Steven Zimmerman (2016-10-12)."Sony IMX378: Comprehensive Breakdown of the Google Pixel's Sensor and its Features". XDA Developers. Archived fromthe original on 2016-10-13. Retrieved2016-10-12.That being said, it really is a shame that it is so hard to access some of this information, even basic product information. When companies try to put information on their websites, it often can be rather inaccessible and incomplete, in large part because it is often treated as a secondary concern of the company's employees, who are more focused on their main work. One dedicated person handling public relations can make a huge difference in terms of making this type of information available and accessible to the general public, and we're seeing some people trying to do just that in their free time. Even on the Sony Exmor Wikipedia article itself, where over the course of a couple months a single person in their spare time laid most of the foundation to take it from a nearly useless 1,715 byte article that had been mostly the same for years, into the ~50,000 byte article which we see there today with 185 distinct editors. An article that is arguably the best repository of information about the Sony Exmor sensor line available online, and we can see a very similar pattern on other articles.
Product catalogue
A RfC was completed in January 2023 that determined that the page should not have a list of sensors on the page. A new consensus should be generated on the talk page before adding a list of sensors to the article.
This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofbrands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofphotography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography
Once more I removed an excessive list of product variants from the article. I am not opposed to giving an overview, but 151k is way too much and swamps the article in, basically,fancruft.Kleuske (talk)17:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the "excessive" list of product is pretty relevant to the article. some people may find it useful. if you deemed it to be useless or "swamps the article" then just ignore.Bluglasses (talk)09:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that section headers all start with “list of” should give you a hint they don’t actually belong in an article. A LIst like that lendsWP:UNDUE weight to obscure models, instead of giving an overview over developments and variants and their use.
A list of popular models and camera’s they’re used in? Fine. The specs of some obscure monochrome sensor, nobody has ever heard of? Not so much. This data dump defeats the purpose of the article.Kleuske (talk)17:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then only such obscure cases should be removed, not the entirety of the list. Also it's vital to have a list of new sensors which are not yet in any cameras, as they come into production few years ahead of appearing in consumer products. This data it's not available anywhere else in a concise manner, only as per-sensor specsheets all around sony's website. Some old/irrelevant rows can be deleted.181.167.210.101 (talk)22:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources available to say which sensors are not in any camera. Sources like that are very rare. If you have problems with Sony’s website, urge Sony to improve it and make their info more accessible, but don’t use Wikipedia as an alternative. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,not a free webhost.Kleuske (talk)07:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list thatused to be in this article was extremely useful, and you'd have to be a huge buzzkill to go around deleting useful info off of this site for no legitimate reason.DataLemur (talk)02:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kleuske your arguments are very weak to support you POV. If "no one has ever heard of" Exmor sensors, the list wouldn't even have existed in first place. And the argument of "not a catalog" is pretty forced, because most of the sensors aren't sold anymore and sensors aren't sold to ordinary people. I'm starting to think that there is a conflict of interest, unless you can sustain your argument with real evidence.Lucien33 (talk)01:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL is not an argument to keep content on Wikipedia. There is much that is useful that is not appropriate encyclopedia content. It's useful to know that Walmart has a sale on computers or cookies, but we don't put that inWalmart. Please see the much-repeated numerous suggestions on this page for possible action you can take if you want to see the removed list somewhere.331dot (talk)09:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a criteria for inclusion of a sensor in the list. According to guideline "Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?", any sensors from mass produced consumer products should be included.LSeww (talk)00:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment: I specifically visited this wikipedia entry to see the table you removed. It is the only purpose I looked up this page. I don't care about the rest of the entry and I care about the table you removed enough to find the version that still contains it in the entry's history.89.176.199.227 (talk)12:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is stuff that should be on the producers website.
I agree, however manufacturers regularly purge information regarding outdated products, the table that used to be found at this article was a nice way for the community to organize information regarding all Sony Exmor (a line of products which is by no means "obscure", you likely have one or one like it in your pocket right now) image sensors. If you are going to go ahead and wipe it, it would at least have been courteous to move it to its own page, such as the various "List of _____" articles, and leave some sort of message, reference, or "see also" back to this article. It appears everyone but you is in favor of not removing the list entirely, and there are even people unfamiliar with the Wikipedia editorial process on external forums confused and resorting to hacks such as accessing the old version of the article through the Internet Archive[1].Zi7ar21 (talk)21:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"USeful" is not a criterion. 150k in obscure sensors does not make sense in an encyclopedia. This is stuff that should be on the producers website.WP:CATALOG/WP:FANCRUFT.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKleuske (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 back198.214.229.233 (talk)03:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was decided by a single person. There was a community discussion(two if you count the deletion of a separate article for the list) that determined that the content did not meet our policies. Please review the discussion at the bottom for your options.331dot (talk)08:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new page, [List of Sony Image Sensors], to host the list of Sony image sensors, so that the list may be accessible in a format similar to other lists of products (e.g. the various "List of ______" pages on Wikipedia), and the list may be maintained again. I am not too familiar with the format on Wikipedia, I hope this ends the conflict and people can clean the new page up a bit to match the guidelines for the rest of the wiki.Zi7ar21 (talk)21:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I also see your comment about bringing this toWP:AN (which I think would be a good idea), however I'm not confident I understand Wikipedia well enough yet to open a discussion, and it appears there are multiple noticeboards that seem like they could apply here? From the looks of it, I am guessing:
- A "consensus" was already reached and the list was removed
- Readers (who would never check the Talk page or even know there was an ongoing RFC otherwise) who still expected the list to be found here are all of a sudden expressing their concern upon seeing the list gone
You can read about our consensus model atWikipedia:Consensus. Decisions are largely made through discussion, while following ourpolicies and guidelines. The policies and guidelines are also decided by the community, with some input/requirements from the Wikimedia Foundation.
This isn't an edit warring issue. No one as far as I am aware- including supporters of the list- is edit warring. "Edit warring" has a very specific defintion and usually refers to an immediate series of reversions. That you re-created an article, it was nominated by me for speedy deletion, and an uninvolved admin decided that the speedy deletion criteria had been met, is not edit warring. It's observing the process.
Sockpuppetry is a serious claim that requires serious evidence; feel free to open an SPI with your evidence.
AN is only appropriate if someone wants to argue that policies were not observed or grossly misapplied here. Please review the Articles for Deletion discussion about the list article, as well as the discussion about removing the list from this article(now in the archive linked to in the box at the top of this page) carefully before deciding that policies were not observed.331dot (talk)00:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be a formal policy here. At what threshold is too much "swamp"? The comment about removing the table in theISOCELL 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 theISOCELL 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 ownWikipedia:About page describes itself as aFree encyclopaedia. Wikipedia describes anEncyclopedia as "information [which] is intended to be found quickly when needed". Wikipedia goes on to describe anEncyclopedia as aCompendium which is described as "a comprehensive collection of information and analysis pertaining to aBody 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 ofEncyclopedia 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 theWikipedia:About page describing Wikipedia's subject domain as an "overview", in fact most pages are quite exhaustive, including theISOCELL page that still has its table of 41k worth of image sensors. Can you please describe to me what part of the removed table is not inline with the above purpose that is self described by Wikipedia as its own mission?
If the removed table does not fit this description, then we need to shift focus from this Exmor table to updating the Wikipedia About page to either refining the details of the subject domain limitations that you're suggesting we impose on the Exmor page such that it is not sharing "accumulated knowledge" and is not intended to be a "comprehensive collection of information".R37ribution (talk)18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for a product guide, I'm doing the decision making for myself using data. See my reply to @Woodroar - it is very common on wiki for there to be lists of product details. Providing product data is not a product guide otherwise there would be a section for each type of application and which image sensor is recommended. This is not the case with a list that was here and exists for many other products as referenced in my reply I mentioned earlier.R37ribution (talk)22:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@R37ribution: A "list of all details for the models of image sensors necessary to make a decision around image sensor selection" and "used this list to decide on which Point and Shoot camera to purchase" are excellent examples of what Wikipedia is not for. If you have in the past been able to use the Wikipedia article as a catalogue to make such decisions, because people have posted material which does not comply with Wikipedia's policies, then you have been lucky, but that is not a justification for continuing to maintain content inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.JBW (talk)15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can only deal with the article in front of us, not other articles that we have not examined. Seeother stuff exists. One article existing does not automatically mean every such article with in the same category must exist. There could be unique circumstances(as there are here, as mentioned in many prior discussions that I won't rehash here). Have you examined each and every source in each and every list you mention?
As the closing of the original discussion states, "Clear consensus was to exclude the list from the page. People are reminded that the information is in the history if they wish to make a copy and move it to a different site which is allowed by the Wikipedia content license. People are also encouraged to post useful independent references for any of the sensors or sensor families so that they can be added to the page." Many of these other lists likelyhave better references for individual chips than this article had. If you have better sourcing for Exmor chips, please offer them- which is what has been asked of everyone since the original discussion and has yet to occur.331dot (talk)23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can also take the list from the edit history where it remains and find a more appropriate home for it, as has also been suggested many times and not done. You have options if you want to take the time to exercise them.331dot (talk)23:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Orhere's a link to the last one.
Secondly, all content on Wikipedia is published under a "Creative Commons" By-Attribution license. This means, you can copy, distribute, and revise the material for free however you like, as long as you provide attribution to the authors of the work. So you could easily copy that entire list table over to some new Fandom wiki and continue developing it over there for example :)
I'm a newbee. This is my first talk post. I do not know about democratic processes in the wikipedia.
In my point of view this deleted list was a lot more than a catalog and more than the still existing lists of Intel processors, AMD and Nvidia graphics processing units, etc. It was a unique source of information for my research, which I don't think is available anywhere else.
The findability of this outstanding, unique source of information has been severely restricted.
At present, there is no possibility to further develop this information source together.
I see no practicable way to achieve both goals, except with a list in a Wikipedia article.
Beppodd Please examine the discussion in the archive, as well asWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony Exmor image sensors, a deletion discussion for an attempt at a standalone article. It has been determined that current Wikipedia policies don't permit the list as it was. Wikipedia isnot a democracy; it operates byconsensus preferably based in Wikipedia policies. I will tell you what I have told others, your options here are
find sources with enough coverage of individual chips to warrant a specific mention in this article
go to articles about other chip manufacturers and request the same policies that were applied here be applied there(this has already been attempted at least once)
if you feel that policies have been grossly misapplied, request a review of the actions taken here atWP:AN(the standalone article's deletion was reviewed and sustained)
take a copy of the list from the edit history where it remains and place it elsewhere, or see if another wiki type project archived this article when the list was on it
For the following 5 sensors there are additionally references in Wikipedia articles: IMX204, IMX253, IMX322, IMX458, IMX477
In my point of view for many of this 145 sensors it would be straightforward to have a link from the wikipedia article to the table with technical data.Beppodd (talk)02:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the fact that other pages like Samsung ISOCELL still have full lists of every sensor, this was a coordinated attempt to hide the data Sony doesn't want to show. Their sensor datasheets are under NDA, and I see no other way to explain what happened here.152.171.56.77 (talk)20:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence of coordination with Sony or that editors are undisclosed paid editors, please offer it(seeWP:PAID for how). I'm not coordinating with anyone. You are free to take any or all of the steps described above(my reply to Beppodd above). Each article is considered on its own merits and not based on the content of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate. Seeother stuff exists.
I found a wiki focussed on cameras calledCamerapedia Fandom, which unfortunately being Fandom requires you to register an account to edit, but I'm thinking about creating an account and importing the full Sony image sensors list there one day. That way there's a new home for it and it can continue to be maintained and kept.
Only issue I'm not sure about is that Camerapedia Fandom uses a GFDL license, whereas Wikipedia uses CC-BY SA. The 'SA' part means the content is supposed to be re-published under the same CC-BY license each and every time it is copied or edited, so I'm not sure if I can actually copy it into a different-licensed wiki or not.
I also foundcamera-wiki.org which is a fork of Camerapedia that uses Mediawiki instead of Fandom, however to be able to edit the wiki you have to register by contacting one of the site administrators; it isn't like a standard process where you fill in a form and click a button, you have to talk to an administrator to sign up, as apparently they had to disable the standard registration process due to spambots. By the way, Camera-wiki.org also uses the GFDL license.
Wait a min, hmmm, I just noticed that at the bottom of every Wikipedia editing window, it says "... you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL." So does that imply Wikipedia content is actually published under both CC BY-SA and GFDL licenses? — AP 499D25(talk)22:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It Will be nice if some one that know about nanotechnology put the names of the model of each family sensor. As is done for intel z390 chispets for example.37.29.241.0 (talk)13:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Larger sensor form factors decrease depth of field, which is often desired for teleconferencing webcams."
.jpg)
