Talk:Computer display standard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer graphics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

5120x2160[edit]

5120x2160, listed here as 'unnamed', is referred to by vendors of such displays (LG and especially Samsung) as "5K" but also "Wide UHD". Enough to qualify inclusion here? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that 5120x2880 will be more popular (having the standard 16:9 aspect ratio at 16x 720p), as the first monitor with that resolution was announced yesterday by Dell. Neuhaus (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

nxn[edit]

I question Makyen's edit of 2014 January 2:

Change all n×n to nxn per WP:MOS#Common mathematical symbols and WP:DATE#Common mathematical symbols. Gen fixes. using AWB

The two passages cited (MOS:COMMONMATH and WP:COMMONMATH respectively) say:

For a multiplication sign between numbers, use × (Unicode character U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN), which is input by clicking on it in the edit toolbox under the edit window or by typing ×. The letter x should not be used to indicate multiplication, but it is used (unspaced) as the substitute for "by" in terms such as 4x4.
Do not use the letter "x" to indicate multiplication. However, an unspaced "x" may be used as a substitute for "by" in common terms such as "4x4".

Neither passage prefers the letter, though they allow it for "common terms". Incidentally, 4x4 redirects to Four-wheel drive, whose lead sentence contains 4×4 (with the × symbol, not the letter). —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about this at WT:MOSDATE earlier this year, with no clear consensus reached (other than that articles should probably use one or the other throughout). Consequently, both "x" and "×" are currently in use.
As for the specific edit you refer to, while it's true that "x" is merely allowed, do note that unspaced "×" is expressly forbidden. Also, FWIW, the phrasing of the MOS sections you cite was changed repeatedly (including wikilinking "4x4") after @Makyen's edit. Indrek (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I support using the actual multiplication sign, since it allows better legibility, given that the multiplication sign is smaller, has more space at edges, and thus allows to distinguish numbers better: see 4x4 vs 4×4.
Another argument for using the multiplication sign is that a construct in 2048×1536 px format is a multiplication in and of itself, because when calculated, it results in approximately 3.15 megapixels.
One caveat to exclusivey preferring the multiplication sign is that many older devices, such as Internet-enabled feature phones, are in some cases unable to display that character due mostly to poor UTF-8 support. While most mobile devices are now smartphones, phablets and tablets equipped with modern mobile operating systems, the usage share of which is steadily growing and in some advanced markets having already reached a saturation rate, then millions of Internet-enabled feature phones are still in use, despite their age and limited functionality. -Mardus (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Another argument for using the multiplication sign is that a construct in 2048×1536 px format is a multiplication in and of itself, because when calculated, it results in approximately 3.15 megapixels. That's actually incorrect. Resolutions are defined by pixel counts in both dimensions, not the total pixel count. Multiplication merely determines one attribute of the resolution (total pixel count), just like division determines another one (aspect ratio). The purpose of the symbol between the numbers is to delimit them, rather than to imply any specific mathematical operation. Indrek (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Multiplication merely determines one attribute of the resolution (total pixel count) — Which is what I was arguing for. The total pixel count is useful in relation to comparing them to resolutions of digital cameras. btw, Thaks for introducing the {{tq}} template to me. -Mardus (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned, there was a long discussion about this at MOS. The underlying issue is that WP:MOS explicitly makes the "N×N" not permitted. If "×" is used then a space on both sides and units for both numbers must be provided. Thus, it would be "N pixels × N pixels". Any discussion we have here can not, as a matter of policy (WP:Local consensus), override that.
At the beginning of that discussion I was more-or-less ambivalent about the use of one or the other. The fact that multiple people brought up the argument that "×" should be used because it is an inherent multiplication indicates to me that there is confusion as to what is actually represented. It appeared that the use of the multiplication symbol helps foster this misunderstanding. Because of that I am against the use of the "×" symbol as a separator.— Makyen (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In my default font (Lucida Sans), ‘×’ is wider than ‘x’, but I don't mind. —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk page archiving[edit]

This talk page has archive instructions for both Indexerbot and MiszaBot, plus two archive search boxes. I would delete one, but I don't know which one should go. Ringbang (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mizabot and HBC Archive Indexerbot configurations are for two separate bots which are intended to coexist. Neither should be removed. The Mizabot configuration directs the actual archiving (now performed by User:lowercase sigmabot III). The HBC Archive Indexerbot config direct the archives to be indexed and the index to be stored at Talk:Computer display standard/Archive index. However, the bots which used to do the indexing are basically dead at this point. There has been some discussion of getting one back working, or a new one. — Makyen (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)