Template talk:Computer display standard

Orphan template

What's the point of a template that links to the entries within the same article? --188.123.237.4 (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally each item had its own stub article with little information, so this template was created then, to direct to all articles. However I recently organized all the stub articles to one article, so I changed the template to direct all the links to the same page, but individual sections. It is also informative to people unfamiliar with graphic resolutions, so they can find which one they want easily. AGiorgio08 ^talk 21:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

480p?

has VGA ever been referred to as 480p? ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.92.215 (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification as standards

I removed several entries from this list, namely Orchid, the Hercules Plus and InColor. Here is my reasoning:

In order for something to be a "standard" I feel it either needs to be a formal standard or a de-facto one by virtue of heavy adoption
The three cards I removed, per their own citations, were largely failures, meaning they did not become de-facto standards
These three cards also, per their own articles, did not define new formal standards, so I have to assume they were no different than the hundreds of competing cards throughout the 80s which offered incompatible software interfaces which *could have* become de-facto standards.
The remaining failed products, such as IBM's XGA and 8514, and the failed standards such as AX-VGA, still count because they were intended to be industry standards (insofar as CGA, EGA etc were ever intended to do so) that simply failed to catch on.Gravislizard (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]