Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Urklistre (talk | contribs) at 08:15, 10 August 2012 (→3O, take two). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Computing Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aspect ratios

Ratios should be presented in lowest-common-denominator form. Therefore the aspect ratio you called "16:10" is actually "8:5". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Criffer (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but due to the 16:9 aspect ratio it was much easier to market as 16:10. 86.3.111.41 (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Since 8:5 isn't used by anyone, should it be mentioned? - Gunnar Guðvarðarson (My Talk) 00:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

16:10 is usually mentioned as 16:10 and should also have that name in this article. Criffers talk about "should be presented in lowest-common-denominator form" is his fiction. There is no such rule./Urklistre (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation Complete

I've finished the translation of this page. Thanks for letting me work :P --Kraftlos (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

The criteria for speedy deletion says: Transwikied articles. Any article that either consists only of a dictionary definition or that has been discussed at Articles for deletion with an outcome to move it to another wiki, after it has been properly moved and the author information recorded.

This is not merely a dictionary defnition and will eventually tie into a lot of other articles. I'm of course going to add to it after I translate the useful parts.

I just put this page and it doesn't link to anything yet. I'm not a member of any translation group so I am not aware of any transwiki space to place this in. Its not a very long article, and the French in this article isn't very complicated. I should be done with it very soon. Give me a little time. --Kraftlos (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Citation Needed" in quote

There's a citation needed mark put inside a quote from someone from NEC, but the quote itself has a source marked on it. Shouldn't this be removed? 86.3.111.41 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

History of 16:10 standard

Since the 16:10 standard is rather close to the 16:9 it would be interesting to read about the motivation to pass a 16:10 standard because my guess is that such displays were produced after the 16:9 standard had already been passed. What marketing and production aspects were involved here at what times? --Section6 (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Lies with a source?

In the article: 16:9 products provide higher resolution and wider aspect ratio. How the hell does aspect ration affect resolution? If anything, in this specific case of a comparison of 16:10 and 16:9, an argument could be made that 16:9 are /LOWER/ resolution. There is a citation, from a press release, that doesn't give any explanation either. It needs a better reference, or deletion.

Absolutely right 84.114.187.194 (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The statement should be removed. It's not logical and misleading. --129.7.147.112 (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced material from reliable source so definitely should not be removed. I dont find it strange either as mostly 16:9 products have higher resolution. /Jelo678 (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good source. Dont delete! "DisplaySearch is a leading global market research and consulting firm specializing in the display supply chain and providing trend information" http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/about.asp /Marararararara (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, because that source is too promotional of 16:9.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because you find something promotional doesnt mean that it is. What is your source for that claim? Wiki couldnt be written if we would listen to subjective stuff like yours. Wiki is about confirmed sources so you easily can see where the info comes from.

/GuinnessBT (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A company with specific interest in the subject is not a reliable third party source, and definitely should not be used for strong claims like this. Riagu (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

All sources have specific interests. If you have sources that claim something else then show it but dont delete sourced text. If you watch the development it is a fact that the resolution has increased since the 16:10 days. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=17

Our job is not to mindlessly repeat what a source says, but also make some kind of judgement on whether that information is factually correct or not. In this case, the move from 16:10 to 16:9 did not increase the number of pixels per square inch, but it did increase the total number of pixels in the average screen from 1280x800 (1024000 total) to 768x1366 (1049088 total), so there was a 2.5% increase in the number of pixels. So the claim is factually correct. The problem is that those extra pixels were not useful for most computer users, since it transfered them from vertical space which is critically important for reading documents and top-down computing to horizontal space, which is only useful for entertainment activities like viewing movies and gaming. I think that this article needs a section about the criticisms of the move to 9:16 and how business oriented laptops (such as Latitudes and Thinkpads) resisted the switch to 16:9 for longer than normal laptops, because their users generally demand taller screens for their types of work rather than wider screens which are generally used for entertainment purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amosbatto (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, read net market share to see how the resolution has increased. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=17 As you say. The article may be complimented but we shall not delete facts. /Urklistre (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

All that chart shows is that in most cases 16:9 resolutions are more common than the respective 16:10 resolutions (1600x900 being the exception). Compared to the same chart from 2009, high resolutions have only gained a couple of percentage points, but overall still hover around ~10% of the market. At the same time, the three lowest standard resolutions for each aspect ratio (1024x768, 1280x800 and 1366x768, for 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9, respectively) make up ~40% of the market.

At any rate, it's one thing to claim that "displays in 2012 have higher resolutions than displays n years ago", and a completely different thing to claim that "displays in 2012 have higher resolutions than displays n years ago thanks to the move to 16:9". Correlation does not imply causation and all that. The latter might actually be impossible to prove conclusively, unless you have access to an alternate universe where the move to 16:9 never happened. Indrek (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant for the subject because it isnt said so in the article. /Urklistre (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. Quote: "16:9 products provide higher resolution". It's equivalent to claiming that "products have higher resolutions thanks to the move to 16:9". Indrek (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Monitors have higher resolution now than 2009 which make your post totally pointless./Urklistre (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Monitors have higher resolution now than 2009" Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

"which make your post totally pointless" Just because you failed to see the point doesn't mean there isn't any. Indrek (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop trolling. I allready gave you the link./Urklistre (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. I already explained why that link doesn't show that monitors in 2012 have higher resolutions than in 2009, much less that something like that would be thanks to the move to 16:9 aspect ratios (which is what the article is claiming and what this discussion is about). If you'd like to dispute my explanation and offer a counterargument, please do so properly, instead of simply ignoring my points and resorting to ad hominem attacks (see also WP:PERSONAL). Indrek (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Your investigations are irrelevant for the thread. We don't do own research. The question is what caused the transition from 16:10 to 16:9. Displaysearch has made research to answer the question which is written about in the article. If you have any sources on the same subject please post those in the article./Urklistre (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A bit hypocritical, don't you think? Seeing as you're the one who started doing OR by inferring things from that NetMarketshare chart. But fair enough - both of our investigations are irrelevant. Here's some investigation by someone else that might be more relevant. I've also expanded the section to be more than just a copy&paste from that DisplaySearch report, as well as added references to opposing opinions. Indrek (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is good that you write about those subjects. However stay away from subjective comments like "vertical pixels are more important than horizontal pixels for productivity."./Urklistre (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is good that you're concerned about the quality of the article. However don't assume everything you don't agree with is a subjective comment and should be removed. Those statements that you keep deleting are taken directly from the cited sources. Indrek (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It still is a subjective comment no matter if it is sourced or not. If I find 3 sources that claims that blue is more beautiful than red. Does that mean that blue is more beautiful than red?

Unless there are research behind statements it is just opinions.

/Urklistre (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember that Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If you have a problem with the references, then say so, but arguing that the statements are subjective just because you disagree with them is unconstructive.

Also, if you have three sources saying blue is more beautiful than red and that is relevant to the article at hand, then reporting that some people believe blue is more beautiful than red would be perfectly acceptable. Just like in the current article it's perfectly acceptable to report that some people believe 16:10 is better, because the refs clearly prove it.

So, once again, please stop removing statements that are clearly backed by existing references, and focus your attention on parts of the article in actual need of improvement (like the tablet and mobile phone sections you recently added). Indrek (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Just show the research or back off. People say different opinions everyday so your style would mean endless editwars on wikipedia. If some people say something doesnt mean that it is. /Urklistre (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What research? Every single statement in that section is backed by the existing references. Again, if you have a problem with the references, then say so. If not, then kindly stop removing that content. Indrek (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to understand one thing. Your sources show that some people thinks that vertical pixels is more important than horizontal pixels for productivity. Nothing else. /Urklistre (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And you need to understand that that's exactly what the article is (or was, before your edit warring) reporting. Nothing else. Indrek (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I quote you: "productivity-oriented tasks (such as Internet browsing, editing documents or spreadsheets, and using professional design or engineering applications), which benefit more from vertical resolution, rather than horizontal." You claim that those tasks enefit more from vertical resolution, rather than horizontal but opinions isnt enough for such claim./Urklistre (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think the wording was ambiguous, then you could well have suggested a better one. Removing information that was clearly backed by the references and relevant to the subject was not an acceptable course of action. Indrek (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The information wasnt backed up by references. It is no information. It is opinions./Urklistre (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no rule against reporting on opinions, if those opinions come from reliable sources (which they do) and are relevant to the subject matter (which they are). So you were still removing referenced, relevant information. Indrek (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no such rule. The problem with your text was that you claimed that the opinions were facts./Urklistre (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. Perhaps you misread the text, or perhaps it was ambiguous. In either case, your choosing to start an edit war over what could have been resolved amicably on the talk page was not acceptable behaviour.

In order to bring this dispute to a close, I've amended the original text to remove the possible ambiguity. The new version should leave no doubt that the opinion being reported on is that of the cited sources, not of me (or any other editor). I hope you find it more to your liking. If not, kindly propose an improved version rather than simply removing the content again. Indrek (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Per an AN3 report, I have protected the page for 48 hours. I see there's a discussion here, and I'd like you to discuss without reverting. Should the matter be resolved before the 48 hours is up, let me know and I'll unprotect it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Inderek you start to get tiresome. Constantly you write opinions as facts. "which are considered to benefit more from vertical resolution, rather than horizontal." another biased line from you. Just because some people consider that doesnt mean that it is considered. Your bias starts to get really irritating. Of course I will correct this sentence in 48 hours.

"The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 has been met with a mixed response. While the lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, has been seen as a positive, some consider 16:10 more suitable for productivity-oriented tasks (such as Internet browsing, editing documents or spreadsheets, and using professional design or engineering applications)."

Could we agree on this and end this farse?

/Urklistre (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Just because some people consider that doesnt mean that it is considered" That's exactly what it means.

The references show that the people whose opinion the disputed paragraph represents believe that productivity-oriented tasks (like the ones listed in the paragraph) benefit from vertical resolution more than horizontal, and therefore 16:10 is more suited for these tasks than 16:9. If you still don't believe me, I'll quote several of the references below (emphasis mine in all cases):

• "Browsing the Internet for example usually benefits from more height than width /---/ The same is true for word processing"
• "For movie editing the extra vertical resolution of the 16:10 display has benefits"
• "I have a widescreen laptop. It's the Lenovo ThinkPad T61 Widescreen. It comes with a 14.1-inch widescreen but has a 16:10 aspect ratio. Its extra inch of height is vitally important to me."
• "We have things like the menubar and Dock taking up screen space at the top and bottom of the display. Go to a 16:9 display, and you have no room for them when you're working with HD content. I think that's a compelling argument for not going 16:9 for computer displays."
• "most of the content work with, whether documents, spreadsheets, or web pages, is either vertical or, in some cases, squarish shaped."

Therefore saying that productivity-oriented tasks "are considered to benefit more from vertical resolution, rather than horizontal" is not subjective or biased because it accurately represents the opinion of the cited sources, as evidenced by the quoted statements above. And, since pretty much every cited source states this in some form or other, it follows that this is an important opinion that a number of people share, and therefore should be reported if the paragraph is to be unbiased.

Once again, if you disagree with the reliability of the sources, then say so. If you think the reason some people prefer 16:10 over 16:9 has nothing to do with the extra vertical resolution (with what, then?), then produce sources that prove that. But please don't keep shooting down an accurate and relevant piece of information as "subjective" and "biased". Indrek (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

They are just some people that consider those tasks to benefit more from vertical resolution, rather than horizontal. Their opinion isnt more valid than mine or yours. They are no experts.

so change to

"which by some people are considered to benefit more from vertical resolution, rather than horizontal."/Urklistre (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also add "Others thinks that 16:9 is ideal for productivity."

http://lifehacker.com/5616859/is-the-multiple+monitor-productivity-boost-a-myth

"My take: there's an optimal number of pixels you need to complete the tasks you need to complete. Worry about that number, not the number of monitors you have. That optimal number, for the vast majority of people is about 2500x1400. In 2003—before widescreen became commonplace—it was the case that 2 17-20"(2560 pixels wide) LCDs was the only affordable way to acquire an optimal number of pixels. Today, you can pick up a 27 inch display with 2560x1440 pixels along with a computer attached to it for under $1500. This number of pixels allows you to accomplish most tasks—whether it's writing code and debugging, writing a blog post and reading primary sources, or editing one spreadsheet with data from another." /Urklistre (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"They are just some people /---/ Their opinion isnt more valid than mine or yours." Sure. So go and get a piece published in, say, PC Magazine or Engadget about how you don't think vertical resolution has anything to do with productivity, and I'll be happy to edit the article accordingly and add you as a reference, so that your opinion is represented fairly. Until then, their opinion is more valid than mine or yours, unless you can come up with a good reason why the sources shouldn't be considered reliable.

"which by some people are considered to benefit more from vertical resolution, rather than horizontal." That's a good start, and I'm happy to see you're willing to compromise. However, I think the wording is a bit clunky, as the words "some" and "consider" are repeated in close proximity. How about the following?

"some believe productivity-oriented tasks (such as ...) to benefit more from vertical resolution rather than horizontal, and thus consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for such tasks."

As for that Lifehacker article, I don't see how it's relevant. It doesn't say anything about aspect ratios, but rather compares several lower-resolution monitors against one higher-resolution one vis-à-vis productivity. That the higher-resolution monitor recommended happens to have a 16:9 aspect ratio doesn't mean the author wouldn't be even happier to recommend a 16:10 2560x1600 monitor instead. Inferring from that article that "Others thinks that 16:9 is ideal for productivity" is not only OR, it's non sequitur. Indrek (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The resolution that lifehacker mentions as ideal productivity is fictional (2500x1400) but 16:9. It would be really strange if the wiki article claims that the aspect ratio of the ideal resolution for productivity, isnt good for productivity. What a contradiction.

The whole problem with your sources is that they speak about some specific sizes of 16:9 and also some specific resolutions. Like the article "Time to ditch awful HD 1080p widescreens". Which has nothing to do with 16:9 actually. Just a specific size of 1920x1080 screens.

The article shouldnt say "which by some people are considered to benefit more from vertical resolution, rather than horizontal." because it is linked with specific sizes and resolution. It gets false when 1080 screens is translated to 16:9 like in this example. /Urklistre (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just read through your links. None of them claims that 16;9 as aspect ratio is worse for productivity. They talk about specific sizes and resolutions./Urklistre (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The resolution given as a ballpark (2500x1400) may be fictional, but the actual example given (2560x1440) isn't. At any rate, that 2560x1440 (or 2500x1400) is "the ideal resolution for productivity" is just the opinion of that author (or actually, your opinion, because the author doesn't use the word "ideal" anywhere, so inferring it is OR). This doesn't invalidate the opinions of the sources I've cited, nor produce a contradiction, because it's natural that people disagree (like we're doing right now). In fact, we don't even know that there is a disagreement because the Lifehacker article doesn't say anything about aspect ratios, therefore any contradiction exists purely in your imagination.

As for the sources I provided, I see no such problem with them that you state. Half of them don't even mention resolutions at all when comparing aspect ratios (or, in some cases, even anywhere in the article), so that already disproves your blanket statement. The others mention a number of different resolutions in different aspect ratios as examples, which I don't see a problem with, seeing as providing examples is a common way of backing up one's arguments and opinions. At any rate, in all cases the overall conclusion is the same - that 16:9 displays provide less of the important vertical resolution than 16:10 displays. You may disagree with how they arrived at that conclusion, but that doesn't invalidate the sources themselves.

As for reading the sources, I frankly find it insulting that you suggest I do so (which I have, repeatedly), when you yourself clearly have not, for if you had, you would not be making demonstrably fallacious statements like "None of them claims that 16;9 as aspect ratio is worse for productivity". For your convenience, I'll post some more quotes below (once again, emphasis mine):

• "For those who use their PCs for normal desktop tasks such as browsing and writing emails and documents, 16:10 is therefore a better choice at most screen sizes." If A is better than B, then it logically follows that B is worse than A. Also, no mention of specific resolutions.
• "This unfortunate 'feature' makes the HD 1080p 16:9 aspect ratio inefficient and frustrating to work with for any length of time, because it means working with partial pages and therefore continual scrolling." You may not agree with how the author appears to be equating 1080p with 16:9, but that doesn't invalidate the author's opinion.
• " excellent for HD, Blu-ray movies, and gaming, but my support for it stops somewhat short of everyday computing tasks." Again, no mention of specific resolutions.
• "Go to a 16:9 display, and you have no room for when you're working with HD content. I think that's a compelling argument for not going 16:9 for computer displays."
• "After all, 1280x1024 has more pixels than 1366x768, and also arranged in much more useful proportion from a typical computer user's point of view - 5:4 or 4:3 aspect leaves you with MUCH more useful document viewing and editing space. Same applies for the 1920x1080, where cutting the vertical resolution makes the screen just unsuitable enough for full 2-page document or web page viewing or editing." Granted, the comparison is with non-widescreen resolutions, but 16:10 is still described as "useful" while 16:9 is described as "over elongated", "unsuitable enough for full 2-page document or web page viewing or editing" and "irritating", and the overall conclusion with regards to 16:9 is the same as that of the other cited sources.

If you believe that not all of the sources fully support the preceding statement in its entirety, then perhaps it would be an acceptable solution to distribute the refs throughout the sentence, so that no ref directly follows a statement that isn't blindingly obvious from the source itself? For instance, refs that mention document or spreadsheet editing would be placed after "editing documents or spreadsheets"; refs that mention design or engineering applications would be placed after "using professional design or engineering applications"; and so on. Whatever refs are left would remain at the end of the sentence. Personally I don't think this is necessary, as the sentence is short and I believe all cited sources are in sufficient agreement with it, but in the interests of resolving the dispute I'd find that an acceptable solution. Plus, if more sources are added in the future, it would help prevent the list at the end of the sentence becoming too long (which it actually may already be). Indrek (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some people obviously find 16:10 better for productivity.

Some people obviously find 16:9 better for productivity.

"My take: there's an optimal number of pixels you need to complete the tasks you need to complete. Worry about that number, not the number of monitors you have. That optimal number, for the vast majority of people is about 2500x1400." http://lifehacker.com/5616859/is-the-multiple+monitor-productivity-boost-a-myth

But it is just opinions and should be referred as such by wikipedia.

/Urklistre (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Some people obviously find 16:9 better for productivity."

In other words, please provide references that back that statement up. Assuming, of course, that the purpose of making that statement was to get it included in the article in some form. If not, then what was the purpose of that statement?

Also, can I assume that you're hereby withdrawing your original objections and agree to my proposed wording of the sentence? I certainly hope so, seeing as I have addressed all your concerns and arguments so far. Indrek (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see your revisions until after I posted my response. Yes, those are just opinions, and referring to them as such is what I've been trying to do. However, I'd like to see a source that shows that, quote, "Some people obviously find 16:9 better for productivity", before that particular opinion is included in the article. And no, the Lifehacker article doesn't count because, as I've said ad nauseum already, it makes no mention of aspect ratios whatsoever. The opinion in that article is that high resolutions are good for productivity. Indrek (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Noobs believe that 16:10 has more pixels than 16:9 which makes those noobs comments about productivity totally irrelevant./Urklistre (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss noob sources. The ones you have posted should be deleted because they are not serious.

Back to the article.. It should be

"The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 has been met with a mixed response. While the lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, has been seen as a positive, some consider 16:10 more suitable for productivity-oriented tasks such as Internet browsing, editing documents or spreadsheets."/Urklistre (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point it's pretty obvious that we're not going to reach a consensus. I've filed a request for a third opinion. Meanwhile, would you care to explain why exactly you think the sources I've provided are "not serious"? Indrek (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Because those source of yours make quite alot of bold satatements without any research behind it what so ever. If they would have been serious they wouldnt claim anything that they can't back up with facts. Those guys texts wouldnt even pass in high school because you need to back up your statements even in such low level. /Urklistre (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Part critisize 16:9

Going to write this: "The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 has been met with a mixed response. While the lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, has been seen as a positive, some consider the mainstream 16:9 resolutions 1366x768 and 1920x1080 to have to few vertical pixels for productivity-oriented tasks such as Internet browsing, editing documents or web design."/Urklistre (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good wording. Like I explained above, half of the sources don't even mention any specific resolutions, and the others only use them as examples, so wording the sentence in a way that implies that only two resolutions (1366x768 and 1920x1080) are the ones considered inferior for productivity is OR.

Instead of going ahead with edits for which there is currently no consensus, please wait a few days to see if a third opinion is provided. If not, then there are other avenues of dispute resolution at our disposal.

Also, is there any specific reason you want to remove some of the examples I took from the sources (specifically, "spreadsheets" and "professional design or engineering applications")? Indrek (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. We wait for a third opinion on the parts where there is no consensus making it:

"The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 has been met with a mixed response. While the lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, has been seen as a positive, some consider 16:10 more suitable for productivity-oriented tasks such as Internet browsing, editing documents or web design."

One source for that is enough. Wiki is no link base.

The reason about the examples is that three is enough to explain what productivity tasks means. You may even question if any examples at all is necessary but three is a good compromise./Urklistre (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you're also disputing the specific examples to give, it means there's no consensus about that part either, and thus the whole sentence should be left at its current state (as it was when the article was protected) until the dispute is resolved. Depending on the eventual outcome of the dispute, the sentence as a whole might require significant rewrites anyway.

Also, the current version of the sentence already includes three examples. Although if you really think that's still too much, I'd rather leave out Internet browsing, resulting in the following:

"some consider 16:10 more suitable for productivity-oriented tasks (such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using professional design or engineering applications)"

Is that acceptable to you?

As for refs, while I agree that the current 6 is probably too much, I think at least 3 should be given. One is definitely too little when reporting on opinions on a controversial subject. Do you have any specific refs in mind for removal, or are you willing to defer that task to me? Indrek (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything that there is no consensus about should be removed. No matter if you or I wrote it. The sentence that is in the article now saying that "which are considered to benefit more from vertical resolution, rather than horizontal." is simply false./Urklistre (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with 3 sources if they would have been actual factual with research behind it. But they are just opinions by some people and many of them actually contain false statements. The only one without factual errors that I have found is the 1080p one. Still it is just his opinion./Urklistre (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But I can accept "some consider 16:10 more suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications"

Really the important thing is that the article isnt claim that one aspect ratio is better for productivity than another, because people have different opinions and there are no research to back up those opinions./Urklistre (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Everything that there is no consensus about should be removed. No matter if you or I wrote it." Misplaced Pages's policy for no consensus on content disputes is, quote, "no change being made to the article". Now, to be honest, I'm not sure if that means no changes should be made to the current version of the article, or to the version immediately preceeding the one where the disputed content was added (in our case, this one), but I don't think that it's a good idea to roll all the way back to the pre-dispute revision as it would also result in the removal of non-disputed content. I therefore maintain that we should refrain from any further edits to disputed content, until the dispute is resolved. Certainly if there were any fundamental problems with the current version, the moderator would have removed the content before protecting the article. Remember also that Misplaced Pages is not about winning.

As for the list of examples, we are in agreement, then, and I have no objections to that part of the sentence being edited to your last proposed wording.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, other than to point out that I have already explained that it's OK to report on opinions and that your disagreement with those opinions is not relevant. Until then I'll be waiting for a third opinion. Indrek (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the version before the dispute which according to the rules should be present. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=16:10&oldid=501353861

If there will be another edit war then we simply post the predispute version above./Urklistre (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

However, reading our conversation again it appears that we have an agreement: ""some consider 16:10 more suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications""/Urklistre (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Some links sources for that sentence needs to be removed also as agreed on earlier./Urklistre (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you have decided not to wait for a third opinion, but have instead chosen to go ahead with your non-consensus edit and removal of relevant and sourced opinions (thus violating WP:NPOV), based on nothing more than your personal assessment of the truthfulness of those sources and opinions (thus violating WP:VERIFY). I have therefore rolled the article back to the pre-dispute revision that I linked to above (indicated by you as an acceptable intermediate solution), and would appreciate it if you refrained from any further edits to the disputed section, until the dispute is resolved. Indrek (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had an agreement. There are no sources for the actual claim. If I share my opinion somewhere in a wiki source where I write that "16:9 is more productive than 16:10". Then the wiki article should say "Urklistre consider 16:9 to be more productive than 16:10" not "16:9 is considered to be more productive than 16:10.". Do you really not understand the difference?

Also the actual content must be legit. Wiki shouldnt consist of opinions. People have so many opinions. Wiki is about facts, not opinions.

Or shall we start to add all negative opinions on 16:10 available as well? This article would soon be a complete mess./Urklistre (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We had an agreement about certain parts of the sentence. You went ahead and edited/removed other parts that there was no consensus about. Hence the rollback.

"it is considered", "some consider", "some believe", etc. are just different ways of saying the same thing. WP:NPOV states that all relevant opinions backed by reliable sources should be represented fairly in the article. That "16:10 is better for productivity than 16:9 due to the increase in vertical resolution" is a significant and relevant opinion and thus should be represented. Impersonal passive voice was used simply because there's no reason to list each and every individual that shares that opinion by name. The fact that you disagree with those opinions or think they are false doesn't even factor into the argument, because Misplaced Pages's threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.

I'm going to repeat one of my previous suggestions for the sentence (that you inexplicably ignored the first time):

"some believe productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, to benefit more from vertical resolution rather than horizontal and thus consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for such tasks"

Can you accept that wording? It accurately represents the opinion of the cited sources, does not misrepresent that opinion as fact, and does not lead the reader into thinking that this is necessarily a majority opinion. Do you have any objections to that wording?

And yes, like I've said already, if you can get your opinion that "16:9 is more productive than 16:10" published in a reliable source, then I would be more than happy to include it in the article. Likewise if you can produce sources that show negative opinions about 16:10. So far you have done neither. Indrek (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

But that sentence it self is a paradox because if that would be true 4:3 would be way more productive than 16:10. Also studies have shown that 16:9 is more productive than 4:3. http://productivepractices.com/content/monitors_and_productivity.php

Opinions that are in contradiction with actual facts shouldnt be given such space.

"Study data says the a single 24" wide-screen monitor (16:9 aspect ratio) or two 20" standard monitors (4:3 aspect ratio) produce the highest level of productivity."/Urklistre (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, WP:NPOV mandates the inclusion of all relevant and significant opinions. Exclusion of such opinions therefore violates that policy which, quote, "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". It doesn't matter if you disagree with those opinions. It doesn't matter if you find opposing opinions. It doesn't matter if you find research that contradicts those opinions. The latter two only qualify such opposing opinions or research for inclusion, not the disputed opinions for exclusion.

As for the website you cited, I don't see anything there that compares 16:9 with 16:10, and inferring anything like that therefore constitutes OR. If anything, it's similar to that Lifehacker article you linked to earlier, comparing the effects of single vs. multiple monitors on productivity. It might be relevant in 16:9, for instance, but its reliability as a secondary source should be carefully verified, seeing as the primary sources it cites are not available for public viewing (the first one costs $2000 to view and the second and third links are broken).

As for 4:3 being better for productivity than 16:10, if you can find reliable sources that claim something like that, feel free to amend the Industry moves towards 16:10 from 2003 to 2008 section accordingly. But let's try to stay on topic here, okay? Indrek (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The opinions you talk about are neither relevant or significant. The research is though./Urklistre (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It is intresting that you have deleted research and instead added some opinions that you have found on low quality blogs. The predispute version should remain because it is more objective and simply higher quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urklistre (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"The opinions you talk about are neither relevant or significant" Care to explain why you think that?

"It is intresting that you have deleted research" What research? If you're referring to that DisplaySearch study, then I didn't delete it, I simply rewrote that part of the article from its previous form, which was just a copy&paste job from the DisplaySearch website (per Misplaced Pages's policies, sources should be summarised in own words as much as possible). If you think I did an inadequate job, then say so and suggest a better wording, but don't throw around baseless accusations.

"added some opinions that you have found on low quality blogs" Precisely which of the sources I provided do you consider "low quality blogs", pray tell? TweakGuides.com, which is used as a reference in a number of Misplaced Pages articles about games and display technologies? The Inquirer, PC Mag and VR-Zone, reputable tech news sites? Lowendmac.com, a known good source of information on Macintosh computers? Only the last one might be considered a blog (though for some reason you haven't disputed its use as a ref in the lead paragraph), which leads me to believe that you still haven't actually read any of them.

For what it's worth, my recommendation as to which refs to keep (per our agreement above to trim the number down to three) would be The Inquirer, PC Mag and VR-Zone. Indrek (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

3O

Hello, I saw this dispute on the 3O message board and would like to try and help solve it. The dispute is a little hard to follow so I suggest each of you post the exact wording you think belongs in the article, with the relevant sources, and I'll try to comment on those. OK? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. My proposed wording would be as follows:

While the lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, has been seen as a positive, some believe productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, to benefit more from vertical resolution rather than horizontal and thus consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for such tasks.

If it helps, you can also read my attempt at summarising the dispute at WP:DRN. Indrek (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the sources. PCmag is a good one, and the fact it's written by the former Editor in Chief makes it even better. I wasn't familiar with theinquirer.net, but the author seems to be quite prolific on tech matters over several publications and this specific publication has recognition from other online publications, so it also seems fine to me. Not sure (as in have no opinion either way) about vr-zone.

The text looks fine and is supported by the sources.

Let's wait to hear from the other party. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No response from the other editor for a week, even after I tried to notify him on his talk page. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Indrek (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't edited in a few weeks, but I think you can put your suggested text in the article. If he comes back in a reasonable amount of time we can decide how to deal with it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again for taking the time to chime in. Indrek (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if this flares up again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

Thought I'd explain my reversal of User:Urklistre's recent edits in a bit more detail, expanding upon my edit summaries.

• First edit. The content Urklistre reverted to is copy&pasted directly from the cited DisplaySearch article. Misplaced Pages's policies, including WP:NOR, state that sources should be summarised in own words as much as possible, hence my reverting to a version that does just that.
• Second edit. Urklistre added a number of problematic claims:

• "There has been discussion though whether 16:9 or the more squarish format 16:10 is most suitable aspect ratio for computer displays" - simply reiterates the first sentence of the paragraph (about "mixed response"), and thus doesn't add anything valuable to the article
• "Some people prefer the wider 16:9 aspect ratio better" - unsourced, or at best reiterates the preceding sentence ("The lower cost of ...") and thus doesn't add anything valuable to the article
• "while others prefer the higher 16:10 and use the golden ratio as an argument" - unsourced (even the pro-16:10 sources I've provided don't use golden ratio as an argument, one merely mentions it in passing)

Due to the problems above, I removed those claims.

• Third edit. Urklistre removed several valid examples despite the fact that they're taken directly from cited sources, without any explanation beyond a vague mention of "false rumours". I restored those examples, and also improved the sentence structure a bit (combined two simple sentences into one compound sentence).
• Fourth edit. Urklistre added a claim, citing this article on ProductivePractices.com. I don't feel the content is relevant in a section about 16:10 vs. 16:9, seeing as the source primarily discusses the effects of larger vs. smaller and multiple vs. single monitors on productivity (right from introduction: "Studies show that larger monitors increase computing productivity..."). I also have concerns about the reliability of that source, since I can't find any other websites citing or linking to them, and the actual studies the article claims to summarise either cost money to view or the links are broken. Looks like a self-published source, and since I couldn't find anything about the author (Bob Kesselmann, according to their About Us page) that would establish him as an expert in the field, I decided to remove the source and content.

To Urklistre: I hope you'll address the above points, preferrably here on the talk page, and try to work towards a consensus this time. Indrek (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont really understand what you are up to. You continue to delete important info without discussion. You delete relevant sources. And worst of all you just pretended to go back to an old version and then a few weeks later when you hoped you were "alone" in the article reposted your old version which wasnt accepted hoping that nobody would notice your move./Urklistre (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Without discussion? You're the one who failed to participate in the discussion at WP:DRN. You're the one who failed to explain your point of view right here on the talk page, after a third editor offered to try and help reach a consensus. You basically disappeared from Misplaced Pages for over three weeks as soon as the dispute moved beyond this talk page and failed to react to several notices and reminders posted on your talk page. After that, yes, I concluded that you had given up and moved on and, per advice from another editor, went ahead with my proposed changes. To which you very promptly responded by removing (without discussion or explanation) several of my additions and improvements, some of which you hadn't contested earlier in the dispute, or had even agreed to.

Now that you're apparently active on Misplaced Pages again, can you please respond to my points above, as well as to No More Mr Nice Guy's request in the previous section? Assuming, of course, that you're actually interested in reaching a consensus, rather than just winning. Indrek (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, lets go further. It still is the last part that we disagree about. If you want in that some believe that vertical pixels is more important than horizontal pixels then obviously the studies that show that this is not the case obviously are very relevant. Just come with new proposals. I am not in here to argue but to write information./Urklistre (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328932,00.asp) is that it really only talk about smaller sizes. And it is a big difference comparing 16:9 and 16:10 for small screens and big screens. Genrelly wider aspect ratios gets more and more popular the bigger screensizes we talk about. Just because someone prefer 16:10 aspect ratio in smaller screens doesnt mean that he prefers it for larger screens./Urklistre (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems we disagree about more than just the last part, since you keep removing and re-writing everything I put into the article. Can you just stop it for a moment and try to actually work towards a consensus here on the talk page? You can start by explaining why you're not satisfied with the proposed wording I posted above, as well as addressing the issues I raised about your edits. Your current policy of "edit first, discuss later (if at all)" is really not constructive. Indrek (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If Urklistre is not willing to engage in constructive discussion and keeps reverting without any policy based reasons (or even edit summaries) I'd suggest asking the admin who protected this page a few weeks ago to come here and have a look. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Urklistre, this is the last warning you're going to get. You must engage in discussion before making any further reverts. The essay is BRD, not BRRRRRDRRRRDRRRR, because the idea is to discuss after one revert and not continue reverting, not to discuss in between reverts. Is that clear? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. Inderek. Wasnt it you that claimed that wiki isnt about winning? Then stop searching under the carpet for small misstakes and just write in the article. And also if you are just as critical towards your own work as yours then we wont have a problem. /Urklistre (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just fixed one of the so called errors which Inderek complained about./Urklistre (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And what is BRD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urklistre (talk • contribs) 06:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

3O, take two

Since User:Urklistre is now active on Misplaced Pages again, let's try the WP:3O process again, which failed the previous time due to his absence.

My proposed version (same as for the first attempt at 3O, but expanded to include the whole section since Urklistre is now disputing my changes to another paragraph as well):

Around 2008-2010, there was a rapid shift by computer display manufacturers to the 16:9 aspect ratio, and by 2011, 16:10 had almost disappeared from new mass market products.

The primary reason for this move is considered to be production efficiency - since display panels for TVs use the 16:9 aspect ratio, it's more efficient for display manufacturers to produce computer display panels in the same aspect ratio as well. A 2008 report by DisplaySearch also cited a number of other reasons, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to provide higher resolutions and diversify their products, "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".

The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 has been met with a mixed response. While the lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, has been seen as a positive, some believe productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, to benefit more from vertical resolution rather than horizontal and thus consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for such tasks.

User:Urklistre's proposal (which he doesn't seem to want to post here himself): (Deleted because I have no proposal and Inderek gave me permission to change this part/Urklistre (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

Urklistre: you have permission to edit the above blockquote part of my comment that contains your proposed version (and only that part), should you wish to improve it or fill in the references. Indrek (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no such porposal. Wiki is about writing together. Not writing own articles./Urklistre (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we see a list of the sources for Urklistre's suggested text? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Urklistre has already edited his proposed version into the article, you can check the sources in the disputed section. Indrek (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Changing the article while discussion is ongoing is pretty bad form. Anyway. I don't see where any of those sources talks specifically about 1920x1080 which is mentioned in the text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no discussion about that part. I even included it in the talk page just to make sure and noone had anything negative to say about it./Urklistre (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

While we're waiting for Urklistre to respond to the above point, I'll also mention a few things that, should consensus lean towards his proposed version, I'd like to see improved.

Firstly, the second paragraph is still too much of a copy&paste from the DisplaySearch article. It should be rephrased and summarised. Also, one of the points ("better economic cuts") is just reiterating the first sentence ("production efficiency"), which is backed by its own sources, thus mentioning it again is simply redundant.

The third paragraph is, in my opinion, unnecessarily verbose. The explanation on what screen diagonal is doesn't add anything valuable to the article, and the "16:9 screens for laptops and standard 16:9 computer displays" part is likewise unnecessary, since it's already obvious that the entire section discusses computer displays. Also, the restriction of the stated problem to just certain resolutions (as pointed out by No More Mr Nice Guy above) and older, legacy applications ("...applications which at the time mostly were designed for taller aspect ratios and not wider screens...") is not backed by the sources and thus OR. Overall the wording significantly misrepresents the cited sources and seems to downplay the relevance of the opinions provided therein.

Finally, I feel the third paragraph should also provide some examples as to which applications exactly benefit from vertical resolution. The cited sources list a number of such programs, and I see no reason not to include a few of them.

On a more positive note, the mention of the suitability of 16:9 for gaming and movies is a good addition. I'd just move it to the end of the paragraph. Maybe word it something like this: "Due to most recent video games and movies taking advantage of wider aspect ratios, however, 16:9 is considered to be better for entertainment uses." (with the PC Mag article as a reference). Indrek (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the second paragraph might be a WP:COPYVIO. I'm no expert on that kind of stuff, you could ask at WP:CPN. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki isnt about people writing different articles and then have them as different proposals. Wiki is about writing together. Thats why we cant have two proposals like this. It is the info that should discussed, not the so called proposals. Why do you talk about Display search here Inderek when there is a special topic for that one. This starts to be a mess.

Since you refuse to touch anything that isnt totally written by you Inderek, we end up in this proposal thing. As I said. Wiki is about writing together. If you find something that can be improved, add new text to the article or change the current text. I do the same and the outcome is great. But since you have decided to refuse anyone to change text in the article that you have written and refuse anyone to add new text, because they are not included in your "proposal", it is nearly impossible to get this article further. Your way of changing this article is against the rules. "All users involved in the dispute should be willing to yield to consensus.".

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning

I am very open for a discussion about the info in the article. But lets do it separately based on topic and not based on so called "proposals". /Urklistre (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

part 16:10 to 16:9

This is what it says know. Are there anything that anyone wants to change? Just write your own porposal.

"The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 has been met with a mixed response. The lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, the suitability for gaming and movies along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, has been seen as a positive. Meanwhile there has been critisism towards the lack of height in 16:9 screens for laptops and smaller computer displays which according to critics have had negative effects on reading and use of applications which at the time mostly was designed for taller aspect ratios and not wider screens. Usually the screensize is given by the manufacturers as the diagonal. Because of that the screenarea is bigger for a 16:10 display with the same diagonal as 16:9 display the manufacturers has been accused of that monitors of a specific diagonal has schrinked." /Urklistre (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My proposal would be basically this revision, immediately preceding your latest set of edits.

Let's look at the changes you've made since then:

• You've again reverted my edits to the second paragraph of the section (the one that begins with "The primary reason...") and replaced them with text copy&pasted directly from the source. The only thing you've done is reformatted it from a list to a bunch of consecutive sentences. Anyway, since you're the one who started reverting, could you explain why you don't like my proposed version (copied below for your convenience)?

A 2008 report by DisplaySearch also cited a number of other reasons, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to provide higher resolutions and diversify their products, "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".

I think it adequately summarises the source, presenting the main points without being a simple copy&paste job.

• As for the third paragraph, you've also pretty much completely reverted my edits (including parts you previously didn't object to, or even had agreed to). The result is that the original point of the paragraph (why some people prefer 16:10) has been completely lost between irrelevant and/or unsourced stuff about screen sizes and an explanation about what the screen diagonal means. Again, since you're the one who started reverting, could you explain why you're not satisfied with my proposed version (again copied below)?

The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 has been met with a mixed response. While the lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, has been seen as a positive, some believe productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, to benefit more from vertical resolution rather than horizontal and thus consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for such tasks.

I think it accurately summarises the sources and presents the main points (that some people prefer 16:10, why they prefer it, and some important examples). Can you explain why you disagree?

Also, I'd once again like to ask you to just stop editing disputed content and try to work towards a consensus here on the talk page. Indrek (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is still (just as one month ago) really this sentence which isnt covered covered by sources and also isnt correct: "some believe productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, to benefit more from vertical resolution rather than horizontal and thus consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for such tasks." Based on " No More Mr Nice Guy " the sources that should be used are the Inquirer + pc mag.

Basically what PCMag says is what I have written in my proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urklistre (talk • contribs) 07:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please carefully rewrite it after actual sources because the current version wasnt accepted 1 month ago, it isnt accepted now and it will not be accepted in the future./Urklistre (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think my version is better and more correctly explains the opinions. It is also covered by sources imo. But probably the best thing is to mix up our versions so that both become satisfied. The vertical pixels vs horisontal isnt covered by sources though. Also needs to be said is that my proposal allready is a mix between your and mine text while your proposal is totally written by you.

It would be good if you could have a look at my new text also./Urklistre (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"The problem is still (just as one month ago) really this sentence which isnt covered covered by sources and also isnt correct" Can you elaborate on that? What exactly is wrong with it? User:No More Mr Nice Guy above seems to think it's fine. As for the sources, why don't you think VR-Zone is acceptable?

"the current version wasnt accepted 1 month ago, it isnt accepted now and it will not be accepted in the future" This sort of attitude isn't conducive to reaching a consensus. It isn't up to a single editor to accept or not accept changes to an article, and so far you've failed to bring up any legitimate concerns about the versions I've proposed.

"Also needs to be said is that my proposal allready is a mix between your and mine text while your proposal is totally written by you" Actually, my proposed text includes several edits made by you before the dispute, as well as compromises I thought we had reached during the dispute (but apparently you've now changed your mind about). At any rate, this is irrelevant. The decision on what to include in the article should be based on the merits of the actual content, not who wrote it. Indrek (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence isnt covered by sources and also isnt correct./Urklistre (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You already said that. I asked you to elaborate, not repeat. Indrek (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So I shall make a rewritten proposal? Ok, I will do that/Urklistre (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually cant rewrite that sentence because the sources are so different./Urklistre (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

When I rewrite it it ends up like in the proposal bellow./Urklistre (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

About including other peoples work in their proposals I agree that the author shouldnt be relevant but it is an indication of interest in collaboration and to really find a solution./Urklistre (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Before you start rewriting, shouldn't we first establish that there is even a need for a rewrite? So far you still haven't provided any legitimate reasons why you disagree with my proposed wording. I once again as you, why do you think the sentence is incorrect? Which part of it isn't backed by the sources? Why do you think one of the sources is not acceptable? Why did you remove valid examples taken directly from the sources? Vague claims à la "the sources are so different" don't really say anything and do nothing to help me (and others) understand your point of view. Indrek (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That what is said isnt covered by sources and that what is said isnt correct is very legitimate. I have spent basically a whole page in this talk page telling whats wrong with that sentence. That is more than enough. Basically we stand on the same spot about that sentence as we did July 11. Nothing has happened in 1 month. Therefor, I reference to the proposal bellow. Change it if you think it is needed and then we insert it in the article. /Urklistre (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess we're back at square one, because I've already addressed those complaints of yours weeks ago, during the original dispute, quoting the relevant parts of the sources and showing exactly how they back up my proposed version of the sentence. Since you don't seem to be coming up with anything new and the dispute seems to have reached an impasse once more, I suggest we simply post our proposed versions and try to get a third opinion again.

Please post your proposed version (the whole section, since you're now disputing most of it) here. Indrek (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You have not showed that it is covered by the sources and you can't because it simply isnt. I am only disputing 'that' sentence. The proposed version are the article + the part bellow. The version bellow is not disputed so it should be the obvious choice! If you have no complaints about it I will post it in the article. /Urklistre (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're not disputing my rewriting of that copy&paste job from the DisplaySearch article, then why did you revert it?

At any rate, I posted your proposed version above, next to mine (combined from "the article + the part bellow", as you specified). Let's wait for a third opinion, okay? Indrek (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If your text is the same as earlier then it can't be in the article. It is not correct and you really need to cover such controversial and groundbreaking claims with sources.

I will add the text bellow because there is no dispute about it./Urklistre (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So this part is ok? Can it be inserted it in the article?

"The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 has been met with a mixed response. The lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, the suitability for gaming and movies along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, has been seen as a positive. Meanwhile there has been critisism towards the lack of height in 16:9 screens for laptops and standard 16:9 computer displays with the resolution 1920x1080 which according to critics have had negative effects on reading and use of applications which at the time mostly were designed for taller aspect ratios and not wider screens. Usually the screensize is given as the diagonal by the manufacturer. The screenarea with a specific diagonal is bigger for a 16:10 display than a 16:9 display, and the manufacturers have been accused of schrinking their monitors." /Urklistre (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Display search

About Display search I see no reason to not write down all their points as it is the only study done in why the industry went 16:9. Why dont Inderek want to do that?/Urklistre (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the source should be summarised, not copy&pasted. If you can think of a wording that covers all the points without simply plagiarising the source, feel free to propose it here. Indrek (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. I have allready done that. Please check it out and change if the wording can be improved. /Urklistre (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten to actually post your proposal. At least I can't see anything here on the talk page. And the version in the article is still basically the same old copy&paste job. Indrek (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The text is different from the actual source. But obviously the actual content will be similar because what is said must be covered by sources./Urklistre (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Paper Size

There should also be a section about paper sizes with 16:10 Aspect ratio. Here are mentioened in Paper size article:

Junior Legal = 203 mm × 127 mm Index card = 203 mm × 127 mm Index card = 127 mm × 76 mm

Other sizes are welcomed. --129.7.147.112 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles