Jump to content

Talk:Display resolution standards

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overview

[edit]

Does anyone else think that the overview section needs to be significantly improved? Like all the fake resolution names and things like 1280 × 864 being listed as 3:2 when 1296 × 864 and 1280 × 854 actually 3:2. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NintendoTTTEfan2005: I just saw your post here. I had the same idea, and started editing here. Overview improved!? Regards --W like wiki good to know 22:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool!! NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Half a year later, I came here for the same reason, and didn’t check whether it improved or degraded since. The overview table has lost its original conciseness completely.
  • If something doesn’t have an acronym it’s very likely it’s not appropriate to be included within the table – unless it’s listed as an unnamed predefined resolution in standards like VESA, HDMI, DVI etc. (MPEG profiles etc. don’† really count, because they are stream/file storage resolutions and this article is supposed to be about display resolutions.)
  • It should only list resolutions that are mentioned in one of the subsequent sections, and link to them.
  • References and “[q.n.]” markers are then unnecessary within the table, because that’s dealt with in the proper section.
  • There’s also way too much detail trying to explain table entries further when that redundantly done in the respective section or even a dedicated article again.
In the end, it should have less than half its current, enormous size. — Christoph Päper 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NHD

[edit]

Can someone please explain what the "N" in "NHD" stands for? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NintendoTTTEfan2005: If you mean nHD than it can be ninth HD!? --W like wiki good to know 13:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, look at the notes for like 960 × 720, 720 × 540, 1200 × 900, 1440 × 1080, and 2880 × 2160. That is what I am talking about. Does it mean "Normal"? or what? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In those 4:3 resolutions, the N obviously stands in for narrow – although normal would be an understandable expansion as well – and is the opposite of the W for wide in 15:9, 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions based on older 4:3 etc. resolutions.  — Christoph Päper 16:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge to Display resolution

[edit]

I'm not clear why these are separate articles. Aren't all display resolutions "graphic"? If there is a good reason for them to be separate, they are not distinguished and cross-referenced well enough.

Alternatively, maybe "Graphics display resolution" should be changed to "Computer display resolution" or "Computer graphics display resolution" to make it clear that is different about it from "display resolution".

There's also this one at Computer display standard with almost no citations. Considering proposing that for merger to this article. That article could discuss electrical standards as well as resolution I guess, in the cases where that even applies, but it seems pretty half-baked.

I'd like to at least get these down to two well-named articles (e.g. "Computer display resolution" instead of "Graphic), if not all into one.

—DIYeditor (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – This article about "graphics" is a subset of overall display resolution that focuses on video standards that emerged outside of television, primarily in regard to computing but with a secondary focus on other electronic devices (although these types receive much less coverage). Perhaps there is a better name for the article, but I don't necessarily think it should be merged with display resolution, since it really delves into a specific subset of the topic.
    As for Computer display standard, not sure what needs to happen with that, but at the very least, it may need to be converted to a list if retained. And if it is retained, we can probably cut down on the amount of details describing each graphics resolution in this article. Otherwise, it would be unnecessary duplication between the two.
    Just my initial thoughts. Let's see what others weigh in with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does look like Computer display standard and Graphics display resolution could be merged together.
It is not clear to me that Computer graphics display resolution is a better title than Graphics display resolution because longer is typically not better in titles. ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: What about Computer display resolution? This article includes lots of things that aren't computers currently, and what exactly is a computer anyway? Anything with a display today is in fact computerized. Would you mind listing what you think should be included in Display resolution and excluded from Graphics display resolution? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken another look at Display resolution and re-arranged it a bit. I think GoneIn60 and Kvng are right that this is a more detailed article and subset of the broader Display resolution. I think the remaining questions are whether this article should be renamed to Computer display resolution, and whether Computer display standard should be merged to it. I am prepared to boldly make the move and merger if there are no objections. I think "graphics" is imprecise and could refer to things that predate computers, for example graphic design has been a thing for a lot longer than computers graphics. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at various sources cited in the article and did a little light research on the topic. I think changing the title to "Computer display resolution" would be fine according to how the technology is typically described, at least for now until someone with more expertise could propose a better title. You did your due diligence with the discussion notice in the article and at the relevant WikiProject almost 2 months ago.
    As for merging the two articles discussed above, I think it'll make one really long article. Maybe it would work, but perhaps the better approach is to rename Computer display standard → List of computer display standards. That allows us to retain the current chart and remove duplication between the two articles, which would be progress at least. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – My impression is that Computer display standard was originally intended to document more fully defined video standards (such as the original XGA or VGA formats as used on IBM PCs) which were not just resolutions, but also a specific color depth, refresh rate, connector, etc. But has since devolved into "list of any display resolutions that have ever been used in a single product" like "Random unnamed resolution that was used on the Microsoft Surface Pro 4". In its current state I don't think there's much worth merging into anything else, most of it can just be removed. Some information (particularly names) is just made up (such as "HXGA" and its derivatives) or extrapolated from previous patterns without any actual examples. There are a few notable ones that actually fit the original intention of the page, such as XGA and VGA, and these tend to have their own dedicated articles anyway. I don't really think there's much to be gained from maintaining a list of them really. If a "hub" page is desired, Graphics display resolution already fulfills any need I can see.  — Glenwing (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a first pass at cleaning this up:

Make sense? 02:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'm not too fond of them name "Display resolution standards" since to me "standard" implies things that are defined in an actual standards document, published and overseen by some organization, or at least something close to that, not just the casual definition of "common" (if that's what we mean, then maybe it should be called "Common display resolutions" or something like that). But maybe that's just me. Anyway, normally I think we should come to some consensus before starting to change the public article names.  — Glenwing (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn't pay close enough attention to what you thought was best above, my general impression is there weren't a lot of people participating so there was no harm in some bold moves. On reflection, it really needs to be sorted out if we have a few people to provide input. Certainly the more consistent the names can be the better, and "common display resolutions" is indeed already used.
I don't think that being authoritative is truly the nuance "standard" carries though. From M-W:
3: something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example : CRITERION
Could be custom or general consent, not just an authority.
For comparison we started with:
I'm good with "common display resolutions" instead of "display resolution standards".
This gets into some naming issues as far as plurals. By Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) the articles "bird", "birds" and "common birds" are really all going to be called "bird", right? We already have a display resolution article, so is common display resolutions a list of display resolutions? We already have that too.
—DIYeditor (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PC-98 640x400

[edit]

The PC-98 famously used a resolution of 640x400. I don't see any resolutions listed under 400px height. 24.59.121.4 (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Display_resolution_standards&oldid=1247087671"