Talk:Exmor/Archive 1

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

You are free to move the information elsewhere. Wikipedia is not merely an information repository where anything and everything is allowed; there are policies and discussion that guide what content is permitted here. You are free to work to change those policies if you desire. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Where elsewhere? Camera-Wiki thinks I am part of edit war and doesn't want neither me or some "we don't need that" article.

What am I supposed to do? Make a website as they say by stealing peoples work and not be able to upkeep it? Even if I were to DM everyone that updated this article over the years I don't think people would let it monetize it on wordpress.

As said here, can't there just be "List Of Sensors" page just like Intel - Xeon - Haswell Based page and lots of other pages in this wikipedia? 88.230.44.144 (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not stealing other people's work; Wikipedia's license allows for content reuse with attribution. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Yes, please examine the discussion on this page above. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. BilletsMauves^€500 18:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Tugoperdov, the erasure was misguided, by someone who obviously had no idea what he had decided to erase and did not seek input from the community. The justification provided does not hold water. What was erased was no different from any other page discussing a technology going through its versions or models. REINSTATE please. Jack Hogan (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTANACTUALENCYCLOPEDIA

Digging through your fascistic WPs, there's a quote:

Please consider directing people to these sites (or this page), rather than simply telling them that their contributions are WP:NOT wanted.

So, Obersturmbannführer, do you AT THE VERY LEAST have a suggestion where to move this data? Or is yours and whatever other hellhounds this place just "magically" sprouts on this innocent article, duty - to just eliminate, because someone greenlit you?

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

Tugoperdov I'm not sure what the source of your noncivil attitude is, but you aren't far from a block. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The source of my attitude is me trying to grasp the concept that "Encyclopedia is not a catalog". Do with that as you will. I'm not alone in this, as evidenced by this thread. Besides... isn't it ironic how a user-made website is arbitrarily governed by... non-users? You think a block would solve that conundrum? Might want to read up on an article about democracy or something... It's nice to have rules, but these rules can not be used against common sense. This isn't a subject of fan fiction, this place has COUNTLESS catalogs, from god damn presidents of the united states to all sorts of products. Because it IS an Encyclopedia Or at least used to be. Before it became a WP:NOT. I hoped that this is some kind of mistake, that some users are just trolling or otherwise abusing the system. But I didn't expect the admins to be in on it.Tugoperdov (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Admins are users too, and have no more authority than any other editor, we don't "govern". Admins do not settle content disputes. Instead of talking about fascism and catalogs and the fuhrer please engage other users in a civil discussion as to what this article should contain, with logical arguments preferably based in Wikipedia policies. Please read other stuff exists- content existing elsewhere has little bearing on whether it should be here. Maybe it's inappropriate there too, I don't know- but it's not "vandalism" just because you disagree with it. Please stick to making logical arguments and tone down the fascistic rhetoric. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet you did immediately threaten me. And other admin locked the article. It wasn't a discussion. Or a poll. Some guy just came in, deleted everything and called it WP:NOT.

I don't find that very civil. And, evidenced by this thread, people TRIED to negotiate it. With no luck. Because the deleting user doesn't care. The "users too with no more authority" do not care. But the article is locked and the verdict is made. I clicked a few buttons hoping to solve a problem. It wasn't solved. Whether I am blocked or not is irrelevant, I didn't build that list of sensors. But I WILL undo the edit once the editing block is lifted. Unless you block me. But then someone else will.

I, and not only I, did propose that the list can be shortened. It can be edited, minimized, but it IS useful. It is data. Encyclopedic data. And I and people like me will fight to keep it here.

REGARDLESS of WP:NOTs Tugoperdov (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It's called bold, revert, discuss and is completely normal. It isn't vandalism or uncivil. Very little is written in stone here. The discussion can be now, on this page. Make your case. Threatening to edit war is disruptive and you will be blocked should you carry that threat out. You're now on notice. I don't want to, I want you to civilly express your concerns and make your case, but I will act to prevent disruption. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I have made my case already in the opening message here. I can rewrite\repeat it:

1. The list goes up. The entire 151kb edit. Since that's how... it was "edited". That WILL be done by someone, unless you perma-lock the article itself.

2. If the WP:NOTs want to reduce it - *they* can make *their* case. WP:NOT is not a case, it's a guideline. It doesn't even belong to them.

Maybe detail the sensor models\years\types of sensors that aren't "encyclopedic" enough to preserve on this ...resource. Maybe it won't be noticed. It's a bit harder to notice a missing sensor than it is a missing list. And THEN it could be open to BRD or whatever. Personally - I don't need the full list, but maybe someone else does. Deleting it straight up - is arbitrary and goes against not just the idea of an encyclopedia(you don't burn books), but even common sense. Hence the, ahem, uncivil behavior. I mean... I'm still shocked that someone would make rules that greenlight arbitrary deletion of data. And the administration would take the side of those who want to reduce the intellectual value of the resource itself. It just doesn't compute. I know I look like a ranty degenerate, but I didn't think that the nonsense would go that far. And sometimes you need to be uncivil to solve civil issues. I believe it's called a "civil war". Tugoperdov (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The community "greenlit" the rules, not any indivdual or specific group. You are free to work to change the rules if you so desire, but it's going to be a long process. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

And where do I begin? I mean, I know how democracy "works", but if I've humored it that far, I might as well "cast a vote", per say. Eh... I'd totally understand if Sony just straight up paid you to remove the data. Copyright and all that nonsense. Or if the list was insulting or wrongdoing in some way. But it's just... data. Useful data. On an intellectual resource. And you are saying that community greenlit the unconditional deletion of that data? Because it was unconditional. Though maybe I'm knocking at the wrong bureaucratic door here. But it all reminds me of that quote from... fifth Harry Potter, was it... "Has it become practice to hold a full criminal trial to deal with a simple matter of underage magic?" I could, for lulz, give examples of pages that have lists... FAR bigger than this one... As someone has mentioned Nvidia in this thread. But that would be like "I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?" I'm beginning to think people are taking it as a challenge." I don't want more information to be erased with the mighty quotation if a few letters. Tugoperdov (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean, to further specify, for posterity. There have been TWO people and one anon here who were against the list based on VAGUE, copy-paste self-asserting nonsense. You can paraphrase it as: "If this INFORMATION can not be found ANYWHERE ELSE, then it DOES NOT belong on a wikiPEDIA."(And... just in case someone decides to take the "How stupid can you be challenge?" - I didn't say that the information isn't verifiable or false)

On the other end there were FIVE people. One of them, apparently, a paying member. And then one anon and me, who may as well be anon because I'll be banned for undoing the edit the moment the edit block is lifted.

Some of them have given concrete reasons why the sensor list was useful. And that was entirely disregarded. Kleuske started with "I'm fine with partial editing", but then straddled back with "It should be on the Sony website, take it up with them" and deleted the entire list.

Uhm, YOU take it up with them. It's YOUR problem, you came here with it. Hell, you can go tell these reddit guys to go cluck themselves while you are at it.

How can this be any clearer? Tugoperdov (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I love the original list. I will use it again. It's a pain to find and access now.

I don't believe that the removal improves anything.

I came here to find a summary of 193 sensor compared to others and I cannot find this information anywhere else except a page deleted by an anon for a reason that no school chd could understand. Shame on admin for making zero allowance for change without "prolonged negotiation". That's ransom. Hansschulze (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hansschulze It was determined through a community discussion both on this page below, and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony Exmor image sensors that the list was not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and that it would be better suited to a more appropriate forum. Both of these discussions were not quick. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't. It was admins that never before participated in this page of years of editing made by lots of people just deciding "150kb is too much and this is fan stuff" and mocking people by saying "nobody will read this wall of text" or just straight out refusing to say about how the suggested by themselves camera wiki refused to host this.

In the end. Same admins that doesn't say anything when asked "Wikipedia has list of Intel xeon haswell catalogue with actual price listing" decided to purge this out of their own volition citing some rules that don't ever get followed in these literal price listed catalogues. 46.154.33.26 (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

By way of trying to help, one of the things that Wikipedia is built on is the related concepts of context and notability. That is, information should be provided within a context and all content should be notable rather than trivia (however that is defined). The concerns behind the writing of the essay about providing a product catalogue have at least some basis in trying to deal with this.

The concern here (I assume), expressed via shorthand, is that the page had a large amount of technical information without any obvious context or notability. Some examples of the sorts of things that provide context are:

1. This sensor was the first one to include this cool feature that everyone else copied.
2. This was the first one that was used in non-Sony equipment.
3. This particular sensor line had these characteristics.

It is also worth noting that there is a Camera based wiki at http://camera-wiki.org and the Sony page might be a good place for this information to reside. Gusfriend (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I have "slept on it" and tried to figure what exactly drove Kleuske and the likes to... start this mess. Like I said, the most obvious thing would've been corruption. Or rather - a copyright claim. Or a falsification claim. But I was told to have good faith and that the people I'm insulting are, in fact, superior beings to me, who know what they are doing and are consensus-driven and... for god's sake. So figured - they have no idea.

They see something they do not understand and... well, that's it. The value was defined by the editor in charge. Not unlike a newspaper.

This theory was further backed by the constantly used term "fancruft". Honestly, I could imagine that some Encyclopedia Dramatica could have such nonsensically hypocritical definition. Because this is... a publicly edited resource... by whoever finds it useful... for whoever finds it useful. The entire website is fancruft. You have literal pages of blatant lies and propaganda here. Especially in 2022. But I never assumed anyone would be careless enough to derogate things as "fancruft".

So if people have... no idea, if they do not understand the numbers and their value, then, yeah, I could try to elaborate.

See, for anyone who is interested in smartphones(and perhaps other cameras, but I was using the list for smartphones), that list was a convenient place to not only double-check which device used which sensor, which company used which sensor, but what qualities did that sensor possess.

Contrary to what you or Kleuske said, it's not a product catalog. These aren't products. You don't buy them. It's a datasheet. A derived one, because you don't just find it lying out there, I salute to whoever had the opportunities to get the data to fill that list. And it's not about the features. This isn't some marketing slide with names like sensorshift and whatnot. It can't be layman-termed.

If that by itself is too damning to be on... a page about Sony sensors, I thought - well, maybe just... make a separate page? There are pages for filmographies and lists of ... countless things. Just a little addendum link down the bottom that goes "List of Sony sensors". Technically that's unnecessary and further complicates matters, especially for search engines, let alone users who could or could NOT stumble onto the data they could find useful. And, again, I ASSUMED that the purpose of this ..."resource"... is to be useful. I didn't expect that its purpose was to conform all totalitarian-like to some guideline.

But that would, I assume, satisfy the power trip of whoever wanted to keep an article free of 150kbs of data. And, unless wiki wants to lose data and\or runs out of storage space, those 150kbs could be moved to a separate page.

And now I see that you are doing the effort of that power tripper. And I appreciate it, but what does it help? I mean, did the original "overseer" propose it? Did the person locking the thread consider it? It's a nice afterthought, but the bottom line is that this page was killed. And the "public consensus"(of people in no way related to editing this thread) is to keep it dead. For... reasons.

You see, the very value of that list and its placement was... in the resource itself. Main wiki is main wiki. And a wiki is a wiki. It's not a public spreadsheet, it's not discord server. It's a resource people trust and it's a resource people can update. That... USED to be its primary value. And that's why whoever kept this list up... did it. Because they could. And it was accessible. It wasn't fancruft on some fancruft subwiki. It was technical data that was documented on a wiki.

Even if it's moved - who's to guarantee that the editors would find it? That the readers would find it? That the editors would keep it up? I repeat - this was not something started by the editors. Whatever god's grace Kleuske has edited for the people of the planet - it wasn't this page. He came here to ruin it and that's the good faith he gets. If the editors themselves would argue and deem the future of this list worthless.. well, it would've been a pity, but it's their list. If the list wasn't updated and Kleuske came in and saw some old data that has no relevance - likewise, I wouldn't be here, I'd be content with a back-up and that's it.

But this is an ongoing documentation. And a historic data.

I can't just move it myself for two primary reasons:

-I'm not an editor. Never wanted to be. I only came here to protect the data I cherish and I use.

-I don't own it. Like I said - I didn't write it. But whoever moves it - has to assume ownership and responsibility. And, evidently, Kleuske didn't volunteer.

For the umpteenth time, I can't believe that I'm seeing this... totalitarianism. If the purpose was, ultimately, to benefit the wiki, then maybe that Kleuske could've... pinged, talked, contacted whoever initially came up with the list. Charwinger21 or, I don't know, some 5-10 of the most prominent editors throughout the years. Maybe a poll, a discussion here that could've gone on for a while.

But that wasn't even considered.. It was an elimination. Arbitrary.

Kleuske started with: "Once more I removed an excessive list of product variants from the article. I am not opposed to giving an overview, but 151k is way too much and swamps the article in, basically, fancruft."

And immediately got objected. Which he dismissed with self-assertion. Blatant self-assertion.

Which culminated in:

""USeful" is not a criterion.

How low can you sink? This is a valiant servant of an encyclopedia. Saying "useful is not a criterion". What the actual...

And then even that Ricky-something said straight up, and I quote:

"I won't wait until 2032 for a response though."

Is that CONSENSUS? Is that GOOD FAITH?

Don't meet your heroes, they say... Tugoperdov (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many people will wade through that wall of text. You are an editor by participating here. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

+1

There is no standardized format for knowledge, for which I donate money to use. Until the day we have a more verified AI source, this can sit here for ten years and won't kill anyone. Hansschulze (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies that guide its content, many of which have been cited in the discussion to remove the content at issue. WP:NOHARM is also a poor argument as it would mean nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. If you disagree with policies, you may work to change them. You may donate or not donate based on whatever criteria you see fit- donations or withholding donations does not impact content. Donations are collected by the Foundation to mainly operate the computers Wikipedia is on, and their finances are stable at the moment. 331dot (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am that "Thanks for killing" guy.

I went to the camera wiki and they immediately talked about how 151Kb list is too long, how it's a wiki about vintage cameras and in the digital age a sensor list is not so useful.

They also talked about edit war or something going on here and how I shouldn't be a member.

In short, I either go on make a entire website and copy paste peoples hard work there (that will never get updated unless I go spam people how Wikipedia killed their work and even then it's pretty obvious not everyone will get interested) as they say or someone actually goes on and makes a sepearate article about "List of Sony Sensors" just like how this entire Wikipedia has no issues about making seperate page for İntel - Xeon - Haswell Based page that is literal catalogue.

Basically camera-wiki doesn't want to host that stuff and someone should just make a new article and copy paste 151kb of "catalogue" into it. 88.230.44.144 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Calling everything you don’t like vandalism is not convincing. It’s been done to death for years. Provide me a secondary source that discusses ‘’the list’’ (not Sony’s sensors, not even this page but specifically this amazing list) and you may convince people. Editors popping up to say they have one opinion and don’t care about anything else other than the return of the list get rightfully ignored. - Ricky81682 (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  The reasoning is as follows:

  First, we have to agree that the "List" is not an entity by itself to be argued about, it's an aggregation of rows each of which has its own separate merits to be (or not to be) included in the article. The arguments provided for removing the table as a whole (150k in obscure sensors, 151k is too much, fancruft, etc) are too general to be valid for every entry. In fact, they are not by @Kleuske own admission: the phrase: "I am not opposed to giving an overview" clearly implies the editor knew some parts of the table were in fact relevant and should've been included. The deletion of all entries altogether, most likely without reading each one, is a vandalism.

  The decision of removal should be made for each row (or for each set of similar rows) separately, and justified in a way that would be valid for each entry being deleted. Just as such decisions are applied to text, where each separate sentence/statement is judged, and paragraphs are not deleted altogether just because some parts of them should be deleted. LSeww (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia. By way of information the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy says that Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.

  Can you identify any specific sensors that have context or notability such as:

  • This sensor was the first one to include this cool feature that everyone else copied.
  • This was the first one that was used in non-Sony equipment.
  • This particular sensor line had these characteristics.

  From my reading of the page the Versions section would be where it belongs.

  Gusfriend (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  Indiscriminate removal of information cannot be done in good faith. As for your request, even though there are such sensors, I can simply retort that "Notability guidelines do not usually apply to content within articles or lists". LSeww (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  The notability guidelines that are being talked about in the quote that you provided are the ones at WP:GNG which apply to individual articles and expecting that level of notability for individual sensors is indeed not appropriate. However, there is an expectation of some degree of noteworthiness (to use a slightly different term) for the contents of a page. For example in a wikipedia page about a highway between two distant cities it would not be appropriate to list every single house on the road but it would also not be sufficient to not say anything about the highway. The question for the Wikipedia community becomes one of generating a consensus for what should be included based on multiple factors including good, reliable, independent sources.

  By way of background I posted what I did hoping that I would get help in identifying particular sensors so that they can be added to the page and would really appreciate the information. 02:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Gusfriend (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  Since we are discussing the content of a list of EXMOR sensors, I suggested that any sensor from mass produced consumer device should be on the list, which is according to: "would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?" guideline. It is also consistent with many other wikipedia pages such as for graphic cards, processors, which contain lists of all available mass produced items, most of which aren't notable. LSeww (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  I apologise as it appears that we have been talking at cross purposes. I am not talking about a list of Exmor sensors, I am talking about the Exmor page as a whole. In particular improving the "Versions" section as a starting point. Gusfriend (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  The list of Exmor sensors was a part of Exmor page until it was deleted for frivolous reasons. LSeww (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  Calling the reasons "frivolous" does not make them that. The say-so of a single purpose account like yours does not carry much weight, around here. Kleuske (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's well explained above for those who are neutral enough to engage in rules based arguments. LSeww (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

See WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the other reasons the list(and an attempt at creating a standalone article) were removed. If you feel that policies have been incorrectly applied in this case, the proper forum is WP:AN, not here. If you wish to challenge the deletion of the standalone article, you should go to Deletion Review. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

To help, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony Exmor image sensors. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply to listings comparing technical specifications. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

As noted, "People are also encouraged to post useful independent references for any of the sensors or sensor families so that they can be added to the page". 331dot (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The various policies allow a degree of common sense to be applied - and in any case I've already provided a rationale which is more or less responsive to citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Again, WP:NOTPAPER; treating technical products as if it is reasonable to expect there to be extensive non-primary sources or as if they can be usefully pared down beyond such details seems to me to be a point of brittleness in WP policies and misunderstands the technical landscape. I'm open to discussing whether the list should be pared down and so on, but it looks to me like there's actually a sizable number of users here hotly debating the changes - they just didn't have the critical mass or Wikipedia insider knowledge to robustly defend the page from a speedy deletion process. Perhaps what really needs to be done is some kind of discussion on how to clarify or change some of the common understandings of these policies so these pages can be useful to more technical users while still having an understanding that poor-quality information shouldn't be included, and so on. I do see there are efforts underway to do the same work of downsizing Wikipedia articles on other sensor products and CPU/GPU lists which would be extremely unfortunate. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. We had an RfC above and the consensus of experienced editors citing Wikipedia policy was that the list didn't belong in this article. And then at the AfD, the consensus—which included editors not involved in the above RfC—was that a standalone list didn't belong, either. Wikipedia just isn't the type of place for something like this. And it seems like other wikis don't want it, either—which should tell you something. If someone really wants this content available, then they should find or start their own place to host it. Woodroar (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It is true that requirements for secondary sources mean that some topic areas are underserved with articles or content in articles. Such requirements are important for verification and neutral point of view purposes, however. If you would like to see a carve-out in the rules for photographic sensors, you can work to establish that, probably at the Village Pump. Otherwise, you may request a review as I've indicated. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Copied to User Space for while. Can be edited. User:Elk_Salmon/List_of_Sony_Exmor_image_sensors Elk Salmon (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• I realize I am quite late to this discussion, so I don't know how much anything I say here will matter (or be read by anybody), but I think removing the tables was outrageous. I am aware of WP:NOT, but I do not see how it applies here. Speaking literally, Wikipedia is a database (i.e. this article can be retrieved by SELECT * FROM page WHERE page_title LIKE "Exmor" ORDER BY page_len ASC;). I am not convinced that a paragraph of prose is encyclopedia and a table is not. I have gone off at length about this elsewhere, so I should probably just write an essay, but I think this RFC was a travesty. jp×g 23:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

How does that remove the NOTCATALOG issue? 331dot (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Um, please specify what specific NOTCATALOG issue you are talking about. Is it a "Simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" or "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"? As long as you provide a reason why it's a NOTCATALOG issue, I can understand and tolerate that, but I'm somewhat bummed with the table removal. As far as I can tell, the list removal was unpopular with readers and there was a flurry of edits that restored the table. There were editors wanting to restore the table and you rejected that. And if this list has a NOTCATALOG issue, why the list in ISOCELL is still up? ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ (Talk) 17:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists. I can only speak to the article in front of me. We don't necessarily do things based on popularity(WP:NOTAVOTE), but based on Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus. I haven't rejected anything; someone assessed the discussion above as consensus to keep the list out. If you feel the consensus was improperly made, WP:ANI is the proper forum. Creating a separate article doesn't remove the issues that led to the removal of the list. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, after that I wanted to reinstate the list on Camera-wiki.org, but there's 2 problems. One, I cannot access it from my country (Indonesia). Two, I realized that someone has already made a proposal to transfer it to Camera-wiki.org (https://www.flickr.com/groups/camerawiki/discuss/72157721917937671/) and it seems that it was rejected because it was too long and the wiki was primarily about film cameras. Also, they assumed that the proposer was edit warring in Wikipedia. Dustin McAmera mentioned that if the list of sensors was moved to Camera-wiki.org, it would quickly get outdated since it only has few contributors. But Voxphoto mentioned that the proposer should create a single-subject blog site about it. So, the list should be on a separate website, not in Wikipedia? ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ (Talk) 23:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are you asking permission for this? Just do it. This is Wikipedia. Worst case scenario they will delete it 10 years later like they did here. Btw, lists are allowed. The whole WP:NOTCATALOG claim seems bs just to get rid of the list on this page. It clearly is NOT a catalogue. But go tell that to the people who actively tried to remove the list and falsely try to claim that it's a catalogue. Like mentioned before this is allowed, List of Nvidia graphics processing units. I don't see a problem with opening a new page named List of Exmor sensors. At least you won't have to deal with people who deliberately misinterpret the rules to force feed their opinion to everyone else. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If there is a consensus that the list is inappropriate for this article, it is doubtful that it would be appropriate as a standalone article, and recreating it would likely be a waste of time for the creator and those who work to request its deletion. If it's deleted via a discussion it would be harder to recreate later. It is certainly correct that permission does not need to be obtained if someone wants to do it, of course, but I don't think its good advice to encourage people to take advantage of the volunteer nature of this project, but your mileage may vary. A better use of time would be to locate a more suitable location for the information where it would not go against policy. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I would further add that if you feel that the consensus was judged improperly, please detail the specific reasons you think so at WP:AN. Note that disagreement with the judgement is not usually considered sufficient unless it was clearly against Wikipedia policy or the clear will of the community(while keeping WP:NOTAVOTE in mind). 331dot (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: As far as I can tell, several people detailed these reasons at length on this talk page, and the response they got was people saying that the posts were too long and they didn't feel like reading them. I don't blame them for giving up at that point. jp×g 06:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I've edited your link to be a proper internal link, we don't need the whole url. Issues with another article should be discussed on the talk page of that article. I note that the list you mention is much better sourced; as noted in the discussion above, "People are also encouraged to post useful independent references for any of the sensors or sensor families so that they can be added to the page." 331dot (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Better sourced? If you go through above discussion, they didn't remove Sony list due to being poorly sourced, rather for being "fancruft".

Double standards. 84.65.105.173 (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

There are no "double standards", at least deliberately. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can. I can only speak to the article in front of me, not to every other of the 6.5 million plus articles. As I said, your options here are to address issues with other articles on the talk pages of those articles, or to provide appropriate sourcing for this one. The separate article was deleted and the deletion was sustained in a review. It was removed from this article after a discussion. Seeing the passion about some microchips is interesting, but the horse is dead. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

What he means is that any of the arguments against this page can be applied to ISOCELL, and vice versa. Which means that none of your arguments actually matter. Some people just care enough to delete this page but not the other, and that's it. LSeww (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

You are also free to pull the list from the edit history and, as previously advised, place it on a more appropriate website. There are also wikis that archive deleted pages from this one and likely has done so with the list. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If Wikipedia isn't appropriate place for Sony sensors then it's not for Samsung's either. Nor is it appropriate for any product list of Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Nvidia etc etc, so go ahead and delete their product list! Find out how many of them are "properly sourced" by your standards. What are you waiting for? Go ahead! 84.65.105.173 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, if you want to see something done to any particular article, bring it up on the talk pages of that article. See other stuff exists. You are absolutely free, if it's in your area of interest, to go to the Samsung article and say "this product list should be removed because the Exmor list was removed according to WP:NOTDIRECTORY" or however you want to phrase it. I'm under no obligation to do anything to any particular article. You seem to have made this about me, when it isn't. I didn't decide anything here. Consensus did. I again am amazed at the passion for some microchips. 331dot (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

People likely find this information useful because integrated circuits form the foundation of technological civilization, being crucial components of all modern electronic devices, and are extremely complex parts that have large amounts of difficult-to-assemble specifications and operating parameters; for some reason (possibly the fact that we had an article listing these chips for nearly a full decade) people expect a collaborative encyclopedia to not deliberately remove it. jp×g 20:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Without microchip they couldn't delete the list in first place and you couldn't comment defending their actions either. 84.65.105.173 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

People also expect a collaborative encyclopedia to abide by its policies, or they cease to have meaning. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate content to exist for years and even decades. This doesn't mean it abides by policies. Wikipedia would cease to be a curated encyclopedia if all it took to keep content here was to get it past other volunteers for a long enough time. Thanks for the conversation- you've been told how you or others can proceed-

1. find sources with enough coverage of individual chips to warrant a specific mention in this article
2. go to articles about other chip manufacturers and request the same policies that were applied here be applied there
3. if you feel that policies have been grossly misapplied, request a review of the actions taken here at WP:AN(the standalone article's deletion was reviewed and sustained)
4. take a copy of the list from the edit history where it remains and place it elsewhere, or see if another wiki type project archived this article when the list was on it
5. work to change policies to permit the list

That's what you can do. You either will, or not. Good day. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who'd vote "yes" on this matter, but someone who voted against locked the voting because a "consensus" was "reached". Also most of the people who voted "no" didn't even bothered to defend their reasoning in any way. LSeww (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see my message above as to your available options here. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

who are you to create options? Can you show evidence that the Samsung's Isocell article abides by same rules you've put forward? 84.65.105.173 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Hello everybody!

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

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

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

The more editors that participate, the better.

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

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

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)

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)