Jump to content

Talk:Alpha 5 (Power Rangers)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there anyway we can change the physical description of Alpha to not mention pie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.2.23 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys think that Alpha 5's design might have been based on a fusion of R2-D2's domed head and C-3PO's cowardly attitude? Consider their serving of teens with magical martial arts powers under the direction of blue spectres of old men... Tyciol 19:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Seen Error

[edit]

Alpha 5...along with Bulk and Skull...was the longest consecutively running characters of Power Rangers.

Alpha 5, Bulk and Skull were around until the colony droped off in the Lost Galexy.....he did not leave the show in Trubo.

Correction, Alpha 6 was the new robot when Alpha 5 left for Eltar with Zordon. The last time we saw Alpha 5 was when he came back for the ceremony when the rangers passed on their powers. RabidPanda V 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...About Alpha's magical christmas... don't you think that nobody really cares about its plot continuity or status as canon, considering that it's a show made for little kids and the only people who would really post that last comment are a tad too old for making that big of a fuss?

Abilities

[edit]

Does Alpha have no more abilities? What about when he shot a beam (or something) from his head in The Wannabe Ranger? (I think it was that episode. 95% sure.) Paul Haymon 04:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the...

[edit]

Who the heck put "Mexican dubbing" in there? "Mexican" is not a language you racist bastards. The language is SPANISH. S-P-A-N-I-S-H. Get it in your head, damn it! >:(

24.99.73.241 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Leon[reply]

Alpha's Magical Christmas

[edit]

Under the Alpha's Magical Christmas section, the following is stated: "This is also the only filmed event in the Power Rangers franchise in which the Lord's name is mentioned in one of the songs." Okay. Call me weird, but shouldn't His Name being mentioned in a Christmas carol be considered normal? I'm not sure why there is a red flag being raised. It's not sacreligious, because it is being used in a peaceable and also praising tone. I don't think that this random statement has any place in the article, but that's why I wrote here to notify of a change I'll be making in case there were any points to be raised. I'll simply omit that statement and obviously, anyone can talk here if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.38.225 (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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]

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", Sony Alpha 7 and Alpha Five are in fact full blown articles in their own right, whereas Alpha 7 was originally a redirect referring to List of minor Power Rangers characters#Alpha only and was now changed by him to point to Forever Red ([1]) - articles about related topics, not even Alpha 7 in particular. This isn't bad in itself at all, but it invalidates the argument, which somehow seems to revolve around his assumption that redirects would carry less weight than articles, although WP:DISAMB states otherwise.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:00, 13 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:
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 5 (Minolta), Alpha 5 Digital, Alpha Five, Alpha 5 (Power Rangers)) to distinguish under the Alpha 5 name without a primary topic. In the case of Alpha 7 we have even more such topics (Alpha 7 (Minolta), Alpha 7 Limited, Alpha 7 Digital, Sony Alpha 7, Sony Alpha 7R, Sony Alpha 7S, 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 WP:DISAMB suggests to take possible other, currently uncovered as well as potential future usages into account as well when deciding on names for disambiguation pages. Given that the camera system is still named Alpha mount system by Sony, and Sony has released Alpha 7, Alpha 7R and Alpha 7S cameras in 2013 and 2014, it is very likely that we will see a Sony Alpha 5 sooner or later (and have an article about it) as well. Also, we already have Sony Alpha NEX-7 and 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 Five (database): And Sony Alpha 7 and Alpha 5 Digital and 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 List of minor Power Rangers characters#Alpha, where Alpha 7 originally pointed to before you reverted my attempt to make it a disambiguation page and changed it to point to 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 WP:DISAMB redirects do not carry less weight in regard to the name that needs to be disambiguated on a disambiguation page. They have exactly the same "value" as articles. Redirects are just a technical vehicle to make one article visible under multiple titles without adding redundancy, or to link to subsections in another articles, thereby decoupling the internal or physical organization of an article from the external or logical organization of titles in Wikipedia. What counts on a disambiguation page is not if a link points to an article or a redirect (pointing to another article as a whole or a section in it), but solely if that term needs to be distinguished or not. I think it is beyond doubt, that Alpha Five (database), Alpha 5 (Minolta), Alpha 5 Digital and Alpha 5 (Power Rangers) as well as Alpha 7 (Minolta), Alpha 7 Digital, Alpha 7 (Sony), Alpha 7 (Power Rangers) are about completely different subjects and therefore need to be disambiguated. I would also include the Alpha 7 Limited, Alpha 7R and 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 WP:DISAMB we should use editorial judgement in such cases. However, if they do not belong on this page, we would also have to remove the entries for Alpha 4 (Power Rangers), Alpha 5 (Power Rangers), Alpha 6 (Power Rangers) and 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]
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 Five (database) and Sony Alpha 7, the articles behind Alpha 5 Digital, Alpha 7 Digital and the sections for Alpha 5 (Minolta) and 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 Five (database), Alpha 5 (Minolta), Alpha 5 Digital, Alpha 5 (Power Rangers) as well as Alpha 7 (Minolta), Alpha 7 Digital, Sony Alpha 7, 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 Alpha 4 (Power Rangers), Alpha 6 (Power Rangers) and Alpha 7 (Power Rangers) all being discussed in List of minor Power Rangers characters originally or Alpha 7 (Power Rangers) now redirecting to 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.
It's good that we could agree on a consensus mostly. As Xoloz already wrote, the current arrangement is technically fine. I am happy with it as well, however, it may still not be the best possible solution per MOS.
Based on comments by Steel1943 and me above (and the lack of comments to the contrary by others, including Ryūlóng) it seems that the majority of the participants in the discussion even preferred Alpha 5 to become the disambiguation page rather than Alpha Five. As he had explained, Steel1943 just created it the other way around, but not for a particular reason. WP:DABNAME suggests to use the "simplest form" and to use the "spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page", this would be Alpha 5.
Given that both pages don't have a long edit history and both had about the same disambiguating contents at about the same point in time, I think we can just pragmatically swap them and fixup the pointers without loosing any page history or going through the overhead of another discussion.
Assuming and hoping that everybody will be happy with it, I will therefore implement this slight refinement of our outcome above now. If someone objects, we can easily change it back, of course. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, the discussion closed and there was no consensus for my proposal. That means we don't need to write anything else about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

[edit]

These sources are all pretty weak. They're mostly about Power Rangers itself. 2605:B40:1303:900:A842:6D2D:8AA1:2985 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alpha_5_(Power_Rangers)&oldid=1198482159"