Talk:High definition

There is very little information mentioned for the mother of HD technology. Who invented it? i have heard that mother of HD technology is Samsung. Is that true or i was furnished with wrong information.

Can we have a bit more of an article about the whole 'concept' of what 'high defintion' is rather than just a list of links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.185.185 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"HD" is not really "a technology". From what I can tell, it's just a marketing term that doesn't really mean anything other than "more resolution than before". I'm not sure if there's really any information that can be offered in an article on "high definition", unless someone can find some authoritative sources...? —AySz88 \^-^ 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they all borrow the name from the television format, riding on its coat-tails so so speak. The only "standard definition" I know of is for television: Standard-definition television. Ewlyahoocom (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

puncutation in article title

high definition is a element,if i where to describe it ...it would be greater quanity of pixles per squar inch, therefore allowing a "better resolution" sorry for the spelling if someone could fix that and erase the following thank-you, and if you want to go further an hd lcd tv / plasma hd tv , the "pixles" are spaces which are filled with chemicals which ever plasma or liquid crystal which are made of elements. snakey2008@live.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.107.174 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is no need for a hyphen in this disambiguation page's title. the words "high definition" are not functioning as a compound adjective in that usage. (e.g., a high-definition television can accommodate a show is broadcast in high definition.)

i don't think i have authority to change the title of a disabiguation page.--98.116.115.220 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High-definition

Are there some trademarks on the term? Can you name a better version of anything a high-definition version of it? Youdonothavetoprovide (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 19:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High-definition → High definition – Prefer noun-form titles; hyphen only when used as adjective before a noun Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Amakuru (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested by Lugnuts at WP:RMTR: I think as the page has been stable at this title for some time, it would need a discussion, per WP:TITLECHANGES. And per the examples on the page, esp. for high-def.

Support as original WP:RMT nom – I thought this would be an easy technical, since the noun form High definition already redirects to the adjective (hyphenated) form High-definition. As far as I can tell from WP:AT, the general preference for noun-form titles does not have any exception for disambig pages or other reason not to prefer the noun version here. And the hyphen-less version, alone, can also be taken as an adjective; the hyphen is typically only inserted when the compound is used as an adjective before a noun. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support—this should have been a simple technical move—the hyphen is just so, so, obviously wrong. Tony (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above; this should only be hyphenated when modifying a noun, as in "high-definition video". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:Carbonate clumped-isotope#Requested move 31 January 2017, which raises the same issue (plus a scope one). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.