Jump to content

Talk:Exmor/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sony Z1/Z2 Exmor RS Sensor

Does anyone know which sensor is used by the Sony Z1/Z2? I know it is supposedly the same sensor in both of them, and I have most of the relevant information, however I can't really add it (or provide a proper source for it) without the model number. I've been searching for the number for a little bit, but I can't find anything. Charwinger21 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Source for adding info

Hey guys, Sony has the specs for most models in both this article and the HAD CCD article readily available here. http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/new_pro.html Each individual page says what category the sensor fits into, and the link in the bottom right corner to the PDF has the (mostly) full specs. Unfortunately there are some ~70 issues left to go (with ~3 items each) and I am out of time. I'll try to finish off the table in the future, but it will be a long time before I am able to work through the entire thing. Also, we may need to break Exmor R and Exmor RS out into separate articles (or break all of the sensors out into their own article like we see with List of AMD graphics processing units. Not sure what the best way to proceed is for that, but any input is welcome. Charwinger21 (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sony IMX240 Exmor Sensor is RS, not R

Hi; I don't have time to edit this page right now, but the IMX240 is in the wrong table - it is an RS, not an R sensor. --$tephen T. Crye (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I found time to learn the table syntax and fixed it. --$tephen T. Crye (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

One M9 normal edition

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/adinfo/cmos/pdf/14I01_T4KA7_ProdBrief.pdf

Captcha: bierankle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.197.220 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exmor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Lemma name - chaning to "Sony Exmor"

Since the Manufacturer is Sony, i suggest to change the lemma's name to "Sony Exmor".
And to switch the redirection pages ("Sony Exmor" redirection would become the new article page and "Exmor" the new redirection page). --Angerdan (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a different Exmor that we need to disambiguate this one from? It seems this Exmor is the main Exmor. 198.52.130.137 (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023

- ! Model number ! pixels / resolution ! Sensor size (diagonal) ! Pixel size ! Maximum fps ! Sensitivity ! saturation signal ! Output ! Subpixel layout ! Release date ! Utilizing devices


}} Ashtor88 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 20:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for killing this good page

I liked this page overt just how nicely i could sort through what camera used what and what sensors were good. I don't think there will be another site that has such a nice list that was edited over such time with such so many devoted people who showed how nicely user contribution was which made Wikipedia what it is.

So good job over how patriotic act of no fancruft (which is funny considering as far as I am aware there is nobody fanfaring Sony but just wanted to make easily accessible fan sensor list) or whatever in a website that let's you waste kilobytes and kilobytes of "pictures taken by whatever camera" page that literally has no purpose unlike this page who helped me teach tech illiterate people on how to make camera phone decisions.

Thanks for killing Wikipedia. 88.230.43.132 (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute to the discussion above, and if you have reasons based in Wikipedia policy to support what you feel this article should contain, please make your case. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Quite frankly I don't see any wikipedia policy that supports adding that list and thus replying to seperate points above would be waste of time for everyone involved especailly since quite frankly I am some one use account against editors with 6 digit edits. I just honestly find it sad how such a informative list this page had (and no other site has and probably never will) helped people to know what phone used what.
I honestly think it was less of a catalagoue and more of a neat simple list and some FANCRUFT/LIST/PRIMARY stuff killed it. From what I know this encyclopedia is for education and not for merely following some suggestions/content advisories like "fancruft" that aren't even laws/constitiuon that is done under oath.
Fancruft - nobody was fanboying over what sensors sony made . it was more about what sensors what device used and there
Catalogue - There werent links to data sheets nor there even were pricing
Advert - I don't think this was advertising phones in a biased way. Advert is when someguy advertiess only his own devices or software and I don't think people will go focus only on Sony sensors because of this page
Notability - There aren't lots of phones made every year besides this list doesn't have super long "used on X phone" like my Blade S6/Turkcell T60 isn't here because it's not a revolutionary phone that innovated OS or major phone from major manufacturer
Undue Weight - Same as written above. list showcased only major phones that used it.
Neutral Point - People were listing what phones had what without picking brands and even if it was the case. It's not like corporate white collars were editing this page to make their own phones in the list. It was more of people all over the world adding information
Primary Resources - There are sites like GSM Arena but I don't think they make references but merely report. It's not possible to find non primary resources that has actual citations to what datasheet circuit diagram phone manufacturers were using.
Not Database - This wasn't some list of corporate offices or dealerships or car models page.
Wikipedia policy from what I see, easily permits people to make CPU/GPU/SOC lists (there is a page for intel cpu's and there is a separate page for their xeon branded cpu and on top of that there is even more seperate page for haswell architecture xeon sries cpus) what CPU/GPU/SOC was used on what. There are also arcade system pages listing what hardware was used in a sea of arcade cabinets and games whetever small or big time releases. Wikipedia also has specifically made categories that lets people browse images on what camera it was taken from even though it's literally useless info unlike this page which actuallu educated people.
What is point of following some "rules" in a encyclopedia that has all literal CPU catalogues for every revision ever made and a site that lets you sort dslr models for no reason wasting 1000 KBs of data what will that achieve and what "unwritten rule" will it achieve?
So yeah basically, removing this small useful list in a encyclopedia that has literal brochures on what CPU had what model and their exact codes with suggested pricing seems absurd.
When it comes to what it should contain, I think stuff like mostly what new camera uses what with bit more trivia about how "This sensor was used in A7S II which was used on ISS" or basically removing monochrome sensors used for no brand/OEM security cameras but I am no writer less alone a native speaker.
It is just sad how this neat page got burned which didn't fullfill anything neccessary. I don't think a random nobody will change much no matter how useful this page was for the uneducated people but yeah sad. 88.230.43.132 (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
This isn't an encyclopedia of camera trivia to help people decide on their next camera phone. You can still people to the static page here or move this to a different, more appropriate wiki if you want to actually be productive. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
your argument about notability of each row of a table is just wrong
as well as other arguments LSeww (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll hijack this more recent thread, because with how barbaric this resource is - I have no idea how to actually "edit" something to be comprehensive here.
I didn't want to waste my New Year on this circlejerk, but I'm surprised that someone else did(after all, they did have nothing better to do on Christmas). The ironic thing about these power trippers is how transparent they are. Not a single one of them has voiced a single good reason for butchering this page. I have to give some respect to Gus for actually doing his homework, but if someone handled the movement of data before abruptly deleting it - this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, on a public resource, some people just gave themselves the NSDAP right to power trip. And only one of, I assume, mods or admins actually had the knowledge of protocol of at least handling this sort of situation.
Everybody else is merely going along the lines of "Useful is not a criterion" and... damn, just when I thought that this wiki management couldn't get more moronic - they actually have a COPE article. Core policies. No wonder you guys get your jimmies rustled from comparisons to a certain period of Germany.
I sincerely regret that some people brought up other lists. Guys, please, don't. You are talking to fanatics - don't give them any ideas. Because they not only have the overruling authority(and there are evidently dime a dozen of them), but whoever governs wiki has given them some 10 commandments to adhere to, and these fanatics WILL. They can not and do not think for themselves, they are DRONES. They do what they are programmed to do. Whoever gave them this authority here - did it for a reason.
Look at this "RFC". Not a SINGLE one DARED to even say "yes". Because that would, by definition, go against their commandments and that's a reason to void their position. That's not corruption - that's an organization.
And, for what it's worth, I know I said that I'd undo the edit and keep this war - I have reconsidered. First of all - I see what I'm against. And I mean that - WHAT. Not who. I'm not talking to people here, that much has been made clear. But more importantly - it's because if the war goes on, these drones won't do it any justice. They are physically incapable and technically prohibited from cooperation, again, they are administering their divine commandments. The holy will of whoever gave them authority.
But the article is an article. It may yet live. Maybe someone could edit it somewhere down the line, maybe someone would just want to add some more useless stuff about Sony. But as long as the article is locked - it will be dead. In this state - it's already dead. And the powers that be - are fine with it.
I don't want to contribute to it being dead. I hoped to contribute to it being alive. Visited. Edited. Used.
I won't lie, the only reason I started this was because I hoped someone would keep doing their work of editing it. Like I said, I'm not an editor. I wish I had never taken a glimpse into the deplorable abyss that is Wiki. Even if I registered on some podunk subwiki that hopefully hasn't grown to develop NSDAP(yet) and that is looking for any USEFUL(READ - click and traffic-generating) material - I wouldn't know how to move all that.
Hell, I can only remotely imagine copying it word by word to a public spreadsheet, but if there is one thing I despise more than wiki - it's Excel. Yeah.
The way that the wiki worked was the perfect place for materials like that and that's the very reason why this list fostered where it did. It wasn't built by party-driven drones, it was ... publicly edited. And now it's erased by the machine.
So, again, I can only hope that someone else, who has experience or interest in this wiki-management - could do it. It's not even a matter of claiming ownership of the data - right now the data is virtually lost. It's swept under the rug with the authority of a crybaby.
And if not, then... well, the drones are right. To them - all they have to do is delete. That's their definition of productivity. Yeah, I'm a toxic one here and Ricky is a public servant. I'm surprised Kleuske responded, but evidently he had less to say than a microbe and he just wanted to be a part of it. Well, he did start it after all.
And if the drones are right, then it doesn't matter what anyone else says. There's the voice of the authority and the voice of the plebs. One has the right over the other, it's what they do what they do for. I mean, they used an RFC and all they got was "No"s. I don't know if I could vote there or if it's a gentleman's club, but clearly that RFC did not and does not intend to account for all the walls of text here.
That's totalitarianism in a nutshell. And if nobody wants to salvage this data - then, again, they are right.
What was that saying?
"If you murder someone and nobody remembers them - then did you actually murder anyone?"
Or was it something about a tree making noise...
Anyway, I'm out of here. Thank you for teaching me what wikipedia is not. Tugoperdov (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why doesn't just anyone copy the full list from an old revision into a new article "List of Sony Exmor image sensors" and links to the article in this one?! I don't have time to do it myself but that seems like the easiest solution so both sides are happy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I personally enjoyed the List of Sensors and found that information useful. Deleting such a database without giving substitution is seriously ignorant to the hard work many people have put into creating it. Shame on the people who simply deleted it! RM12 (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

😟

Why removed the list of all sensors??? Vishal Kumar1122 (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

See above. Kleuske (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I had to dig up my login info from decades ago just because of this. I'm no way an editor, but this list of sensors and relevant data assembled in easily accessible and intelligible form is available nowhere else save from going through the painstaking process of assembling one on one's own. There are people out there who appreciate having information this difficult to find in one place. In the meantime I'll be saving the earlier version with the list locally since it keeps disappearing on here. About the free webhost comment, isn't the edit history saved and thus is being hosted every time there's a change anyway? It would take less space to just have left it up. Seem to me like a weak argument. Alright, this being said, I'm logging off and won't be logging on again for the next decade. Have a great life. — a user who's been donating each year for. Nahuatla (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
It is useful and hard work for other people is not a reason to stuff the page with fancruft. I won't wait until 2032 for a response though. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that replacing the lists with text that actually talks about the particular important models, innovations, where they are used would be the best solution. Gusfriend (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That's an unreasonable requirement for a list, many pages include detailed lists of chips/etc because that's allowed. LSeww (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
This is not a list. It is an article. If you want to start List of Exmor sensors and stuff it full of details that isn't just spitting out Sony press releases, try but it may end up being merged back into this article. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Your premise is incorrect, there are lots of pages that list the capabilities of subsequent versions of a technology, see for instance BMW 3 Series. Please reinstate or I will. Jack Hogan (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Why not apply the same logic here then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone#Models Jack Hogan (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for information

There have been several people who have commented on this page who have an active interest in Exmor sensors. I would like to update the versions section with some specific sensors, say half a dozen or so, that have notability such as:

  • This sensor was the first one to include this cool feature especially if other people copied it.
  • This was the first one that was used in non-Sony equipment.
  • This particular sensor line had these characteristics.
  • This sensor sold 30 million.

Then, provided that we can find sources to support it, we can then look at adding the information to the Versions section. Gusfriend (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The Version section was the part that was erased, mon ignoramus. Reinstate it please. Jack Hogan (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The article mentioned in the header is a good source for the IMX378 and IMX377 plus a bit of other stuff. Gusfriend (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Note that personal attacks are not permitted and will not result in the version of this page that you prefer. All edits are retained in the edit history, you are free to copy that information and place it on another website. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
First Full Frame BSI sensor: Exmor R IMX251 198.52.130.108 (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's entirely the goal here. Are there good reliable secondary sources about the history of these sensors? I've tried newspaper searches and absent some insanely technical google scholar articles, I find mostly Sony press releases and not much helpful information out there. It should be an article about these sensors, not a giant table. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    There are plenty of articles about cameras with those sensors, which include sensor information. If they don't mention the exact model, you only need one source which would link sensor model to a camera. LSeww (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    Not in one place there aren't, this was it, whoever unilaterally erased this valuable info without first consulting the community and possibly finding a well-advertised new space for it should be banned, no matter their intention. Jack Hogan (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The notability requirement is not applicable to every element of a table. It's nowhere in wikipedia's rules. I suggested that any sensor from mass produced device should be in, which is quite reasonable because all of those have their own well sourced wikipedia pages which have sensor characteristics mentioned in them. LSeww (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


  • You guys have wantonly and arbitrarily nuked or supported the nuking of a unique resource, there are no others like it online, the Sony site only shows current and future developments, things go up and disappear quickly. The page was useful to anyone with an interest in Exmor imaging sensors. That means photographers, videographers, hobbyists or anyone with an interest in understanding the capabilities of a critical component in their past, current and future cameras. The capabilities are many, varied and change quickly. And what sorry excuses were made to get rid of it? Without consultation? And then disappear in a puff of smoke? THE DEFINITION OF A TROLL. Please REINSTATE - or alternatively move to a well-advertised relevant place as suggested. Jack Hogan (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Jack Hogan The content being moved elsewhere would need to be done by someone on their own; you are free to work to do that if you wish. The edits here are not "wanton and arbitrary" and not "trolling" but based in Wikipedia policies. If you have an argument based in Wikipedia policies to retain any particular content here, please engage in a civil, calm discussion about it on this page. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, how do I reinstate the valuable information that was erased? Jack Hogan (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
You obtain a consensus to do so; there is already a discussion about it in progress on this page above(in the section "Request for comment on list of sensor models"). Your arguments there should preferably be based in Wikipedia policies(either in arguing why certain policies do not apply, or offering policies that support inclusion). 331dot (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
So someone with a god complex wakes up on the wrong side of bed one morning and, without deigning to consult the community and with zero consensus, decides to wantonly erase years worth of community-collected information INSTANTLY at the press of a button - but in order to reinstate it you are forced to go through a LENGTHY formal process with ... who exactly, Dunning-Kruger subjects? Who came up with this genius balanced system of governance?
REINSTATE the valuable erased information now, and THEN we can have a civilized discussion on how to improve the page. I don't have time for this crap. Jack Hogan (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on list of sensor models

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus was to exclude the list from the page. People are reminded that the information is in the history if they wish to make a copy and move it to a different site which is allowed by the Wikipedia content license. People are also encouraged to post useful independent references for any of the sensors or sensor families so that they can be added to the page. Gusfriend (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the page contain a list of sensors found in mass produced consumer devices? The question is not about currently deleted version of the list, rather about a presence of well crafter list in general. LSeww (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: RfC was changed with the addition of the text The question is not about currently deleted version of the list, rather about a presence of well crafter list in general.. Gusfriend (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalog, and this content is excessive. It belongs on an alternative outlet instead. Cullen328 (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    Since there are numerous pages on various devices (like cpu/gpu families) with full list of models, I would like to know the difference. LSeww (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    We are taking about this article, not other articles that I have not looked at. Editing regarding this article has led to major disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    Just as an example. If anyone has got an answer to that, I'd like to hear it. I believe a lot of disruptions were caused by this contradiction. LSeww (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    The disruption was caused by editor misconduct. Cullen328 (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    I would also like to point out WP:OTHERSTUFF but to answer your question, my PERSONAL perspective is that the Skylake page does not have a single monolithic list but 10 different lists split by family with context and a summary provided for all of them. This is after it is already split by only providing Skylake processors. The individual lists provide supplemental information and the reader can either look at the summary and be satisfied with that or go into further detail via the lists.
    Also, and now that I think about it, one of the strongest arguments, is that each family, for example Xeon Gold (quad processor), almost certainly has enough notability for a stand alone page via multiple news reports, reviews and analysis of the capabilities. Gusfriend (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    I can't see why the approach can't be applied here. I agree with the present state of the list being not very clever, but the presence of the list itself is important. The notability of Exmor lineup itself is well demonstrated by a wide range of consumer devices which use it. LSeww (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    It is true that we are talking about this page but having had a look through the protocols I can't find anything very negative about listing this type of information.
    I was going to suggest a link to an an authoritative site to satisfy both views but User:LSeww has indicated the advantages of the list here.
    Could you give the specifics of your objection so that I can come to a balanced view.
    Many thanks Lukewarmbeer (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    p.s. I have read all of the forgoing. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    Does a fairly definitive list exist somewhere on an authoritative site? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    There's a current list on Sony's website. The list from this page had more info including previous generations, also a "device used" column which was sourced from respective manufacturers/tech review websites. LSeww (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
No I agree that the including the list is excessive and Wikipedia is not a catalogue. Additionally, providing long lists of technical information without context reduces the readability of the page. I would suggest Camera Wiki would be the perfect, and indeed specialist, alterative location for this information. We could then add a link to Camera Wiki in the "External Links" section. As it is a Media-wiki site it would be a simple thing to copy the information over. Gusfriend (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Now that is a constructive suggestion! I'd go for that User:LSeww
Thanks for the thought User:Gusfriend Lukewarmbeer (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The question was not about "the list" but rather about "a list" of sensors. As I said, the notability of Exmor lineup could be well demonstrated by a list of, for example, popular devices using those sensors. The exact contents of the table are up for a debate. LSeww (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not think the number of popular devices using those sensors necessarily demonstrates notability. The larger the number of such devices increases the likelihood that there is significant coverage of the sensor (not just passing mentions) in independent reliable sources, but it does not guarantee that.
If you will allow me an imperfect analogy with people in the performing arts, there are actors who are in dozens and even hundreds of film/televsion/stage productions, some of which are notable productions. But if there is not any significant coverage of the artist in independent reliable sources, their notability cannot be determined just by the volume of work. The same is true in the music industry. There was one recent case at AfD of a musician/music arranger who had over 300 credits to his name; 60+ of them are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia. But there was only passing mentions of him in independent reliable sources, so at AfD the decision, reluctantly for most participants, was that he did not meet the notability criteria.
Note well, I am not arguing that Exmor is or is not notable. I just feel that, on its own, relying on the number of devices to establish notability may not get you there.
But once notability is determined, the question then becomes what should be included. Extending my analogy above, even in cases where a performing artist is notable enough to have an article, unless it is a short list or they are a major star, the list of performances is often of the form of "Selected filmography" or "Selected discography" where notes are added to show key/important performances, collaborations, etc. Yeah, it is not a perfect analogy and there are all kinds of articles for actors where fans insert every performance they have ever been in, which drowns out the roles that have some signficance to understanding the person and their notability. But I do not think that is the ideal. — Archer1234 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Following this analogy, if there's popular camera with this type of sensor (most of which have their own pages) the sensor can be mentioned in the list, as it plays "a main role" in a camera. LSeww (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
This sounds like an excellent solution. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
No per WP:NOTADVERT, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTDATABASE, and for failing to meet our core content policies. Much of it was unsourced and (most of) what was sourced cited only primary and poor-quality sources. Some sources didn't mention "Exmor" at all. Of the reliable sources that did, most mentioned it off-hand or in a list of specs. This represents a massive undue weight against reliable sources that actually discuss Exmor in detail, which is what we're supposed to use for articles. Woodroar (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The question was not about the currently deleted list, but about a general list which would satisfy sourcing criteria, etc. LSeww (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
After looking for sources in Google News and Books, I don't believe there are enough reliable sources to support the editorial weight of such a list—and that's if our policies allowed for a list in the first place. Woodroar (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
The issue in this approach is that there are plenty of sources describing and discussing sensor-related performance of products without any emphasis on the particular model. LSeww (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
btw did I get that right: the manufacturer is not a proper source of sensor characteristics? LSeww (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
See WP:PRIMARY which is part of Wikipedia:No original research. To put it another way, those documents are just what the manufacturer says, that does not mean that that information is correct as there can be an incentive to misrepresent information. For example, have a read of Production car speed record where the records are independently confirmed and may not match manufacturers top speeds. There are also examples of specific modifications to get particular numbers.
In the case of sensors, information from a manufacturer about Max F/S, sensitivity, and saturation signal (for example taken from the list that was removed) are only what they claim and are not independently verified. Apart from any question of verifiability they may be impacted by enclosure, driver used, etc.
For example with Skylake processors, the Xeon Gold 6161 has the following benchmarking information from independent groups. [1], [2] and [3].
Gusfriend (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC) 07:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I understand there could be complex parameters, but in this situation there's only resolution, size and pixel size. Since those sensors would be from cameras/devices which have their own page, those are verified pretty easily. LSeww (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
To add on to what Gusfriend said: articles on Wikipedia should largely be based on reliable, secondary sources. That is, articles from journalists, scholars, etc. Our "job" as editors is to summarize what they've published, and we should always let them determine what's worth covering. (As long as it's within Wikipedia's scope, which I'll get to later.) We can supplement that with basic details from primary sources, with some exceptions: nothing controversial, nothing self-serving, no claims about other living persons, etc. But they really do have to be basic details, things that you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. In a biographical article, we can cite a birthdate to someone's tweet saying "it's my birthday". In a film article, we can cite a release date to the production company and the cast to the film itself. But if reliable, secondary sources say that birthdate or release date or cast is wrong, we'd go with what the reliable, secondary sources say. And we'd always ignore primary sources from someone saying they're the greatest actor of their generation or they did something better or earlier than a competitor, because that's inherently self-serving. Now here's where the "scope" thing comes in. We also ignore primary sources and secondary sources to support content that falls outside what Wikipedia covers: advertising, catalogs, databases, manuals, lyrics, cookbooks, software changelogs, game guides, etc. We may write about the history of, say, the chocolate cake, but our article shouldn't include a recipe about how to make it—even though you can find plenty of sources covering that. For the same reason, this article about a new technology shouldn't include a database of every product that uses it, because that falls outside the scope of what we're doing here at Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
There are pages for every popular camera, there is a page for sensor series of those cameras. How is it improper to list which cameras are using which specific sensors? It's not even close to a catalog of "everything that exists". All characteristics of sensors are already verified via camera reviews cited on camera page. LSeww (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
No Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a database. I similarly believe lists of all episodes of shows including fan plot summaries are also crufty and no different from this. 166.205.97.131 (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No. I don't think a well-source list that isn't just primary sources can be made. It is difficult enough to find sources on the main versions so I don't see the end result being anything more than the same list again. If you want content added, it is helpful to provide sources or refer to a version that shows what you want to include. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    All mass produced devices with those sensors have their own wikipedia page, and the information about the sensor is well sourced in those pages. LSeww (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Attempts to include this have relied heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources. I believe this is indicative of the general validity of the multiple objections already stated. --A D Monroe III(talk) 14:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    All mass produced devices with those sensors have their own wikipedia page, and the information about the sensor is well sourced in those pages. LSeww (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think this isn't really the whole story.
    Yes there are many devices but not all are giving
    a) The actual used sensor
    b) and more important: technical specification of the sensors itself as well as the capabilities.
    These information are currently 'lost' as there is no online ressource with this much information anymore. Hudragenium (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No. For all the reasons stated (by others and yours truly). Kleuske (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. The information that was erased is neither a directory nor a catalog nor advertisement, it is a version history of a technology very useful to wide swathes of society, from photographers to scientists to hobbyists. It is no different than a list of iphones [1], go and erase that if you believe in the coolaid. Please reinstate soonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Hogan (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    To answer your implied question, there is actually a big difference between a list of Exmor sensors and a list of iPhones. Namely that each iPhone model has been the subject of multiple articles and received multiple reviews in multiple languages. The iPhone pages are based on these references which provide proof of notability and noteworthiness. If you can find any articles of that type then you should bring them here and they can then be used to support content. Gusfriend (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    The argument for the proof of noteworthiness as well as notability is kind of "funny". Taking into account that nearly every generation of Iphones is using Exmor Sensors for cameras. Which are, as cameras are more or less one of the currently most important feature, the main topic of mentioned reviews. The Exmore-List we are discussing here contains most of the information which are also availeable in the reviews with additonal technical parameters - which are indeed not part of every review. However: At least the list containing Name, Pixelcount, Sensor Size (as well as the physical equivalent) could be retrieved from the reviews. Hudragenium (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone

Removal of the Product Catalogue.

This was really really useful information and I was so puzzled when I could not find it anymore. If you have this argument about fancruft than just hoist the information out to another site (e.g. List of Sony CMOS Sensors) and than Link it here. But simply removing good information is does not cary the spirit of free information that Wikipedia represents. It reminds me more of censorship and suppression of information. 71.70.176.98 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You are free to move the information elsewhere. Wikipedia is not merely an information repository where anything and everything is allowed; there are policies and discussion that guide what content is permitted here. You are free to work to change those policies if you desire. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Where elsewhere? Camera-Wiki thinks I am part of edit war and doesn't want neither me or some "we don't need that" article.
What am I supposed to do? Make a website as they say by stealing peoples work and not be able to upkeep it? Even if I were to DM everyone that updated this article over the years I don't think people would let it monetize it on wordpress.
As said here, can't there just be "List Of Sensors" page just like Intel - Xeon - Haswell Based page and lots of other pages in this wikipedia? 88.230.44.144 (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not stealing other people's work; Wikipedia's license allows for content reuse with attribution. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Where is the product list?

The product list is removed by someone 🥺 114.79.55.244 (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please examine the discussion on this page above. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
List of Sony Exmor image sensors RM12 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Reporting for vandalism

I can not believe that anyone in their right mind would use the term "fancruft" on a publicly edited resource. This, and other worthless misinterpretations of rules have given, apparently, more than one vandal here the right to eliminate almost a decade of editing effort. And, ironically, whoever has the locking right - is locking the vandalized page. Despite even google still showing it up if you search "list of sony sensors".

Unless an admin comes in and says that the Pediwikia project is no longer an Encyclopedia and they are running out of server space and in the age of 5G people have issues opening 150kbs of data on TECHNICAL page... I will keep reporting it wherever it may be pertinent.

Edit: Kleuske, Ricky, whatever third sockpuppet deleted the entire page - as others have said: If you have problems with this page's size and if you think that not all data is relevant - then do the editing effort and delete the data you consider irrelevant. Who knows, maybe missing a dozen or two sensors isn't going to be noticed. And maybe someone would undo it, because they disagree. And then it's a zero sum game, where you personally have no higher right of authority to delete technical data. But you have deleted the ENTIRE list. You. Are. Vandals. Or worse, if you want to dig into terminology. Prove me wrong. Tugoperdov (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTCATALOG. BilletsMauves€500 18:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Tugoperdov, the erasure was misguided, by someone who obviously had no idea what he had decided to erase and did not seek input from the community. The justification provided does not hold water. What was erased was no different from any other page discussing a technology going through its versions or models. REINSTATE please. Jack Hogan (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTANACTUALENCYCLOPEDIA
Digging through your fascistic WPs, there's a quote:
Please consider directing people to these sites (or this page), rather than simply telling them that their contributions are WP:NOT wanted.
So, Obersturmbannführer, do you AT THE VERY LEAST have a suggestion where to move this data? Or is yours and whatever other hellhounds this place just "magically" sprouts on this innocent article, duty - to just eliminate, because someone greenlit you?

I mean, for god's sake, if I started to go around random pages, especially those that start with "List of"(and there are quite a few!) just deleting 90% of them and quoting :OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WP:NOTACATALOGUE, I'd imagine I'd be banned in a blink. I mean, this pediwikia wasn't made yesterday and such blatant idiocy wouldn't be allowed. And yet, at the dusk of 2022, I have discovered such fascists just quoting words without even trying to learn the context. Unsurprisingly, I did get the same response from admins. I guess 150kbs is indeed precious space, wiki needs to beg for more donations on its banners. Tugoperdov (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Tugoperdov I'm not sure what the source of your noncivil attitude is, but you aren't far from a block. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The source of my attitude is me trying to grasp the concept that "Encyclopedia is not a catalog". Do with that as you will. I'm not alone in this, as evidenced by this thread. Besides... isn't it ironic how a user-made website is arbitrarily governed by... non-users? You think a block would solve that conundrum? Might want to read up on an article about democracy or something... It's nice to have rules, but these rules can not be used against common sense. This isn't a subject of fan fiction, this place has COUNTLESS catalogs, from god damn presidents of the united states to all sorts of products. Because it IS an Encyclopedia Or at least used to be. Before it became a WP:NOT. I hoped that this is some kind of mistake, that some users are just trolling or otherwise abusing the system. But I didn't expect the admins to be in on it.Tugoperdov (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Admins are users too, and have no more authority than any other editor, we don't "govern". Admins do not settle content disputes. Instead of talking about fascism and catalogs and the fuhrer please engage other users in a civil discussion as to what this article should contain, with logical arguments preferably based in Wikipedia policies. Please read other stuff exists- content existing elsewhere has little bearing on whether it should be here. Maybe it's inappropriate there too, I don't know- but it's not "vandalism" just because you disagree with it. Please stick to making logical arguments and tone down the fascistic rhetoric. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
And yet you did immediately threaten me. And other admin locked the article. It wasn't a discussion. Or a poll. Some guy just came in, deleted everything and called it WP:NOT.
I don't find that very civil. And, evidenced by this thread, people TRIED to negotiate it. With no luck. Because the deleting user doesn't care. The "users too with no more authority" do not care. But the article is locked and the verdict is made. I clicked a few buttons hoping to solve a problem. It wasn't solved. Whether I am blocked or not is irrelevant, I didn't build that list of sensors. But I WILL undo the edit once the editing block is lifted. Unless you block me. But then someone else will.
I, and not only I, did propose that the list can be shortened. It can be edited, minimized, but it IS useful. It is data. Encyclopedic data. And I and people like me will fight to keep it here.
REGARDLESS of WP:NOTs Tugoperdov (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
It's called bold, revert, discuss and is completely normal. It isn't vandalism or uncivil. Very little is written in stone here. The discussion can be now, on this page. Make your case. Threatening to edit war is disruptive and you will be blocked should you carry that threat out. You're now on notice. I don't want to, I want you to civilly express your concerns and make your case, but I will act to prevent disruption. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I have made my case already in the opening message here. I can rewrite\repeat it:
1. The list goes up. The entire 151kb edit. Since that's how... it was "edited". That WILL be done by someone, unless you perma-lock the article itself.
2. If the WP:NOTs want to reduce it - *they* can make *their* case. WP:NOT is not a case, it's a guideline. It doesn't even belong to them.
Maybe detail the sensor models\years\types of sensors that aren't "encyclopedic" enough to preserve on this ...resource. Maybe it won't be noticed. It's a bit harder to notice a missing sensor than it is a missing list. And THEN it could be open to BRD or whatever. Personally - I don't need the full list, but maybe someone else does. Deleting it straight up - is arbitrary and goes against not just the idea of an encyclopedia(you don't burn books), but even common sense. Hence the, ahem, uncivil behavior. I mean... I'm still shocked that someone would make rules that greenlight arbitrary deletion of data. And the administration would take the side of those who want to reduce the intellectual value of the resource itself. It just doesn't compute. I know I look like a ranty degenerate, but I didn't think that the nonsense would go that far. And sometimes you need to be uncivil to solve civil issues. I believe it's called a "civil war". Tugoperdov (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The community "greenlit" the rules, not any indivdual or specific group. You are free to work to change the rules if you so desire, but it's going to be a long process. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
And where do I begin? I mean, I know how democracy "works", but if I've humored it that far, I might as well "cast a vote", per say. Eh... I'd totally understand if Sony just straight up paid you to remove the data. Copyright and all that nonsense. Or if the list was insulting or wrongdoing in some way. But it's just... data. Useful data. On an intellectual resource. And you are saying that community greenlit the unconditional deletion of that data? Because it was unconditional. Though maybe I'm knocking at the wrong bureaucratic door here. But it all reminds me of that quote from... fifth Harry Potter, was it... "Has it become practice to hold a full criminal trial to deal with a simple matter of underage magic?" I could, for lulz, give examples of pages that have lists... FAR bigger than this one... As someone has mentioned Nvidia in this thread. But that would be like "I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?" I'm beginning to think people are taking it as a challenge." I don't want more information to be erased with the mighty quotation if a few letters. Tugoperdov (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I mean, to further specify, for posterity. There have been TWO people and one anon here who were against the list based on VAGUE, copy-paste self-asserting nonsense. You can paraphrase it as: "If this INFORMATION can not be found ANYWHERE ELSE, then it DOES NOT belong on a wikiPEDIA."(And... just in case someone decides to take the "How stupid can you be challenge?" - I didn't say that the information isn't verifiable or false)
On the other end there were FIVE people. One of them, apparently, a paying member. And then one anon and me, who may as well be anon because I'll be banned for undoing the edit the moment the edit block is lifted.
Some of them have given concrete reasons why the sensor list was useful. And that was entirely disregarded. Kleuske started with "I'm fine with partial editing", but then straddled back with "It should be on the Sony website, take it up with them" and deleted the entire list.
Uhm, YOU take it up with them. It's YOUR problem, you came here with it. Hell, you can go tell these reddit guys to go cluck themselves while you are at it.
How can this be any clearer? Tugoperdov (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I love the original list. I will use it again. It's a pain to find and access now.
I don't believe that the removal improves anything.
I came here to find a summary of 193 sensor compared to others and I cannot find this information anywhere else except a page deleted by an anon for a reason that no school chd could understand. Shame on admin for making zero allowance for change without "prolonged negotiation". That's ransom. Hansschulze (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Hansschulze It was determined through a community discussion both on this page below, and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony Exmor image sensors that the list was not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and that it would be better suited to a more appropriate forum. Both of these discussions were not quick. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
It wasn't. It was admins that never before participated in this page of years of editing made by lots of people just deciding "150kb is too much and this is fan stuff" and mocking people by saying "nobody will read this wall of text" or just straight out refusing to say about how the suggested by themselves camera wiki refused to host this.
In the end. Same admins that doesn't say anything when asked "Wikipedia has list of Intel xeon haswell catalogue with actual price listing" decided to purge this out of their own volition citing some rules that don't ever get followed in these literal price listed catalogues. 46.154.33.26 (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
By way of trying to help, one of the things that Wikipedia is built on is the related concepts of context and notability. That is, information should be provided within a context and all content should be notable rather than trivia (however that is defined). The concerns behind the writing of the essay about providing a product catalogue have at least some basis in trying to deal with this.
The concern here (I assume), expressed via shorthand, is that the page had a large amount of technical information without any obvious context or notability. Some examples of the sorts of things that provide context are:
  1. This sensor was the first one to include this cool feature that everyone else copied.
  2. This was the first one that was used in non-Sony equipment.
  3. This particular sensor line had these characteristics.
It is also worth noting that there is a Camera based wiki at http://camera-wiki.org and the Sony page might be a good place for this information to reside. Gusfriend (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I have "slept on it" and tried to figure what exactly drove Kleuske and the likes to... start this mess. Like I said, the most obvious thing would've been corruption. Or rather - a copyright claim. Or a falsification claim. But I was told to have good faith and that the people I'm insulting are, in fact, superior beings to me, who know what they are doing and are consensus-driven and... for god's sake. So figured - they have no idea.
They see something they do not understand and... well, that's it. The value was defined by the editor in charge. Not unlike a newspaper.
This theory was further backed by the constantly used term "fancruft". Honestly, I could imagine that some Encyclopedia Dramatica could have such nonsensically hypocritical definition. Because this is... a publicly edited resource... by whoever finds it useful... for whoever finds it useful. The entire website is fancruft. You have literal pages of blatant lies and propaganda here. Especially in 2022. But I never assumed anyone would be careless enough to derogate things as "fancruft".
So if people have... no idea, if they do not understand the numbers and their value, then, yeah, I could try to elaborate.
See, for anyone who is interested in smartphones(and perhaps other cameras, but I was using the list for smartphones), that list was a convenient place to not only double-check which device used which sensor, which company used which sensor, but what qualities did that sensor possess.
Contrary to what you or Kleuske said, it's not a product catalog. These aren't products. You don't buy them. It's a datasheet. A derived one, because you don't just find it lying out there, I salute to whoever had the opportunities to get the data to fill that list. And it's not about the features. This isn't some marketing slide with names like sensorshift and whatnot. It can't be layman-termed.
If that by itself is too damning to be on... a page about Sony sensors, I thought - well, maybe just... make a separate page? There are pages for filmographies and lists of ... countless things. Just a little addendum link down the bottom that goes "List of Sony sensors". Technically that's unnecessary and further complicates matters, especially for search engines, let alone users who could or could NOT stumble onto the data they could find useful. And, again, I ASSUMED that the purpose of this ..."resource"... is to be useful. I didn't expect that its purpose was to conform all totalitarian-like to some guideline.
But that would, I assume, satisfy the power trip of whoever wanted to keep an article free of 150kbs of data. And, unless wiki wants to lose data and\or runs out of storage space, those 150kbs could be moved to a separate page.
And now I see that you are doing the effort of that power tripper. And I appreciate it, but what does it help? I mean, did the original "overseer" propose it? Did the person locking the thread consider it? It's a nice afterthought, but the bottom line is that this page was killed. And the "public consensus"(of people in no way related to editing this thread) is to keep it dead. For... reasons.
You see, the very value of that list and its placement was... in the resource itself. Main wiki is main wiki. And a wiki is a wiki. It's not a public spreadsheet, it's not discord server. It's a resource people trust and it's a resource people can update. That... USED to be its primary value. And that's why whoever kept this list up... did it. Because they could. And it was accessible. It wasn't fancruft on some fancruft subwiki. It was technical data that was documented on a wiki.
Even if it's moved - who's to guarantee that the editors would find it? That the readers would find it? That the editors would keep it up? I repeat - this was not something started by the editors. Whatever god's grace Kleuske has edited for the people of the planet - it wasn't this page. He came here to ruin it and that's the good faith he gets. If the editors themselves would argue and deem the future of this list worthless.. well, it would've been a pity, but it's their list. If the list wasn't updated and Kleuske came in and saw some old data that has no relevance - likewise, I wouldn't be here, I'd be content with a back-up and that's it.
But this is an ongoing documentation. And a historic data.
I can't just move it myself for two primary reasons:
-I'm not an editor. Never wanted to be. I only came here to protect the data I cherish and I use.
-I don't own it. Like I said - I didn't write it. But whoever moves it - has to assume ownership and responsibility. And, evidently, Kleuske didn't volunteer.
For the umpteenth time, I can't believe that I'm seeing this... totalitarianism. If the purpose was, ultimately, to benefit the wiki, then maybe that Kleuske could've... pinged, talked, contacted whoever initially came up with the list. Charwinger21 or, I don't know, some 5-10 of the most prominent editors throughout the years. Maybe a poll, a discussion here that could've gone on for a while.
But that wasn't even considered.. It was an elimination. Arbitrary.
Kleuske started with: "Once more I removed an excessive list of product variants from the article. I am not opposed to giving an overview, but 151k is way too much and swamps the article in, basically, fancruft."
And immediately got objected. Which he dismissed with self-assertion. Blatant self-assertion.
Which culminated in:
""USeful" is not a criterion.
How low can you sink? This is a valiant servant of an encyclopedia. Saying "useful is not a criterion". What the actual...
And then even that Ricky-something said straight up, and I quote:
"I won't wait until 2032 for a response though."
Is that CONSENSUS? Is that GOOD FAITH?
Don't meet your heroes, they say... Tugoperdov (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how many people will wade through that wall of text. You are an editor by participating here. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
+1
There is no standardized format for knowledge, for which I donate money to use. Until the day we have a more verified AI source, this can sit here for ten years and won't kill anyone. Hansschulze (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia has policies that guide its content, many of which have been cited in the discussion to remove the content at issue. WP:NOHARM is also a poor argument as it would mean nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. If you disagree with policies, you may work to change them. You may donate or not donate based on whatever criteria you see fit- donations or withholding donations does not impact content. Donations are collected by the Foundation to mainly operate the computers Wikipedia is on, and their finances are stable at the moment. 331dot (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I am that "Thanks for killing" guy.
I went to the camera wiki and they immediately talked about how 151Kb list is too long, how it's a wiki about vintage cameras and in the digital age a sensor list is not so useful.
They also talked about edit war or something going on here and how I shouldn't be a member.
In short, I either go on make a entire website and copy paste peoples hard work there (that will never get updated unless I go spam people how Wikipedia killed their work and even then it's pretty obvious not everyone will get interested) as they say or someone actually goes on and makes a sepearate article about "List of Sony Sensors" just like how this entire Wikipedia has no issues about making seperate page for İntel - Xeon - Haswell Based page that is literal catalogue.
Basically camera-wiki doesn't want to host that stuff and someone should just make a new article and copy paste 151kb of "catalogue" into it. 88.230.44.144 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Calling everything you don’t like vandalism is not convincing. It’s been done to death for years. Provide me a secondary source that discusses ‘’the list’’ (not Sony’s sensors, not even this page but specifically this amazing list) and you may convince people. Editors popping up to say they have one opinion and don’t care about anything else other than the return of the list get rightfully ignored. - Ricky81682 (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    The reasoning is as follows:
    First, we have to agree that the "List" is not an entity by itself to be argued about, it's an aggregation of rows each of which has its own separate merits to be (or not to be) included in the article. The arguments provided for removing the table as a whole (150k in obscure sensors, 151k is too much, fancruft, etc) are too general to be valid for every entry. In fact, they are not by @Kleuske own admission: the phrase: "I am not opposed to giving an overview" clearly implies the editor knew some parts of the table were in fact relevant and should've been included. The deletion of all entries altogether, most likely without reading each one, is a vandalism.
    The decision of removal should be made for each row (or for each set of similar rows) separately, and justified in a way that would be valid for each entry being deleted. Just as such decisions are applied to text, where each separate sentence/statement is judged, and paragraphs are not deleted altogether just because some parts of them should be deleted. LSeww (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
    Welcome to Wikipedia. By way of information the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy says that Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.
    Can you identify any specific sensors that have context or notability such as:
    • This sensor was the first one to include this cool feature that everyone else copied.
    • This was the first one that was used in non-Sony equipment.
    • This particular sensor line had these characteristics.
    From my reading of the page the Versions section would be where it belongs.
    Gusfriend (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    Indiscriminate removal of information cannot be done in good faith. As for your request, even though there are such sensors, I can simply retort that "Notability guidelines do not usually apply to content within articles or lists". LSeww (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    The notability guidelines that are being talked about in the quote that you provided are the ones at WP:GNG which apply to individual articles and expecting that level of notability for individual sensors is indeed not appropriate. However, there is an expectation of some degree of noteworthiness (to use a slightly different term) for the contents of a page. For example in a wikipedia page about a highway between two distant cities it would not be appropriate to list every single house on the road but it would also not be sufficient to not say anything about the highway. The question for the Wikipedia community becomes one of generating a consensus for what should be included based on multiple factors including good, reliable, independent sources.
    By way of background I posted what I did hoping that I would get help in identifying particular sensors so that they can be added to the page and would really appreciate the information. 02:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Gusfriend (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    Since we are discussing the content of a list of EXMOR sensors, I suggested that any sensor from mass produced consumer device should be on the list, which is according to: "would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?" guideline. It is also consistent with many other wikipedia pages such as for graphic cards, processors, which contain lists of all available mass produced items, most of which aren't notable. LSeww (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    I apologise as it appears that we have been talking at cross purposes. I am not talking about a list of Exmor sensors, I am talking about the Exmor page as a whole. In particular improving the "Versions" section as a starting point. Gusfriend (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    The list of Exmor sensors was a part of Exmor page until it was deleted for frivolous reasons. LSeww (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    Calling the reasons "frivolous" does not make them that. The say-so of a single purpose account like yours does not carry much weight, around here. Kleuske (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    It's well explained above for those who are neutral enough to engage in rules based arguments. LSeww (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Consensus?

I've glanced at the recent talk history and I'm concerned. The article, as it stands now, has been trimmed back to almost a stub-class. Stakeholders in the article, including the painstaking researchers who researched for the article, were all disregarded and as a result the entry has been made less useful. As a compromise solution we could have seen either the list incorporated in the article, or split off to the separate list article, but that was removed also. I would like to remind everybody that Wikipedia is not paper; there's no need to be this zealous in pruning out information.

Regarding other complaints: Three of the arguments Kleuske offered against the list misunderstand Wikipedia policy. WP:UNDUE is meant to combat NPOV material, and reporting on the simple existence of a product - with no other POV angles - is not at all a bias issue. There is no WP:FANCRUFT; suggesting that camera-related articles are somehow less worthy of note than, for example, exhaustive lists of now-obsolete graphics processor units, presents a kind of NPOV issue in itself - I think you will find very hard to remove those lists over the objections of their users and this shouldn't only be up to how many people have eyeballs on a subject and are willing to go to bat for it. Finally, Kleuske argues "manufacturers" will make lists of such parts available. That is a dangerous assumption to make as manufacturers and other official sources routinely prune information when it ceases to be relevant to their bottom line - but that doesn't obviate the need for researchers of various kinds to have access to such information in a ready fashion. I ask Wikipedia editors and administrators to remember the Five Pillars: "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" and WP:PLOT in particular. If the list can be included with a reasonable, and not excessive level of easy-to-understand detail, it should be added back in. WP:PLOT says "Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included," and I think it is clear that common sense dictates that editors be willing to put aside some of their preferences for a short article against the reality that we are dealing with a vast product line about which it is hard to find a concise gazette of information. Again, the copious lists of CPUs and GPUs (which, incidentally, I occasionally refer when needing to provide context on the development of digital technology) provide an easy benchmark that should have, in my view, been applied here.

I welcome feedback on my argument in hopes of finding a way towards some kind of reasonable consensus, preferably one that restores at least some degree of the useful information previously found here. --Edwin Herdman (talk) Edwin Herdman (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the other reasons the list(and an attempt at creating a standalone article) were removed. If you feel that policies have been incorrectly applied in this case, the proper forum is WP:AN, not here. If you wish to challenge the deletion of the standalone article, you should go to Deletion Review. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
To help, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony Exmor image sensors. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply to listings comparing technical specifications. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
As noted, "People are also encouraged to post useful independent references for any of the sensors or sensor families so that they can be added to the page". 331dot (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The various policies allow a degree of common sense to be applied - and in any case I've already provided a rationale which is more or less responsive to citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Again, WP:NOTPAPER; treating technical products as if it is reasonable to expect there to be extensive non-primary sources or as if they can be usefully pared down beyond such details seems to me to be a point of brittleness in WP policies and misunderstands the technical landscape. I'm open to discussing whether the list should be pared down and so on, but it looks to me like there's actually a sizable number of users here hotly debating the changes - they just didn't have the critical mass or Wikipedia insider knowledge to robustly defend the page from a speedy deletion process. Perhaps what really needs to be done is some kind of discussion on how to clarify or change some of the common understandings of these policies so these pages can be useful to more technical users while still having an understanding that poor-quality information shouldn't be included, and so on. I do see there are efforts underway to do the same work of downsizing Wikipedia articles on other sensor products and CPU/GPU lists which would be extremely unfortunate. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you. We had an RfC above and the consensus of experienced editors citing Wikipedia policy was that the list didn't belong in this article. And then at the AfD, the consensus—which included editors not involved in the above RfC—was that a standalone list didn't belong, either. Wikipedia just isn't the type of place for something like this. And it seems like other wikis don't want it, either—which should tell you something. If someone really wants this content available, then they should find or start their own place to host it. Woodroar (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
It is true that requirements for secondary sources mean that some topic areas are underserved with articles or content in articles. Such requirements are important for verification and neutral point of view purposes, however. If you would like to see a carve-out in the rules for photographic sensors, you can work to establish that, probably at the Village Pump. Otherwise, you may request a review as I've indicated. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Copied to User Space for while. Can be edited. User:Elk_Salmon/List_of_Sony_Exmor_image_sensors Elk Salmon (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I realize I am quite late to this discussion, so I don't know how much anything I say here will matter (or be read by anybody), but I think removing the tables was outrageous. I am aware of WP:NOT, but I do not see how it applies here. Speaking literally, Wikipedia is a database (i.e. this article can be retrieved by SELECT * FROM page WHERE page_title LIKE "Exmor" ORDER BY page_len ASC;). I am not convinced that a paragraph of prose is encyclopedia and a table is not. I have gone off at length about this elsewhere, so I should probably just write an essay, but I think this RFC was a travesty. jp×g 23:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Reinstate list into a separate list page

Hi, I just want to reinstate the list of Exmor sensors. I and a couple of readers/editors (see above) didn't want information about individual Exmor sensors completely removed and only available in past revisions. When I checked, apparently it was removed because it violates WP:NOTCATALOG, but in my opinion the list should be moved into a separate list page (let's say "List of Exmor sensors"). Thank you. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ (Talk) 12:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

How does that remove the NOTCATALOG issue? 331dot (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Um, please specify what specific NOTCATALOG issue you are talking about. Is it a "Simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" or "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"? As long as you provide a reason why it's a NOTCATALOG issue, I can understand and tolerate that, but I'm somewhat bummed with the table removal. As far as I can tell, the list removal was unpopular with readers and there was a flurry of edits that restored the table. There were editors wanting to restore the table and you rejected that. And if this list has a NOTCATALOG issue, why the list in ISOCELL is still up? ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ (Talk) 17:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Please see other stuff exists. I can only speak to the article in front of me. We don't necessarily do things based on popularity(WP:NOTAVOTE), but based on Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus. I haven't rejected anything; someone assessed the discussion above as consensus to keep the list out. If you feel the consensus was improperly made, WP:ANI is the proper forum. Creating a separate article doesn't remove the issues that led to the removal of the list. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, after that I wanted to reinstate the list on Camera-wiki.org, but there's 2 problems. One, I cannot access it from my country (Indonesia). Two, I realized that someone has already made a proposal to transfer it to Camera-wiki.org (https://www.flickr.com/groups/camerawiki/discuss/72157721917937671/) and it seems that it was rejected because it was too long and the wiki was primarily about film cameras. Also, they assumed that the proposer was edit warring in Wikipedia. Dustin McAmera mentioned that if the list of sensors was moved to Camera-wiki.org, it would quickly get outdated since it only has few contributors. But Voxphoto mentioned that the proposer should create a single-subject blog site about it. So, the list should be on a separate website, not in Wikipedia? ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ (Talk) 23:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Why are you asking permission for this? Just do it. This is Wikipedia. Worst case scenario they will delete it 10 years later like they did here. Btw, lists are allowed. The whole WP:NOTCATALOG claim seems bs just to get rid of the list on this page. It clearly is NOT a catalogue. But go tell that to the people who actively tried to remove the list and falsely try to claim that it's a catalogue. Like mentioned before this is allowed, List of Nvidia graphics processing units. I don't see a problem with opening a new page named List of Exmor sensors. At least you won't have to deal with people who deliberately misinterpret the rules to force feed their opinion to everyone else. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
If there is a consensus that the list is inappropriate for this article, it is doubtful that it would be appropriate as a standalone article, and recreating it would likely be a waste of time for the creator and those who work to request its deletion. If it's deleted via a discussion it would be harder to recreate later. It is certainly correct that permission does not need to be obtained if someone wants to do it, of course, but I don't think its good advice to encourage people to take advantage of the volunteer nature of this project, but your mileage may vary. A better use of time would be to locate a more suitable location for the information where it would not go against policy. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I would further add that if you feel that the consensus was judged improperly, please detail the specific reasons you think so at WP:AN. Note that disagreement with the judgement is not usually considered sufficient unless it was clearly against Wikipedia policy or the clear will of the community(while keeping WP:NOTAVOTE in mind). 331dot (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@331dot: As far as I can tell, several people detailed these reasons at length on this talk page, and the response they got was people saying that the posts were too long and they didn't feel like reading them. I don't blame them for giving up at that point. jp×g 06:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is a List of Sony Exmor image sensors. RM12 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Be consistent and delete Samsung's Isocell sensor list too

To those who removed the Sony sensor list, why don't you remove Samsung's one as well??: ISOCELL#List of sensors


Lets see if you're consistent or otherwise it clearly exposes your bias against Sony as a brand.

84.65.105.173 (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I've edited your link to be a proper internal link, we don't need the whole url. Issues with another article should be discussed on the talk page of that article. I note that the list you mention is much better sourced; as noted in the discussion above, "People are also encouraged to post useful independent references for any of the sensors or sensor families so that they can be added to the page." 331dot (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Better sourced? If you go through above discussion, they didn't remove Sony list due to being poorly sourced, rather for being "fancruft".
Double standards. 84.65.105.173 (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
There are no "double standards", at least deliberately. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can. I can only speak to the article in front of me, not to every other of the 6.5 million plus articles. As I said, your options here are to address issues with other articles on the talk pages of those articles, or to provide appropriate sourcing for this one. The separate article was deleted and the deletion was sustained in a review. It was removed from this article after a discussion. Seeing the passion about some microchips is interesting, but the horse is dead. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
What he means is that any of the arguments against this page can be applied to ISOCELL, and vice versa. Which means that none of your arguments actually matter. Some people just care enough to delete this page but not the other, and that's it. LSeww (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
You are also free to pull the list from the edit history and, as previously advised, place it on a more appropriate website. There are also wikis that archive deleted pages from this one and likely has done so with the list. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
If Wikipedia isn't appropriate place for Sony sensors then it's not for Samsung's either. Nor is it appropriate for any product list of Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Nvidia etc etc, so go ahead and delete their product list! Find out how many of them are "properly sourced" by your standards. What are you waiting for? Go ahead! 84.65.105.173 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Again, if you want to see something done to any particular article, bring it up on the talk pages of that article. See other stuff exists. You are absolutely free, if it's in your area of interest, to go to the Samsung article and say "this product list should be removed because the Exmor list was removed according to WP:NOTDIRECTORY" or however you want to phrase it. I'm under no obligation to do anything to any particular article. You seem to have made this about me, when it isn't. I didn't decide anything here. Consensus did. I again am amazed at the passion for some microchips. 331dot (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
People likely find this information useful because integrated circuits form the foundation of technological civilization, being crucial components of all modern electronic devices, and are extremely complex parts that have large amounts of difficult-to-assemble specifications and operating parameters; for some reason (possibly the fact that we had an article listing these chips for nearly a full decade) people expect a collaborative encyclopedia to not deliberately remove it. jp×g 20:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Without microchip they couldn't delete the list in first place and you couldn't comment defending their actions either. 84.65.105.173 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
People also expect a collaborative encyclopedia to abide by its policies, or they cease to have meaning. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate content to exist for years and even decades. This doesn't mean it abides by policies. Wikipedia would cease to be a curated encyclopedia if all it took to keep content here was to get it past other volunteers for a long enough time. Thanks for the conversation- you've been told how you or others can proceed-
  1. find sources with enough coverage of individual chips to warrant a specific mention in this article
  2. go to articles about other chip manufacturers and request the same policies that were applied here be applied there
  3. if you feel that policies have been grossly misapplied, request a review of the actions taken here at WP:AN(the standalone article's deletion was reviewed and sustained)
  4. take a copy of the list from the edit history where it remains and place it elsewhere, or see if another wiki type project archived this article when the list was on it
  5. work to change policies to permit the list
That's what you can do. You either will, or not. Good day. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
There are plenty of people who'd vote "yes" on this matter, but someone who voted against locked the voting because a "consensus" was "reached". Also most of the people who voted "no" didn't even bothered to defend their reasoning in any way. LSeww (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Please see my message above as to your available options here. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
who are you to create options? Can you show evidence that the Samsung's Isocell article abides by same rules you've put forward? 84.65.105.173 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not "creating" options, I'm simply saying what's available given the existing consensus on this. I have no interest in the Samsung article. As this is a volunteer project, I may participate where I wish. That one article has or does not have certain content has little bearing on other articles, as that depends on sources(and I said above that better sources are one option here). As I said, you are free to go to the relevant article talk page and request that the same policies that were applied here be applied there. No one is preventing you from this. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of product list now brought to DR/N

Hello everybody!

I just wanted to bring attention to this Dispute Resolution Noticeboard thread that I have started, regarding the inclusion of a product list on the Exmor article: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Exmor.

I see that this dispute is still ongoing to this day, even after an RfC on this talk page.

So I have created the DRN thread above with the intention to help all of you resolve this dispute, come up with a solution or agreement that everyone can agree with.

The more editors that participate, the better.

Good luck to everyone! — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your good intentions, but I think it was premature for at least two reasons- one, perhaps you have, but I don't recall you participating in this dispute previously(Dispute resolution is generally for the parties themselves to bring the dispute to, not for a third party to). Second, it's been said several times that a smaller, better sourced list or overview would be a big improvement over the removed list and likely permissible. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

same "sensor"?

I.MX#i.MX23 family i think i see whats happening 73.193.30.21 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

And what's that? 331dot (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exmor/Archive_1&oldid=1215886979"