Talk:Nikon Z 6

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nikon Z 6 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Photography Low‑importance

	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.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WP:TOOSOON[edit]

This page strikes me as WP:TOOSOON. We have WP:NODEADLINE so let's wait for this product to be released, get some reviews and clearly meet WP:NCORP. As it stands now it should be deleted but that strikes me as silly given that it will likely be notable after its release which is why I draftified it in the first place but respect that was undone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it is already very notable given it is one of two full-frame mirrorless cameras announced by Nikon and part of the launch of a new camera mount. I'd hardly call it "soon" as the product will be released in a month (with demo/trial units already in the hands of reviewers). As far as your edit which deleted many of the technical details of the camera and what sets it apart from the Nikon Z 7, I've reverted you. There is strong precedent for these articles containing the technical details of the unit they describe. I linked you to a number of other similarly formatted articles in the edit summary for the reversion. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: I think your revert at me is not with-in policy specifically in terms of what Wikipedia is not. My comments are focused on this article and what it is like - I acknowledge WP:OTHERSTUFF exists and I am not trying WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, I'm trying to implement policy like WP:NCORP and WP:! in a way that makes sense - it is likely this product will be notable. As it stands now in a literal reading it is not. Precedent on other pages doesn't mean those other pages are right to have that information (nor does it mean I'm right in this case). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I've had disagreements on here in the past, but I think this is the first time I can safely say I disagree with every single word you said. I will say that the list style is obviously frowned on, we prefer that lists like that be merged in to prose that effectively says the same things, but at the moment, having the information available for our readers is more important than not having it. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet a second editor came in and removed the feature list too Locke Cole. I would ask you to step back and consider things rather than go to ANI where the most likely outcome would be "It's a content dispute" but the chance of a (mild) boomerang would also exist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A second editor"? You two have more than a few overlaps, so the timing seems...convenient. It's also not a content dispute if it's actually vandalism. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole I'd encourage you to redact your comment and read WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: Natureium and I are both new page patrollers so it's not surprising that we overlap on articles, like this, which are in that queue. In fact that's basically what I see when running the overlap tool [1] - we seem to interact with articles and more often users because of that. As for the content dispute is there a policy justification or even project descriptor which supports including the features? I'm open to backing down but I again feel that WP:! backs up the removal of that section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: I just looked at the Z7 page. I would suggest that the addition of the camera infobox would obviate the need for the features section while still conveying the information to the interested reader. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very few web sites show it as Z 6 (with a space between the two characters)[edit]

I guess Nikon shows it as Z 6 but the photo enthusiast sites just show Z6. https://www.google.com/search?q=nikon+z6+vs+z7&rlz=1C1RUCY_enCA781CA781&oq=nikon+z6&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j0j69i60l2.3917j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Peter K Burian (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Names of items like this tend to be dictated by the producers, which in this case Nikon has explicitly made it "Z 6".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]