Talk:Minolta AF

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Minolta Dynax → Minolta AF — Minolta AF is NPOV, and not Eurocentric, unlike Minolta Dynax ChristopherBorcsok 18:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

[edit] Survey - Support votes

1. Support - See proposal above. ChristopherBorcsok 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - Move, see above. Innox 19:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - See above, not great but better. Shaocaholica 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - Minolta AF is a better description as the first two cameras (at least) were not called Dynax 62.25.106.209 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose; is the system actually officially called "Minola AF" anywhere?- or at least referred to by that name more than it is referred to via the three official names? See "discussion" below. Fourohfour 14:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, move it then; it's not something I feel strongly about. I simply wanted to avoid moving to a made-up (or rarely-used/unofficial) name simply for the sake of neutrality. It seems that there's a plausible case for moving it. Fourohfour 15:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

1. I don't believe that the lack of a worldwide title would be sufficient reason to name an article after a neologism or a rarely-used unofficial name. Would "colur" be a good article name, given the lack of worldwide spelling for color/colour? The redirect system provides for these cases, and all three names are clearly given at the top of the article. Fourohfour 14:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Does "Minolta AF" refer to the whole system, or the lens mount? I thought this article was about the whole system. Fourohfour 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Minolta AF" is generally used worldwide to refer to the whole system. For example, 3rd party lens makers Tamron and Sigma each use "for Minolta AF" to refer to their lenses that are built for the mount. The difficulty spans in that the the camera bodies were branded differently in the various geographic regions (Maxxum, Dynax, Alpha), but the lenses (with a few expectations, ie the STF lens, since it is a manual focus only lens) are all branded as "AF xx". The technical name for the Lens Mount is "Minolta A-type bayonet mount". The reason for emphasis on the Minolta AF name is that the Minolta AF system was the first camera system to feature complete Autofocus. From a branding point of view, it succeeded the Minolta MC and MD mounts, and competes with the Nikon F, Canon EF, and Pentax K. Additionally, a simple googling of "Minolta AF" (in quotes) should alleviate the doubt of the use of the term. ChristopherBorcsok 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1. My early Minolta Autofocus camera is titled as a Minolta 5000 AF - so that is Minolta and AF used in the same product description...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs).

Sure, but was 'AF' the name of the system, or was '5000AF' simply the name of the camera? Anyway, although I don't accept that as the best argument for moving the article, I'll raise no objections if it's moved to Minolta AF now. As I said, you'll have to get an admin to remove the existing Minolta AF article first though. Fourohfour 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.