 5 and Alpha 7 names, but several editors including myself have expressed their doubts about this, and you were not able to establish this as a fact as well.

Also, hatnotes are fine for as long as they remain short.

WP:DISAMB

suggests one line, but the hatnotes you created are already two-and-a-half lines on my monitor (and they don't list all topics to be distingished). So, per our guidelines, the solution to choose is disambiguation pages.

Further, I could follow you, if I would list multiple entries for the same camera on the same disambiguation page, but I don't do that. (The Alpha 7 Limited II was originally included as well, but I removed it from my suggestion above, since it is really only a minor variant of the Alpha 7 Limited. I also removed the functionally different Alpha 7 CNM, because it was available in China only.) All the other suggested entries are for functionally different cameras, which just happen to have similar names and share parts. The Alpha 7 Limited is discussed under Alpha 7 (Minolta) as well, and the Sony Alpha 7R and Sony Alpha 7S are discussed on the Sony Alpha 7 page. While I do think they belong on the disambiguation page, because they are different cameras, for the sake of the argument, just assume we would drop them as well. We would still have to disambiguate four topics each,

Alpha 7 (Power Rangers)

, and with likely more topics to come.

And finally, redirecting to other articles or even discussing multiple redirected topics in a single target article is in no way different from

Forever Red

. Had the Sony Alpha 7 article existed under Alpha 7 and someone (perhaps you) would have wanted to make this a disambiguation page to list other entries as well (like Alpha 7 (Power Rangers)), the Alpha 7 article would have had to be moved to Sony Alpha 7 just as it should happen now the other way around (in particular without a primary topic in sight). Normal procedure, not a big deal.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why must you respond with an essay every time I respond with a single sentence? I'm not reading this shit anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No clear
  wp:primarytopic. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. This discussion is somewhat difficult to follow. I want to chime in with a few points. I agree that there is no convincing evidence that the Power Rangers are the primary topic for the phrase "Alpha 5" or "Alpha Five". Thus, I oppose the original request. Also, I agree with Steel1943 that "Alpha Five" and "Alpha 5" are synonymous, and should be treated as if they were the same for purposes of disambiguation (because the average reader/searcher will NOT make a fine distinction between the number and the written word.) Lastly, having looked over the status quo regarding this set of articles, the current arrangement seems fine. In other words, if the closing admin sorting through this discussion is a bit bleary-eyed on reading all this, my recommendation is simply: do nothing. Xoloz (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.