Talk:Minolta flashes

Delete this page?

We don't have 'Canon flash', 'Nikon Flash' or 'Pentax flash'; why Minolta, especially when nobody had anything to say on the subject? Let's delete this page. --Dustin McAmera (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Yes, agree with you Dustin. Geoff H (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that, since nobody else edited the page, it wasn't interesting enough so that's why it should have been deleted? Does that mean that all other pages where only one person edited it should be deleted as well? Because if so, I could try to help and go around and delete those pages too, now that I know. Also, I saw pages created for specific Nikon and Vivitar flashes. I didn't look around a whole lot, but found those pretty quickly. Should they be deleted as well, or should I just create a page for the specific flash that was on the Minolta Flash page? HaarFager (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that single-author pages should not exist (and I don't think I said anything to invite that interpretation). Many of our best pages are more or less single-handed works. In fact, 'Minolta flashes' wasn't a single-author page; it was created by Uwe (User:U. kulick), who left it with not much more content than one link, and putting it in category 'Minolta stubs'. I came across the page while removing that category. It's the sort of thing they have at Wikipedia, and maybe works well for them. Here, we have not generally created subcategories of Category:Stub. With our small number of active writers, if you go about creating empty pages, they are likely to stay empty, as this one did for two years before you added a single flash model.

I thought the page stood out as a departure from what we usually do, because similar pages ('Canon flashes' etc.) had not been made for other camera makers who also make flashguns (I have since noticed Agfa flashes.;I think that's the only one; it covers quite a number of models). Maybe we *should* have 'Canon flashes' etc., but I think we should have a decent start to the content ready to add, before we even add a page with such a title.

So I suppose I thought 'Minolta flashes' was an inadequate attempt to address the title given to it, and I thought the wiki was better without the page as it stood. When saying that, I don't mean to discount your contribution in adding what content there was. Just that if we set up a title, we should have enough ready to say to justify the title; not necessarily a complete page, but a good start. My beef is with what Uwe did in creating an empty page.

I acknowledge that I could instead have moved the page to a new title, to cover the single model of flash, but we also have few pages about single flashguns; we are first of all a *camera* wiki. *I* certainly wouldn't create a page for a single model of flashgun, unless it was somehow a particularly important or notable one.

If you seriously want the page back, I can certainly undelete it. I don't know who has the undelete power: I see I can do it, but maybe you can too; if so, go ahead (from the Deletion log). I'm not happy for the page to stay as our summary of all Minolta flashes though. If the page returns but gets no more content, I suggest we do move it to a new title, limiting it to that one flashgun. --Dustin McAmera (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind the long reply at all! Thanks for all that information. I think when I added the lone flash to that page, I was reading somewhere that pages needed to be fleshed out, so I thought I'd add that and add more to the page. It's the only Minolta flash I have, so it's just as well to leave the page deleted. There's probably not many people who still use Minolta flashes and even less who probably care. So, that's fine as it is. Thanks for the reply, it was very helpful. I like to help around here, but only if it's actually helpful! HaarFager (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)