This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Sony Alpha 77 II → Sony α77 II – Title blacklisted, but appears to be the actual name of the product. Strangely, was able to make it as a redirect, but not move it myself. *shrug*. – Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Do we treat the Greek letter α as a stylization, here in an object for common use rather than an obscure scientific equation? 'α' looks much like 'a' to someone who is not thinking in terms of Greek letters at the time; many such people, if needing to write alpha, would write or type the 5 letters 'a l p h a' rather then the Greek letter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
OpposeWP:OFFICIALNAME we do not use official names just because they are official. WP:AT we do not use untypable non-English special characters for no reason. MOS:TM we should not use special characters in place of English words. WP:UE, this camera frequently appears in English using an English lettered term "Alpha" , so we can avoid using the Greek-language term "α" -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
CommentWP:OFFICIALNAME is just an essay and does say official names "should always be considered as possibilities". WP:AT says that where the name contains characters not found on most English-language keyboards, a redirect should be provided -- it doesn't ban the use of Greek characters. MOS:TM only discusses unpronounced decorative characters. This is a Greek letter alpha. Other examples include μTorrent and Groupe µ. In sources where proper typography is the norm (e.g. printed books) then the α symbol frequently appears. Web sources tend to default to ASCII for technical and cultural reasons. In the culturally stunted US, Sony.com refer to the camera as Alpha. In the UK and Japan, it is α. Some web sources just use A or a, but the fact that some twentysomething blogger can't be bothered to figure out how to create the correct foreign character isn't really a good reasons why an encyclopaedia shouldn't attempt to get it right. I don't think it likely the page will be moved as too many web sources use the long form, but if we were to consider a move, it really would affect the whole set of articles. -- Colin°Talk 07:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty of sources published outside the US, web and print, which spell "alpha" out in full: ; ; ;  (reviewing the older model); ; ; . Thesetwo books, again referring to older models, spell it out in full in their entirety (save the front cover of the latter). I think it's nothing more than most third-party sources like the ones listed wanting to appeal to the layperson; thus, common name policy applies here (P.S. I like your pictures!). 23W 19:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:UCN (see my above comments). 23W 19:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
Contentious claims require high quality sourcing with precise citations. The rule of thumb, for non-contentious subjects, is that a source per paragraph is reasonable. This article is currently a paragraph long. None of the claims/facts in the article are contended by any source, reliable or otherwise. Let's leave the "every fact must be inline-cited to a secondary independent source" hassle to difficult subjects like autism. This is just a stub article on a camera. If more text is written, then more sources will be required and inline citations will then be useful. If contentious claims are made, then third-party independent sources will be required. Until that point, this stub is just fine and I encourage anyone reading this to remove from this article the silly templates placed by an IP, leaving just the "stub" template to request expansion. Thank-you. (I have removed them once already, but the IP likes to edit war and I don't) -- Colin°Talk 22:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Party and person and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources. This article does not use a "primary source". It is a common mistake to confuse "primary source" with "independent" or "third-party". It currently uses Sony UK's website pages for the camera, which contains a specifications section that confirms most of the facts in the article. The article isn't perfect and the sourcing isn't perfect but the biggest problem with this article currently is that is is very short, not that any of the facts or statements are contentious in any way. The best thing that any editor can do to this article is to expand it, and in doing so, the need for inline citations and multiple sources will naturally follow. I object to the tagging of this article wrt issues on notability or sourcing because doing so reflects a "nit picking" "making work for somebody else" attitude that is not helping improve the article. Although one can tag it with a template for not using independent sources, there is no policy that says it must be tagged. Similarly, although one could send it to AfD, doing so would be disruptive behaviour because it is trivial to establish notability. It is not necessary to nit pick our stub articles as though conducting a Featured Article review.
The need for independent sources goes with the strength of any claim made in the article. At one level, there are facts on WP that need no source. The sun is in the sky. This is a camera. It is a reasonable argument that the best, most reliable source, and the source with the strongest reputation for fact-checking an accuracy, wrt the specification of the camera, is the camera manufacturer's own specifications data sheet. A similar situation would be sourcing the winners of the Commonwealth Games or Olympics to the organiser's own websites. Those aren't independent, but these are plain facts that such bodies are expected to get right and be the authority on. -- Colin°Talk 11:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Colin: I added a few reviews to the article; more to come. 23W 20:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)