Steven Zimmerman (2016-10-12).
"Sony IMX378: Comprehensive Breakdown of the Google Pixel's Sensor and its Features". XDA Developers. Archived from
the original on 2016-10-13. Retrieved 2016-10-12. That being said, it really is a shame that it is so hard to access some of this information, even basic product information. When companies try to put information on their websites, it often can be rather inaccessible and incomplete, in large part because it is often treated as a secondary concern of the company's employees, who are more focused on their main work. One dedicated person handling public relations can make a huge difference in terms of making this type of information available and accessible to the general public, and we're seeing some people trying to do just that in their free time. Even on the Sony Exmor Wikipedia article itself, where over the course of a couple months a single person in their spare time laid most of the foundation to take it from a nearly useless 1,715 byte article that had been mostly the same for years, into the ~50,000 byte article which we see there today with 185 distinct editors. An article that is arguably the best repository of information about the Sony Exmor sensor line available online, and we can see a very similar pattern on other articles.
Product catalogue
A RfC was completed in January 2023 that determined that the page should not have a list of sensors on the page. A new consensus should be generated on the talk page before adding a list of sensors to the article.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
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
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
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.
Kleuske (
talk)
17:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
the "excessive" list of product is pretty relevant to the article. some people may find it useful. if you deemed it to be useless or "swamps the article" then just ignore.
Bluglasses (
talk)
09:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The fact that section headers all start with “list of” should give you a hint they don’t actually belong in an article. A LIst like that lends
WP:UNDUE weight to obscure models, instead of giving an overview over developments and variants and their use.
A list of popular models and camera’s they’re used in? Fine. The specs of some obscure monochrome sensor, nobody has ever heard of? Not so much. This data dump defeats the purpose of the article.
Kleuske (
talk)
17:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Then only such obscure cases should be removed, not the entirety of the list. Also it's vital to have a list of new sensors which are not yet in any cameras, as they come into production few years ahead of appearing in consumer products. This data it's not available anywhere else in a concise manner, only as per-sensor specsheets all around sony's website. Some old/irrelevant rows can be deleted.
181.167.210.101 (
talk)
22:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
There are no sources available to say which sensors are not in any camera. Sources like that are very rare. If you have problems with Sony’s website, urge Sony to improve it and make their info more accessible, but don’t use Wikipedia as an alternative. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
not a free webhost.
Kleuske (
talk)
07:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The list that used to be in this article was extremely useful, and you'd have to be a huge buzzkill to go around deleting useful info off of this site for no legitimate reason.
DataLemur (
talk)
02:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Kleuske your arguments are very weak to support you POV. If "no one has ever heard of" Exmor sensors, the list wouldn't even have existed in first place. And the argument of "not a catalog" is pretty forced, because most of the sensors aren't sold anymore and sensors aren't sold to ordinary people. I'm starting to think that there is a conflict of interest, unless you can sustain your argument with real evidence.
Lucien33 (
talk)
01:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I propose a criteria for inclusion of a sensor in the list. According to guideline "Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?", any sensors from mass produced consumer products should be included.
LSeww (
talk)
00:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Just a quick comment: I specifically visited this wikipedia entry to see the table you removed. It is the only purpose I looked up this page. I don't care about the rest of the entry and I care about the table you removed enough to find the version that still contains it in the entry's history.
89.176.199.227 (
talk)
12:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
This is stuff that should be on the producers website.
I agree, however manufacturers regularly purge information regarding outdated products, the table that used to be found at this article was a nice way for the community to organize information regarding all Sony Exmor (a line of products which is by no means "obscure", you likely have one or one like it in your pocket right now) image sensors. If you are going to go ahead and wipe it, it would at least have been courteous to move it to its own page, such as the various "List of _____" articles, and leave some sort of message, reference, or "see also" back to this article. It appears everyone but you is in favor of not removing the list entirely, and there are even people unfamiliar with the Wikipedia editorial process on external forums confused and resorting to hacks such as accessing the old version of the article through the Internet Archive
[1].
Zi7ar21 (
talk)
21:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"USeful" is not a criterion. 150k in obscure sensors does not make sense in an encyclopedia. This is stuff that should be on the producers website.
WP:CATALOG/
WP:FANCRUFT. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kleuske (
talk •
contribs)
I was researching a camera that I remember had an Exmor sensor but I did not remember which one, which is very important to me, so I looked this article because I remember seeing that here. I was very confused until I saw the talk. The removal of the list makes absolutely no sense, why does a single person decides what is useful or not? the list should be put back
198.214.229.233 (
talk)
03:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Nothing was decided by a single person. There was a community discussion(two if you count the deletion of a separate article for the list) that determined that the content did not meet our policies. Please review the discussion at the bottom for your options.
331dot (
talk)
08:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I have created a new page, [List of Sony Image Sensors], to host the list of Sony image sensors, so that the list may be accessible in a format similar to other lists of products (e.g. the various "List of ______" pages on Wikipedia), and the list may be maintained again. I am not too familiar with the format on Wikipedia, I hope this ends the conflict and people can clean the new page up a bit to match the guidelines for the rest of the wiki.
Zi7ar21 (
talk)
21:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, I see. I also see your comment about bringing this to
WP:AN (which I think would be a good idea), however I'm not confident I understand Wikipedia well enough yet to open a discussion, and it appears there are multiple noticeboards that seem like they could apply here? From the looks of it, I am guessing:
- A "consensus" was already reached and the list was removed
- Readers (who would never check the Talk page or even know there was an ongoing RFC otherwise) who still expected the list to be found here are all of a sudden expressing their concern upon seeing the list gone
You can read about our consensus model at
Wikipedia:Consensus. Decisions are largely made through discussion, while following our
policies and guidelines. The policies and guidelines are also decided by the community, with some input/requirements from the Wikimedia Foundation.
This isn't an edit warring issue. No one as far as I am aware- including supporters of the list- is edit warring. "Edit warring" has a very specific defintion and usually refers to an immediate series of reversions. That you re-created an article, it was nominated by me for speedy deletion, and an uninvolved admin decided that the speedy deletion criteria had been met, is not edit warring. It's observing the process.
Sockpuppetry is a serious claim that requires serious evidence; feel free to open an SPI with your evidence.
AN is only appropriate if someone wants to argue that policies were not observed or grossly misapplied here. Please review the Articles for Deletion discussion about the list article, as well as the discussion about removing the list from this article(now in the archive linked to in the box at the top of this page) carefully before deciding that policies were not observed.
331dot (
talk)
00:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There has to be a formal policy here. At what threshold is too much "swamp"? The comment about removing the table in the
ISOCELL page is a very legitimate reply and makes me tempted to remove the entire table there since it "swamps the article" as well with 41k worth of invaluable data.
The reason the data on the
ISOCELL page, and obviously the Exmor page, is/was invaluable is because it quickly summarizes the body of knowledge that pertains to Exmor image sensors. It would take great effort, and time, to compile a comprehensive summary list of all details for the models of image sensors necessary to make a decision around image sensor selection. The removed table was a collective attempt by the community at maintaining said list of Exmor sensors. I personally have used this list to decide on which Point and Shoot camera to purchase, to discover what image sensor would be the best fit for a night vision security camera, as well as to quickly find details regarding the image sensor installed in devices used to capture images for purposes of astrophotography.
Wikipedia's own
Wikipedia:About page describes itself as a
Free encyclopaedia. Wikipedia describes an
Encyclopedia as "information [which] is intended to be found quickly when needed". Wikipedia goes on to describe an
Encyclopedia as a
Compendium which is described as "a comprehensive collection of information and analysis pertaining to a
Body of knowledge". There was a comment that this article should limit itself to an "overview over developments and variants and their use"; however nowhere in the definition of
Encyclopedia is it mentioned that an encyclopedia should limit itself to an "overview" but rather to "aim to convey important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain". I don't see anywhere in the
Wikipedia:About page describing Wikipedia's subject domain as an "overview", in fact most pages are quite exhaustive, including the
ISOCELL page that still has its table of 41k worth of image sensors. Can you please describe to me what part of the removed table is not inline with the above purpose that is self described by Wikipedia as its own mission?
If the removed table does not fit this description, then we need to shift focus from this Exmor table to updating the Wikipedia About page to either refining the details of the subject domain limitations that you're suggesting we impose on the Exmor page such that it is not sharing "accumulated knowledge" and is not intended to be a "comprehensive collection of information".
R37ribution (
talk)
18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't ask for a product guide, I'm doing the decision making for myself using data. See my reply to @
Woodroar - it is very common on wiki for there to be lists of product details. Providing product data is not a product guide otherwise there would be a section for each type of application and which image sensor is recommended. This is not the case with a list that was here and exists for many other products as referenced in my reply I mentioned earlier.
R37ribution (
talk)
22:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
R37ribution: A "list of all details for the models of image sensors necessary to make a decision around image sensor selection" and "used this list to decide on which Point and Shoot camera to purchase" are excellent examples of what Wikipedia is not for. If you have in the past been able to use the Wikipedia article as a catalogue to make such decisions, because people have posted material which does not comply with Wikipedia's policies, then you have been lucky, but that is not a justification for continuing to maintain content inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.
JBW (
talk)
15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We can only deal with the article in front of us, not other articles that we have not examined. See
other stuff exists. One article existing does not automatically mean every such article with in the same category must exist. There could be unique circumstances(as there are here, as mentioned in many prior discussions that I won't rehash here). Have you examined each and every source in each and every list you mention?
As the closing of the original discussion states, "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." Many of these other lists likely have better references for individual chips than this article had. If you have better sourcing for Exmor chips, please offer them- which is what has been asked of everyone since the original discussion and has yet to occur.
331dot (
talk)
23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You can also take the list from the edit history where it remains and find a more appropriate home for it, as has also been suggested many times and not done. You have options if you want to take the time to exercise them.
331dot (
talk)
23:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The requests to restore the table that was deleted five months ago after the RFC are not a topic for
DRN. DRN considers content disputes after discussion at the article talk page (this page,
Talk:Exmor) has been lengthy and inconclusive. There has been no recent discussion here. If any editor thinks that the RFC either did not establish consensus, or no longer establishes consensus, they may start a new RFC. Any efforts to have the table restored in any other way, such as by
filibustering, will be considered disruptive. Either start a new RFC, or don't start a new RFC.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
05:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
DRN implied that a previous DRN decision was not legit, as it was relied on illegit "consensus". Therefore content dispute is still ongoing.
Elk Salmon (
talk)
17:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Elk Salmon In addition to starting a new RFC, your options include(as I said above)
find sources with enough coverage of individual chips to warrant a specific mention in this article
go to articles about other chip manufacturers and request the same policies that were applied here be applied there(this has already been attempted at least once)
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)
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
The biggest issue and misconception here arises from the literal requirement that a source must mention a specific chip to be included. Imagine saying that a review of still water doesn't cover the properties of H2O because it doesn't mention the formula. Once the chip-camera relationship is established by a source, any other source that discusses that camera's sensor properties becomes relevant.
LSeww (
talk)
03:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)reply
What's the point repeating WP:NOTDIRECTORY when it clearly is for many other chips? Like we all see the rule is not a rule.
LSeww (
talk)
00:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I can't speak to other articles, just the one in front of me. See
other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project with millions of articles, it is possible for policies to be unevenly applied, or for their to be circumstances specific to one article but not others. As I've said, you are free to go to other similar articles and request that the same policies applied here be applied there. This has already been attempted with
ISOCELL(which is currently tagged as problematic).
331dot (
talk)
09:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you, but I'm going to stay here and ask that the same policies that are in place there be applied here. You can put a problematic tag and put the table back.
LSeww (
talk)
21:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Please put the list back. Not all users are here as volunteers. Let's NOT pretend like anyone here enforcing WP policy, is in any way providing charitable contributions, because they "choose to". Lots of bots and various other Agents playing sheriff are a reminder of why i usuallly dont bother in talk page conversations. But shills gon shill
73.193.30.21 (
talk)
20:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
LSeww A consensus was established to remove the table as inconsistent with guidelines. If you want to establish a new consensus, please avail yourself of one of the courses of action I described above.
IP user, if you have evidence of undisclosed paid editing, please report that as
WP:PAID instructs. If you have evidence that a user is an unauthorized bot, please report that to
WP:ANI. If you have grievances with how policies have been applied or not applied, ANI is the forum to that too. Pursue your grievances instead of brooding about them here.
331dot (
talk)
21:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
That is not what happened. The table was removed by a single user without any prior requests or tags that would ask other users to make this table comply with rules it allegedly broke. In fact, that very user explicitly was "not opposed to giving an overview", fixing or deleting elements of the table that were not up to their standard, but proceeded to delete the whole table anyway. I also would not even comment on voters who had absolutely no expertise on the topic of this page.
LSeww (
talk)
07:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
There is no requirement that an article be tagged before content is removed for violating a policy. See
bold, revert, discuss. Even if there were, any consensus established in a discussion overrides the wishes of any single user.
Expertise on a topic is not required in order to participate in a discussion about it. Wikipedia is written by lay people for lay people, summarizing independent reliable sources. There are encyclopedia projects that require expertise in a topic in order to write about it.
331dot (
talk)
07:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I again reiterate what the closer of the discussion stated: "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." This still remains to be the case.
331dot (
talk)
07:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Then how come all the "laymen" who come to this page and comment "where's the list, give it back" don't have a "vote" in your supposed "consensus"? Not to mention that the vote was closed by someone who voted against, and the only people who voted had no interest in this topic whatsoever, spewing things like "there should be no lists in wikipedia at all".
LSeww (
talk)
03:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I would direct you to my post to Elk Salmon on July 10th above. Those are the options you or anyone has available to them regarding this and can be pursued at any time. If you feel that the discussion was improperly closed, that's a matter for
WP:AN- though many are going to wonder why that course of action was not pursued immediately. While the closer did give their views, there was a clear consensus to not include, with only one "yes"(two if you include your views) so it's going to be difficult to argue the closure was even a close call that a participant should not have closed- but it's not up to me.
The deletion of the standalone article was reviewed and sustained.
Hardly anyone who voted against it bothered to defend their arguments, and most of the people who would have voted for it weren't even allowed to vote because it was closed at a "convenient" time.
LSeww (
talk)
22:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Then I'm not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here if you don't wish to pursue the avenues that are open to you. You aren't going to get the result you want by just posting here to complain about it. If you want to change this, you need to take action. I think I've listed the avenues available to you, but there certainly could be others. You seem like you are invested enough in this topic that you are willing to do what is needed, but yet you aren't doing so. That's up to you, of course, but you need to either take action or move on from this topic.
331dot (
talk)
23:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Sensors list gone: not the end of the world!
I would like to let those of you who want the old list table back, know that this isn't the end of the world.
Firstly, the list isn't actually completely erased and gone from history. You can find a version of the article that previously had that sensors list in the page history. Or
here's a link to the last one.
Secondly, all content on Wikipedia is published under a "
Creative Commons" By-Attribution license. This means, you can copy, distribute, and revise the material for free however you like, as long as you provide attribution to the authors of the work. So you could easily copy that entire list table over to some new Fandom wiki and continue developing it over there for example :)
I'm a newbee. This is my first talk post. I do not know about democratic processes in the wikipedia.
In my point of view this deleted list was a lot more than a catalog and more than the still existing lists of Intel processors, AMD and Nvidia graphics processing units, etc. It was a unique source of information for my research, which I don't think is available anywhere else.
The findability of this outstanding, unique source of information has been severely restricted.
At present, there is no possibility to further develop this information source together.
I see no practicable way to achieve both goals, except with a list in a Wikipedia article.
Beppodd Please examine the discussion in the archive, as well as
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony Exmor image sensors, a deletion discussion for an attempt at a standalone article. It has been determined that current Wikipedia policies don't permit the list as it was. Wikipedia is
not a democracy; it operates by
consensus preferably based in Wikipedia policies. I will tell you what I have told others, your options here are
find sources with enough coverage of individual chips to warrant a specific mention in this article
go to articles about other chip manufacturers and request the same policies that were applied here be applied there(this has already been attempted at least once)
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)
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
For the following 5 sensors there are additionally references in Wikipedia articles: IMX204, IMX253, IMX322, IMX458, IMX477
In my point of view for many of this 145 sensors it would be straightforward to have a link from the wikipedia article to the table with technical data.
Beppodd (
talk)
02:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Name of the models
It Will be nice if some one that know about nanotechnology put the names of the model of each family sensor. As is done for intel z390 chispets for example.
37.29.241.0 (
talk)
13:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Steven Zimmerman (2016-10-12).
"Sony IMX378: Comprehensive Breakdown of the Google Pixel's Sensor and its Features". XDA Developers. Archived from
the original on 2016-10-13. Retrieved 2016-10-12. That being said, it really is a shame that it is so hard to access some of this information, even basic product information. When companies try to put information on their websites, it often can be rather inaccessible and incomplete, in large part because it is often treated as a secondary concern of the company's employees, who are more focused on their main work. One dedicated person handling public relations can make a huge difference in terms of making this type of information available and accessible to the general public, and we're seeing some people trying to do just that in their free time. Even on the Sony Exmor Wikipedia article itself, where over the course of a couple months a single person in their spare time laid most of the foundation to take it from a nearly useless 1,715 byte article that had been mostly the same for years, into the ~50,000 byte article which we see there today with 185 distinct editors. An article that is arguably the best repository of information about the Sony Exmor sensor line available online, and we can see a very similar pattern on other articles.
Product catalogue
A RfC was completed in January 2023 that determined that the page should not have a list of sensors on the page. A new consensus should be generated on the talk page before adding a list of sensors to the article.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
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
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
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.
Kleuske (
talk)
17:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
the "excessive" list of product is pretty relevant to the article. some people may find it useful. if you deemed it to be useless or "swamps the article" then just ignore.
Bluglasses (
talk)
09:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The fact that section headers all start with “list of” should give you a hint they don’t actually belong in an article. A LIst like that lends
WP:UNDUE weight to obscure models, instead of giving an overview over developments and variants and their use.
A list of popular models and camera’s they’re used in? Fine. The specs of some obscure monochrome sensor, nobody has ever heard of? Not so much. This data dump defeats the purpose of the article.
Kleuske (
talk)
17:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Then only such obscure cases should be removed, not the entirety of the list. Also it's vital to have a list of new sensors which are not yet in any cameras, as they come into production few years ahead of appearing in consumer products. This data it's not available anywhere else in a concise manner, only as per-sensor specsheets all around sony's website. Some old/irrelevant rows can be deleted.
181.167.210.101 (
talk)
22:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
There are no sources available to say which sensors are not in any camera. Sources like that are very rare. If you have problems with Sony’s website, urge Sony to improve it and make their info more accessible, but don’t use Wikipedia as an alternative. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
not a free webhost.
Kleuske (
talk)
07:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The list that used to be in this article was extremely useful, and you'd have to be a huge buzzkill to go around deleting useful info off of this site for no legitimate reason.
DataLemur (
talk)
02:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Kleuske your arguments are very weak to support you POV. If "no one has ever heard of" Exmor sensors, the list wouldn't even have existed in first place. And the argument of "not a catalog" is pretty forced, because most of the sensors aren't sold anymore and sensors aren't sold to ordinary people. I'm starting to think that there is a conflict of interest, unless you can sustain your argument with real evidence.
Lucien33 (
talk)
01:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I propose a criteria for inclusion of a sensor in the list. According to guideline "Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?", any sensors from mass produced consumer products should be included.
LSeww (
talk)
00:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Just a quick comment: I specifically visited this wikipedia entry to see the table you removed. It is the only purpose I looked up this page. I don't care about the rest of the entry and I care about the table you removed enough to find the version that still contains it in the entry's history.
89.176.199.227 (
talk)
12:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
This is stuff that should be on the producers website.
I agree, however manufacturers regularly purge information regarding outdated products, the table that used to be found at this article was a nice way for the community to organize information regarding all Sony Exmor (a line of products which is by no means "obscure", you likely have one or one like it in your pocket right now) image sensors. If you are going to go ahead and wipe it, it would at least have been courteous to move it to its own page, such as the various "List of _____" articles, and leave some sort of message, reference, or "see also" back to this article. It appears everyone but you is in favor of not removing the list entirely, and there are even people unfamiliar with the Wikipedia editorial process on external forums confused and resorting to hacks such as accessing the old version of the article through the Internet Archive
[1].
Zi7ar21 (
talk)
21:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"USeful" is not a criterion. 150k in obscure sensors does not make sense in an encyclopedia. This is stuff that should be on the producers website.
WP:CATALOG/
WP:FANCRUFT. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kleuske (
talk •
contribs)
I was researching a camera that I remember had an Exmor sensor but I did not remember which one, which is very important to me, so I looked this article because I remember seeing that here. I was very confused until I saw the talk. The removal of the list makes absolutely no sense, why does a single person decides what is useful or not? the list should be put back
198.214.229.233 (
talk)
03:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Nothing was decided by a single person. There was a community discussion(two if you count the deletion of a separate article for the list) that determined that the content did not meet our policies. Please review the discussion at the bottom for your options.
331dot (
talk)
08:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I have created a new page, [List of Sony Image Sensors], to host the list of Sony image sensors, so that the list may be accessible in a format similar to other lists of products (e.g. the various "List of ______" pages on Wikipedia), and the list may be maintained again. I am not too familiar with the format on Wikipedia, I hope this ends the conflict and people can clean the new page up a bit to match the guidelines for the rest of the wiki.
Zi7ar21 (
talk)
21:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, I see. I also see your comment about bringing this to
WP:AN (which I think would be a good idea), however I'm not confident I understand Wikipedia well enough yet to open a discussion, and it appears there are multiple noticeboards that seem like they could apply here? From the looks of it, I am guessing:
- A "consensus" was already reached and the list was removed
- Readers (who would never check the Talk page or even know there was an ongoing RFC otherwise) who still expected the list to be found here are all of a sudden expressing their concern upon seeing the list gone
You can read about our consensus model at
Wikipedia:Consensus. Decisions are largely made through discussion, while following our
policies and guidelines. The policies and guidelines are also decided by the community, with some input/requirements from the Wikimedia Foundation.
This isn't an edit warring issue. No one as far as I am aware- including supporters of the list- is edit warring. "Edit warring" has a very specific defintion and usually refers to an immediate series of reversions. That you re-created an article, it was nominated by me for speedy deletion, and an uninvolved admin decided that the speedy deletion criteria had been met, is not edit warring. It's observing the process.
Sockpuppetry is a serious claim that requires serious evidence; feel free to open an SPI with your evidence.
AN is only appropriate if someone wants to argue that policies were not observed or grossly misapplied here. Please review the Articles for Deletion discussion about the list article, as well as the discussion about removing the list from this article(now in the archive linked to in the box at the top of this page) carefully before deciding that policies were not observed.
331dot (
talk)
00:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There has to be a formal policy here. At what threshold is too much "swamp"? The comment about removing the table in the
ISOCELL page is a very legitimate reply and makes me tempted to remove the entire table there since it "swamps the article" as well with 41k worth of invaluable data.
The reason the data on the
ISOCELL page, and obviously the Exmor page, is/was invaluable is because it quickly summarizes the body of knowledge that pertains to Exmor image sensors. It would take great effort, and time, to compile a comprehensive summary list of all details for the models of image sensors necessary to make a decision around image sensor selection. The removed table was a collective attempt by the community at maintaining said list of Exmor sensors. I personally have used this list to decide on which Point and Shoot camera to purchase, to discover what image sensor would be the best fit for a night vision security camera, as well as to quickly find details regarding the image sensor installed in devices used to capture images for purposes of astrophotography.
Wikipedia's own
Wikipedia:About page describes itself as a
Free encyclopaedia. Wikipedia describes an
Encyclopedia as "information [which] is intended to be found quickly when needed". Wikipedia goes on to describe an
Encyclopedia as a
Compendium which is described as "a comprehensive collection of information and analysis pertaining to a
Body of knowledge". There was a comment that this article should limit itself to an "overview over developments and variants and their use"; however nowhere in the definition of
Encyclopedia is it mentioned that an encyclopedia should limit itself to an "overview" but rather to "aim to convey important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain". I don't see anywhere in the
Wikipedia:About page describing Wikipedia's subject domain as an "overview", in fact most pages are quite exhaustive, including the
ISOCELL page that still has its table of 41k worth of image sensors. Can you please describe to me what part of the removed table is not inline with the above purpose that is self described by Wikipedia as its own mission?
If the removed table does not fit this description, then we need to shift focus from this Exmor table to updating the Wikipedia About page to either refining the details of the subject domain limitations that you're suggesting we impose on the Exmor page such that it is not sharing "accumulated knowledge" and is not intended to be a "comprehensive collection of information".
R37ribution (
talk)
18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't ask for a product guide, I'm doing the decision making for myself using data. See my reply to @
Woodroar - it is very common on wiki for there to be lists of product details. Providing product data is not a product guide otherwise there would be a section for each type of application and which image sensor is recommended. This is not the case with a list that was here and exists for many other products as referenced in my reply I mentioned earlier.
R37ribution (
talk)
22:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
R37ribution: A "list of all details for the models of image sensors necessary to make a decision around image sensor selection" and "used this list to decide on which Point and Shoot camera to purchase" are excellent examples of what Wikipedia is not for. If you have in the past been able to use the Wikipedia article as a catalogue to make such decisions, because people have posted material which does not comply with Wikipedia's policies, then you have been lucky, but that is not a justification for continuing to maintain content inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.
JBW (
talk)
15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We can only deal with the article in front of us, not other articles that we have not examined. See
other stuff exists. One article existing does not automatically mean every such article with in the same category must exist. There could be unique circumstances(as there are here, as mentioned in many prior discussions that I won't rehash here). Have you examined each and every source in each and every list you mention?
As the closing of the original discussion states, "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." Many of these other lists likely have better references for individual chips than this article had. If you have better sourcing for Exmor chips, please offer them- which is what has been asked of everyone since the original discussion and has yet to occur.
331dot (
talk)
23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You can also take the list from the edit history where it remains and find a more appropriate home for it, as has also been suggested many times and not done. You have options if you want to take the time to exercise them.
331dot (
talk)
23:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The requests to restore the table that was deleted five months ago after the RFC are not a topic for
DRN. DRN considers content disputes after discussion at the article talk page (this page,
Talk:Exmor) has been lengthy and inconclusive. There has been no recent discussion here. If any editor thinks that the RFC either did not establish consensus, or no longer establishes consensus, they may start a new RFC. Any efforts to have the table restored in any other way, such as by
filibustering, will be considered disruptive. Either start a new RFC, or don't start a new RFC.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
05:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
DRN implied that a previous DRN decision was not legit, as it was relied on illegit "consensus". Therefore content dispute is still ongoing.
Elk Salmon (
talk)
17:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Elk Salmon In addition to starting a new RFC, your options include(as I said above)
find sources with enough coverage of individual chips to warrant a specific mention in this article
go to articles about other chip manufacturers and request the same policies that were applied here be applied there(this has already been attempted at least once)
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)
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
The biggest issue and misconception here arises from the literal requirement that a source must mention a specific chip to be included. Imagine saying that a review of still water doesn't cover the properties of H2O because it doesn't mention the formula. Once the chip-camera relationship is established by a source, any other source that discusses that camera's sensor properties becomes relevant.
LSeww (
talk)
03:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)reply
What's the point repeating WP:NOTDIRECTORY when it clearly is for many other chips? Like we all see the rule is not a rule.
LSeww (
talk)
00:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I can't speak to other articles, just the one in front of me. See
other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project with millions of articles, it is possible for policies to be unevenly applied, or for their to be circumstances specific to one article but not others. As I've said, you are free to go to other similar articles and request that the same policies applied here be applied there. This has already been attempted with
ISOCELL(which is currently tagged as problematic).
331dot (
talk)
09:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you, but I'm going to stay here and ask that the same policies that are in place there be applied here. You can put a problematic tag and put the table back.
LSeww (
talk)
21:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Please put the list back. Not all users are here as volunteers. Let's NOT pretend like anyone here enforcing WP policy, is in any way providing charitable contributions, because they "choose to". Lots of bots and various other Agents playing sheriff are a reminder of why i usuallly dont bother in talk page conversations. But shills gon shill
73.193.30.21 (
talk)
20:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
LSeww A consensus was established to remove the table as inconsistent with guidelines. If you want to establish a new consensus, please avail yourself of one of the courses of action I described above.
IP user, if you have evidence of undisclosed paid editing, please report that as
WP:PAID instructs. If you have evidence that a user is an unauthorized bot, please report that to
WP:ANI. If you have grievances with how policies have been applied or not applied, ANI is the forum to that too. Pursue your grievances instead of brooding about them here.
331dot (
talk)
21:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
That is not what happened. The table was removed by a single user without any prior requests or tags that would ask other users to make this table comply with rules it allegedly broke. In fact, that very user explicitly was "not opposed to giving an overview", fixing or deleting elements of the table that were not up to their standard, but proceeded to delete the whole table anyway. I also would not even comment on voters who had absolutely no expertise on the topic of this page.
LSeww (
talk)
07:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
There is no requirement that an article be tagged before content is removed for violating a policy. See
bold, revert, discuss. Even if there were, any consensus established in a discussion overrides the wishes of any single user.
Expertise on a topic is not required in order to participate in a discussion about it. Wikipedia is written by lay people for lay people, summarizing independent reliable sources. There are encyclopedia projects that require expertise in a topic in order to write about it.
331dot (
talk)
07:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I again reiterate what the closer of the discussion stated: "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." This still remains to be the case.
331dot (
talk)
07:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Then how come all the "laymen" who come to this page and comment "where's the list, give it back" don't have a "vote" in your supposed "consensus"? Not to mention that the vote was closed by someone who voted against, and the only people who voted had no interest in this topic whatsoever, spewing things like "there should be no lists in wikipedia at all".
LSeww (
talk)
03:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I would direct you to my post to Elk Salmon on July 10th above. Those are the options you or anyone has available to them regarding this and can be pursued at any time. If you feel that the discussion was improperly closed, that's a matter for
WP:AN- though many are going to wonder why that course of action was not pursued immediately. While the closer did give their views, there was a clear consensus to not include, with only one "yes"(two if you include your views) so it's going to be difficult to argue the closure was even a close call that a participant should not have closed- but it's not up to me.
The deletion of the standalone article was reviewed and sustained.
Hardly anyone who voted against it bothered to defend their arguments, and most of the people who would have voted for it weren't even allowed to vote because it was closed at a "convenient" time.
LSeww (
talk)
22:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Then I'm not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here if you don't wish to pursue the avenues that are open to you. You aren't going to get the result you want by just posting here to complain about it. If you want to change this, you need to take action. I think I've listed the avenues available to you, but there certainly could be others. You seem like you are invested enough in this topic that you are willing to do what is needed, but yet you aren't doing so. That's up to you, of course, but you need to either take action or move on from this topic.
331dot (
talk)
23:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Sensors list gone: not the end of the world!
I would like to let those of you who want the old list table back, know that this isn't the end of the world.
Firstly, the list isn't actually completely erased and gone from history. You can find a version of the article that previously had that sensors list in the page history. Or
here's a link to the last one.
Secondly, all content on Wikipedia is published under a "
Creative Commons" By-Attribution license. This means, you can copy, distribute, and revise the material for free however you like, as long as you provide attribution to the authors of the work. So you could easily copy that entire list table over to some new Fandom wiki and continue developing it over there for example :)
I'm a newbee. This is my first talk post. I do not know about democratic processes in the wikipedia.
In my point of view this deleted list was a lot more than a catalog and more than the still existing lists of Intel processors, AMD and Nvidia graphics processing units, etc. It was a unique source of information for my research, which I don't think is available anywhere else.
The findability of this outstanding, unique source of information has been severely restricted.
At present, there is no possibility to further develop this information source together.
I see no practicable way to achieve both goals, except with a list in a Wikipedia article.
Beppodd Please examine the discussion in the archive, as well as
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony Exmor image sensors, a deletion discussion for an attempt at a standalone article. It has been determined that current Wikipedia policies don't permit the list as it was. Wikipedia is
not a democracy; it operates by
consensus preferably based in Wikipedia policies. I will tell you what I have told others, your options here are
find sources with enough coverage of individual chips to warrant a specific mention in this article
go to articles about other chip manufacturers and request the same policies that were applied here be applied there(this has already been attempted at least once)
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)
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
For the following 5 sensors there are additionally references in Wikipedia articles: IMX204, IMX253, IMX322, IMX458, IMX477
In my point of view for many of this 145 sensors it would be straightforward to have a link from the wikipedia article to the table with technical data.
Beppodd (
talk)
02:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Name of the models
It Will be nice if some one that know about nanotechnology put the names of the model of each family sensor. As is done for intel z390 chispets for example.
37.29.241.0 (
talk)
13:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply