Talk:16:10 aspect ratio

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)

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)

outdated

This article needs updates. Things changes rapidly in electronics./HGJ345 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I see you tagged the article with several issues. Can you elaborate on them a bit? Specifically:

• Which sources exactly do you feel are not reliable?
• Which part of the article do you feel is written like a personal essay? I can't see anything in the article that would match that description.
• Which parts of the article exactly do you feel are outdated?

Thanks. Indrek (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole part starting with "The shift from 16:10 to 16:9....". Me and many other 16:10 users hate 16:9 for gaming. Still as much as I want it to be true it is wrong to say that "productivity-oriented tasks are designed for taller~screens". The problems using 16:10 have incresead in recent years and I am mad at those developers who have decided to make 16:9 main stream./HGJ345 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The whole part starting with "The shift from 16:10 to 16:9....". Does that mean all the problems you added pertain only to that section? If so, you should have flagged just the section, not the entire article.

Me and many other 16:10 users hate 16:9 for gaming. So do I, but unless you can find a reliable source saying that 16:10 is better for gaming, I'm afraid that's irrelevant.

it is wrong to say that "productivity-oriented tasks are designed for taller~screens". How is it wrong? Can you provide a reliable source saying that most productivity applications are designed for wider screens now? As far as I know, there's just the most recent version of Word and Excel.

The problems using 16:10 have incresead in recent years What problems? The only real problem is the lack of 16:10 displays, but the article already covers that.

So far you haven't provided anything that would justify the flags you added. Please explain a) exactly which sources you think are unreliable; b) exactly which part of the article is written as a personal essay and how; and c) exactly what changes have taken place in the electronics industry that this article doesn't cover but should. Indrek (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources in that section isnt reliable. With no polls is it just taken out of the blue./HGJ345 (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources in that section isnt reliable. Which sources exactly, please? Can you actually name a specific source (or several sources) that are used in that section and say in what way it fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria for sources?

With no polls is it just taken out of the blue. I'm afraid I don't understand this part at all. What polls? What is taken out of the blue?

Also, just to clarify, do you see any problems with the rest of the article, or is it just this section? Indrek (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been over a week since the templates were added, and since no reasonable explanation or clarification as to the exact nature of the issues has been given, I've removed the templates. If re-adding them, please describe the actual issues here so they can be fixed. Indrek (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources in that section. Don't remove templates just because you want. You have done so twice now. Wikipedia is about consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making /HGJ345 (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove the templates "just because I want". I removed them because you failed to give any valid reasons for their presence despite repeated requests by me to do so.

I'll ask one more time - exactly which sources in "that section" do you think are not reliable? Please list the actual sources used in the article, along with the reasons why you think they're not reliable. Right now you're being so incredibly vague it's impossible to actually act upon the templates and try to fix whatever problems you think the article has. Indrek (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As for consensus, the way that's achieved is that, quote, "editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". That's what I expect you to do - persuade me about the existence of the problems that the templates claim. Right now you're not doing that, and are completely ignoring my direct requests for more information, instead offering the same vague allegations over and over. That's not constructive behaviour. Indrek (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have allready answered your question "The sources in that section isnt reliable." Yes, all of them. It is just a bunch of people sharing their personal opinions./HGJ345 (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"Yes, all of them." All of them? Including established tech news sites like Engadget, PC Mag, Tech Report and The Inquirer? I should mention that all of the sources in that section have been met with editor consensus; some have even been verified at WP:RSN as reliable.

"It is just a bunch of people sharing their personal opinions." So? There's no rule that Wikipedia cannot report on people's personal opinions, so long as those opinions are published in a reliable source and are relevant to the article. The sources in question meet both of those criteria, so I'm not seeing a problem here. Indrek (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "outdated" and "essay" templates since there have been absolutely no reasons given for their presence. I'm leaving the "unreliable sources" template for a little longer, but if no further explanation is given, I'm going to remove that as well. Indrek (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And I've been reverted again. Please understand that this isn't an issue of consensus (or lack thereof), this is an issue of you failing to give any valid reasons for the presence of those templates. I'll ask one more time:

• How exactly is the article outdated? What new developments have occurred in this field that the article should cover but doesn't?
• Which parts of the article are written like a personal essay, and how? Please provide specific examples (e.g. cite relevant sentences or phrases that are written to reflect an editor's point of view, rather than a source's).
• Which sources exactly do you think aren't reliable, and why? Keep in mind what I pointed out above - that simply because a source reports on someone's opinion doesn't automatically mean it's unreliable.

Kindly provide answers to all of the above questions, rather than just blanket statements like "all of them". Thank you. Indrek (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You are not the judge here. I have given reasons. Just because you find them not valid doesnt mean that they are.

- It is outdated because the mainstream aspect ratio has changed. Not just in the stores, also in software. Common aspect ratio for tablets have also changed.

- personal essay. "The whole part starting with "The shift from 16:10 to 16:9...."." I have allready explained. It is just a bunch of opinions which falsely is stated as facts./HGJ345 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"It is outdated because the mainstream aspect ratio has changed." The article covers that already. The lead paragraph says that, quote, "Since 2010, however, 16:9 has become the mainstream standard".

"Not just in the stores, also in software." Not sure what you mean with "stores", but the article already covers the fact that games and movies these days are designed for 16:9. As far as I can see, though, productivity software is still mostly designed for taller screens. If you disagree, then feel free to provide reliable sources that support your arguments.

"Common aspect ratio for tablets have also changed." The tablets section is already labelled as needing expansion, that's no reason to flag the entire article.

So as far as the "outdated" template is concerned, your arguments so far are weak and easily disproved.

"personal essay. "The whole part starting with "The shift from 16:10 to 16:9...."." I have allready explained. It is just a bunch of opinions which falsely is stated as facts." No, it's a bunch of opinions correctly stated as opinions (which, as I've already told you, is not forbidden on Wikipedia). I think you may have misunderstood what the "personal essay" template is about; it means that parts of the article are written to reflect the views of a Wikipedia editor. That is not the case here, all opinions cited are taken from reliable secondary sources, and are clearly designated as such through the use of phrases like "According to", "was considered to be", "was seen as" or "some considered". So this argument, too, is demonstrably wrong.

While I appreciate that you've finally started addressing my questions a bit more thoroughly, so far you haven't brought up anything that would violate any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Indrek (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There are many things in this article that violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines./HGJ345 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the things you've listed so far have all been non-issues, I can only assume you have more to add? Then by all means, do so. Indrek (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The things listed is serious issues which violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines./HGJ345 (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Which policies and guidelines exactly, please? The only part of the article that is outdated (as far as I can see) is the section about tablets, and that's already labelled as needing more work, so no violations there. Your only other argument so far (for both the "personal essay" and "unreliable sources" templates) has been that this section consists mostly of opinions, but I've already told you repeatedly that this is allowed on Wikipedia. If you disagree, then kindly point me towards the relevant policy of guideline that this violates. Indrek (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Just follow the internal links in the multiple issues banner./HGJ345 (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have. The sources in the article seem to meet the criteria for reliable sources (and in fact there was existing consensus to that effect before you added the templates). Specifically, WP:NEWSORG permits citing well-established news outlets and WP:RSOPINION permits reporting on opinions, which therefore invalidates your claim that the sources are invalid because they're "just a bunch of opinions". Further, since the opinions are clearly shared by a number of people, it qualifies as a significant view on the subject, which according to WP:NPOV must be represented fairly in the article.

As for WP:NOT#ESSAY, that policy applies to content written from a Wikipedia editor's point of view. As I've explained repeatedly already, all opinions in the article are taken from (and backed by) reliable secondary sources.

At this point, I think, the question is, have you actually read the policies that the templates link to? If you have, then kindly entertain this simple request of mine: quote a single sentence or phrase from the article, link to the policy you think it violates, and cite the specific section of the policy that applies. It shouldn't be too hard to choose one example, since according to you the article is full of them. Can you do that for me? Indrek (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

1) "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Are the sources reliable, no. 2) Opinions should be stated as opinions, not facts which this article does. Also it isnt shown that the opinions are shared by a relevant number of people. 3) "Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge." also involves what actually is written in the article./HGJ345 (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Are the sources reliable, no." Yes, I already know that you think that. What I don't know is why you think that. Do you have any arguments besides the "just opinions" one (which I've already repeatedly explained isn't valid)?

"Opinions should be stated as opinions, not facts which this article does." Can you quote an example from the article where an opinion is misrepresented as a fact? Not just "that whole section", but a specific sentence or phrase from the article.

"Also it isnt shown that the opinions are shared by a relevant number of people." The article doesn't make any claims about the number of people sharing the opinions, it simply reports on the existence of those opinions, taken from reliable secondary sources. This is not at all unlike, say, reporting on reviews in an article about a book or a video game - those, too, are ultimately just opinions. Or are you saying those should be forbidden as well?

""Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge." also involves what actually is written in the article." Can you quote an example (again, a specific sentence or phrase) from the article that expresses the personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor? Indrek (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 was met with a mixed response." Opinion stated as facts.

"The lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with their suitability for gaming and movies and the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, was seen as a positive." Opinion stated as facts.

"On the other hand there was criticism towards the lack of vertical screen real estate when compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal." Opinion stated as opinion although not shown that the "critisism" is relevant for the article.

"For this reason, some considered 16:9 displays less suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications" Opinions stated as opinions. Though it isnt shown that those "some" opinions is relevant for the article.

"which are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens." Opinion stated as facts.

/HGJ345 (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

""The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 was met with a mixed response." Opinion stated as facts." Incorrect, that's a fact stated as a fact. It's a fact that the shift was met with a mixed response, as evidenced by the existence of both positive and negative opinions about it in the cited sources. Summarising sources in this way is very common on Wikipedia, many articles begin their reviews/reception/etc. sections thusly.

""The lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with their suitability for gaming and movies and the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, was seen as a positive." Opinion stated as facts." Incorrect, that's an opinion stated as an opinion, as clearly implied by the use of the phrase "was seen as".

""On the other hand there was criticism towards the lack of vertical screen real estate when compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal." Opinion stated as opinion although not shown that the "critisism" is relevant for the article." Said criticism is basically an opinion on the 16:10 aspect ratio, and therefore is relevant in an article about the 16:10 aspect ratio.

""For this reason, some considered 16:9 displays less suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications" Opinions stated as opinions. Though it isnt shown that those "some" opinions is relevant for the article." Same as above - it's an opinion about 16:10 and therefore is relevant in an article about 16:10.

""which are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens." Opinion stated as facts." Incorrect, the sources state this as a fact, so it should be reported as such on Wikipedia. You may disagree with the sources and think that they're wrong, but that's irrelevant - Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Indrek (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously man. You have much to learn about Source criticism. Just because someone claim something doesnt mean that it is a fact. Also it isnt enough for an opinion to be about the subject to become wikimaterial. In that case I and everyone else can start to print our own opinions in this article based on that "it's an opinion about 16:10 and therefore is relevant in an article about 16:10."./HGJ345 (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I will take some time to correct this article next weekend when I have som sparetime. It really is a shame for wikipedia to have an article of this quality./HGJ345 (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Source criticism is one thing. It's another thing to dispute the reliability of apparently good sources without giving valid reasons, when there is existing consensus for their reliability, or when disputing multiple sources at once. You're doing all three, which is a strong sign of tendentious editing, something that's not tolerated on Wikipedia.

"Just because someone claim something doesnt mean that it is a fact." Sure. And just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean that it is not a fact.

"Also it isnt enough for an opinion to be about the subject to become wikimaterial." Fair enough. But when an opinion is published in a number of reliable sources, it becomes a significant view on the subject and including it in the article is mandated by WP:NPOV (a non-negotiable Wikipedia core policy), as I've pointed out already.

"In that case I and everyone else can start to print our own opinions in this article based on that "it's an opinion about 16:10 and therefore is relevant in an article about 16:10."" If you can get your opinions published in, say, a mainstream news outlet, then by all means go ahead and do so, and I will have no fundamental objections to including your opinion in the article. Unless and until that happens, however, you need to understand that your personal feelings about any specific aspect ratio, or your disagreements with sources reporting on those aspect ratios, have no bearing whatsoever on what goes into the article.

I welcome your contributions to the article, so long as they're constructive and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'd also be happy to collaborate with you, if you want to post a quick overview of the sort of changes you're planning on making. Discussing specific proposed changes would probably be more productive anyway than arguing over alleged problems. Indrek (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I gladly collaborate. Lets first remove those questioned sources and claims. Later we can discuss further development./HGJ345 (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, so far your edits have been mostly unconstructive. You've removed relevant views provided by reliable sources (the positive opinions about 16:9), apparently based on nothing but your own personal interpretation of the truthfulness of those views and your own feelings about 16:9, thus violating WP:NPOV. You've also added a couple of blogs and forums which are self-published sources and therefore not reliable, thus violating WP:V. Since those two policies are non-negotiable, I've reverted some of your edits (the ones updating the Tablets section and removing the erroneous problem templates I've no objections to). Before editing the article again, you may wish to familiarise yourself with the policies I linked to. Indrek (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable which also numerous wikiusers have stated. I removed the parts where there are no consensus to avoid edit war./HGJ345 (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify which sources are not reliable and why. Also, which "wikiusers" have stated that?

As for arbitrarily removing disputed content, please do not do that, it is not acceptable behaviour. I've reverted back to the latest revision by User:Solarra as all later changes are disputed.Indrek (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Be constructive. This article has ridiculous amount of discussion. Seek consensus instead of edit wear. Else this article will be full of controversial claims and NPOV banners forever./HGJ345 (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Be constructive." I'm trying to engage in constructive discussion, but you're making it very difficult. Can you address the questions I raised above, instead of changing the subject all the time?
• "This article has ridiculous amount of discussion." Can you clarify what you mean by this? Are you referring to the ridiculous length of this dispute? Because I'd be happy to bring it to some sort of meaningful conclusion.
• "Seek consensus instead of edit wear." Please take your false accusations elsewhere. I'm not edit warring, and seeking consensus is hard if one party involved in the dispute is unwilling or unable to back up their statements with reasonable arguments based in policy, and keeps engaging in what looks suspiciously like tendentious editing. Indrek (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have allready answered these questions numerous times. Thats why I came here to actually improve the article. I would appriciate if we could collaborate now. Lets remove the disputed parts and now lets add consensus./HGJ345 (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, some of the changes that you made to the article (the ones I reverted) were in violation of Wikipedia's core policies, which can not be overridden by editor consensus. In other words, we cannot agree to simply discard certain reliable sources and omit relevant opinions reported in them even if we wanted to, because WP:NPOV mandates that those views and sources be covered fairly in the article. And we cannot agree to accept blogs and forum posts (such as the ones you added as sources) even if we wanted to, because WP:V classifies self-published sources as not reliable.

So unless you can provide reasonable arguments based in Wikipedia policies that would support your claims, I posit that the content you removed in this revision must be restored to satisfy WP:NPOV. Once that is done, we can start addressing issues that actually require (and depend on) editor consensus. Indrek (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the sentence "PC vendors have replied that the demand for 16:10 displays wasn't enough to maintain its mainstream position and that 16:9 is more cost efficient." ok? /HGJ345 (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What reliable sources can you provide that support that statement? Indrek (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

http://blog.lenovo.com/perspectives/display-ratio-change-again, "Widescreen monitors: Where did 1920×1200 go? « Hardware « MyBroadband Tech and IT News". Mybroadband.co.za. 2011-01-10. Retrieved 2012-04-15. /HGJ345 (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The first one is a blog, which falls under self-published sources and therefore is not reliable. As for the second one, according to its Wikipedia page (which is admittedly full of problems of its own) it's basically an online forum, which are also considered self-published sources and thus not reliable. Indrek (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I like your source critisism and will delete the VRZone because it is the same type of source as MBB./HGJ345 (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

VR-Zone is not a forum like MyBroadBand, it's a well-known tech news outlet, used in a number of Wikipedia articles and referenced by a number of other news sources (which are in turn used in even more Wikipedia articles). See this this WP:RSN discussion where it was approved as reliable. If you want to dispute the source, you're going to have to actually provide reasons for why you think it's not reliable. Indrek (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It is written like a blog entry according to me. I would appreciate a third opinion from Solarra./HGJ345 (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"according to me" isn't an argument if you cannot back it up with arguments based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. VR-Zone is not a blog, nor any other type of self-published source, so currently I see no reason not to keep it in the article.

I've reverted your recent edits as they are a) disruptive (removing relevant, reliably sourced content), b) violate WP:NPOV (removing reliably sourced, significant views on the subject), and c) go against established dispute resolution processes (removing disputed content while consensus has yet to be achieved). Per WP:BRD, the next step now is to discuss, so I would appreciate it if you did that, rather than edit warring your unconstructive changes back into the article. Alternatively, if you feel the dispute has reached a deadlock (which I think it has), I suggest we take it to WP:DRN. Would you agree to that? Indrek (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is always a subjective part. The way you claim to have the truth to everything is either a lie or unability to understand that there is a subjective part in the interpretation for each specific case. It is also beyond me that you fail to see that you have the community against you. You even decided to revert recent changes in the article although you are one user against three. You have repeadetly deleted banners of Not reliable sources although you are one against three. If anyone is against Wikipedia guidelines and policies it is you./HGJ345 (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never claimed to have the truth for everything. I reverted your changes because they violate Wikipedia's policies (as detailed above). Throwing WP:BRD to the wind and redoing the changes doesn't magically make you right, it just makes you a disruptive editor.

As for "one user against three", that is irrelevant (and also wrong) - Wikipedia is not a democracy. This means that disputes are not resolved based on the number of people on any particular side of the argument, but by the relevance and validity of the arguments put forth by those involved. So far the only one who has raised valid concerns about the article is User:Solarra, but since she has not responded to my counterarguments, her position is currently uncertain; assuming her to be in 100% agreement with you is foolishly optimistic at best and maliciously deceptive at worst. Also, if you actually read through her comments below, they indicate that overall she is satisfied with the quality of the article, while your edits have been far more extreme that anything she has called for.

At any rate, it's clear that discussing the issue here on the talk page is not going to result in consensus. I've therefore posted a request at WP:DRN. Hopefully we can resolve the dispute there. Indrek (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Also the only discussion here is whether the VRZone and VRZone source only should be in the article and so far you clearly have the community against you also in this issue. And it also doesnt even back up the statement and also is outdated. /HGJ345 (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I include it until we get even more opinions./HGJ345 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right, HGJ345. It is a blog entry and not reliable. Come to think of it the whole sentence looks suspect. Just as you and Solarra says top priority in this article is to remove unreliable sources and text./QAQUAU (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw the notice on your talk page, but I've filed a request at WP:DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#16:10). Please present your arguments there. Thanks!

Also a quick note - User:HGJ345 has been found to be a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Urklistre, a disruptive editor who sabotaged and vandalised this article last year, and consequently has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Can't say I'm surprised. Indrek (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not know but the of course HGJ345s opinion shouldnt be counted. I hope you, me and Solarra can work this out. /QAQUAU (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

3O

Here in response to the WP:3O request. I read through the article and removed the essay tag in response, the article is decently written, informative and to the point with points given to both sides as of this revision definitely not written like and essay, trust me I have written enough briefs to know what an essay looks like :-P. That being said, there are a couple of sources which concern me. A couple are from blogs which are not considered reliable sources per WP:SOURCE and should be removed/replaced. Once that is done, this article will be on the fast track to awesomeville! :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time! I've moved your response down here because the section you originally posted it in was for a different dispute (which I'll go archive in a moment as it's no longer relevant).

Anyway, can you specify exactly which sources you're concerned about? Indrek (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This, this, and this to me appear to be written as blog entries and somewhat weighed on the opinion of the writer. I'd take a look at WP:RS just to make sure what the guidelines say as far as using editorials/blog posts as a source. This source does not even load for me, so any material dependent on it is technically unsourced. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 10:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

[1] and [2] don't look like blog posts to me, they're regular articles on the respective news sites. [3] is an opinion piece, yes, but WP:RS allows those when published in an otherwise reliable source. Also, sources don't have to be objective and unbiased, so long as the Wikipedia article itself is. I'm not opposed to removing that source, though, as the claim it supports also has another, better source anyway.

As for [4], it indeed seems to be down at the moment, though I'm sure it was working a couple of days ago. I'll keep an eye on it and if the links doesn't start working, will see if I can replace it with an archive link. Note, though, that per WP:LR, just because a link is no longer accessible doesn't mean that the content is automatically unsourced. Indrek (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree Solarra. Lets keep the guidelines for reliable sources./HGJ345 (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have to say that Solarra and HGJ345 are right. Those sources are not reliable. It appears to have been taken care of though because those sources are removed and the article is great now./QAQUAU (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So I assume you don't agree with my counterarguments to User:Solarra's concerns? Would you care to address them?

Also, the article as it was at the time of your comment was not "great". It was in horrible shape, as User:HGJ345 had for some reason removed most of the references (not just those Solarra raised concerns about) and a lot of sourced content. Doing so while the dispute is still ongoing was not constructive and his edits have been reverted. Indrek (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

2880x1800 as a common resolution

Anonymous editors have been adding 2880x1800 into the common resolutions table. I don't believe it belongs there, since it's only used in a single device so far and barely, if at all, registers on resolution-related statistics as a fraction of a percent. To wit:

• http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey (expand the "Primary Display Resolution" category) - 0.01%
• http://screenresolution.org - 0.003%
• http://gs.statcounter.com/#resolution-ww-daily-20130316-20130316-bar - doesn't even show up (click the "Download Data" link for more resolutions than the chart shows)
• http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=17 - doesn't even show up

I've tried asking the anons for clarification as to why they think 2880x1800 qualifies as a common resolution (which is what the table is about), but so far they've failed to provide any, yet I'm being reverted every time I remove the resolution. So I'm raising the issue here on the talk page to hopefully get some other opinions. My position is that we already have articles that offer a comprehensive list of known display resolutions, there's no need to clutter this table with uncommon (and apparently unnamed) resolutions. Indrek (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)