Talk:Exmor

Product catalog.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I suggest you go and delete all pages about NVIDIA graphics chips as well. What you're saying here is based on nothing. 181.167.210.101 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

How's that for you? List of Nvidia graphics processing units 181.167.210.101 (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

I believe that the information that has been removed is useful, and the removal is not supported by any relevant argument. Revwescol (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

why discussion stopped? LSeww (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussions are not permitted to go on forever. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This one will. LSeww (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

i am here for the list. which is gone. thanks. 73.193.30.21 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I literally came to this page to see which iPhone camera sensors were manufactured by SONY. The only thing useful about this article was the list you removed. Congrats on making Wikipedia less useful. 2A02:AA12:A77D:BB80:DA9:AF37:D888:33CB (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that you contact Sony for that information. The list was determined to be not in keeping with our policies. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Why are you specifically targeting Sony article? Same list exist for ISOCELL why don't you remove that too?

Who's policy is it? Is it Wikipedia's policy? If so then why aren't you enforcing it to Samsung's ISOCELL article too? 87.115.183.110 (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

That has been attempted previously, and that attempt was deleted per a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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

- There is now edit warring and Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (possibly Wikipedia:Page-move war too, unintentionally) between people trying to uphold the consensus and people who weren't around for the RFC

- It is difficult to determine what constitutes a new "consensus", as popular opinion doesn't seem to be it?

Maybe WP:AN3 seems like the best one? (I think it has been reverted more than 3 times now) Zi7ar21 (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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 prevents, for example, a thousand people showing up and voting Wikipedia to be whatever it is they want. Woodroar (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

You may find Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not interesting, particularly WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE. Woodroar (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also WP:USEFUL and other stuff exists. Wikipedia is not a product guide. The ISOCELL article is very different from this one, mostly with better sourcing. Please review the discussion in the archive and here. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a Subject for DRN

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)

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)

• Elk Salmon In addition to starting a new RFC, your options include(as I said above)

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(this has already been attempted at least once)
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 331dot (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   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)

Both the discussion here and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony Exmor image sensors established that merely listing chips violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There needs to be more than a mere documentation of the existence of the chip. Kleuske makes some excellent points above(under the header "Product catalog."). 331dot (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

It is not required to have a personal interest in the topic in order to contribute about it. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, those against including the list cited Wikipedia guidelines, while those in favor just cite its usefulness or that they like the list or that other articles have one too- all of which are poor arguments to make. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

I repeat- if you feel the discussion was closed improperly, bring it to WP:AN. Just stating that view here about it here accomplishes nothing. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that following any of your advice will lead to better results. LSeww (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 :)

Hope you found that helpful! — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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)