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)

"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)

😟

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Request for comment on list of sensor models

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)

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) 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)

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)

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)