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)

Mention of Windows 8 and Office 2013

I've removed mentions of Windows 8 and Office 2013 being optimised for 16:9. This article is about the 16:10 aspect ratio, so listing any and all pieces of software that happen to be optimised for 16:9 is unnecessary and unconstructive. There are better places for such information, like the 16:9 article. Indrek (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This article was simply wrong when it claimed that spreadsheet and document applications are designed for taller screens. This is not the case any more. As stated everything new from Microsoft is designed for 16:9, like Windows 8 or Office 13. /Acoriofs (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you'll notice that the article mentions more than documents and spreadsheets, there's also design and engineering applications. And until there's more than just one office suite (which is also still unreleased at this point!) that's optimised for 16:9, I think it's premature to change that particular sentence to past tense.

Also, please read the section below, about Office 2013 and Windows 8 - those are pretty irrelevant in this article because they have nothing to do with either 16:10 or how and why it was replaced with 16:9. I won't remove them for now since that would constitute edit warring, but I would like to hear from you what exactly you think they contribute to the article.

Finally, I see you keep removing "considered to be" from the sentence "The primary reason for this move was considered to be production efficiency". It seems to me that the sentence now borders on WP:OR - it makes it sound like it's a fact, yet the sources are only the opinions of tech journalists. For the sentence to be kept in its current form, there should be a reliable source that directly supports the claim, like from someone actually involved in the display manufacture industry. In the absence of such a source, the sentence should be changed back to the previous form. Indrek (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a contradiction that documents and spreadsheets are designed for taller screens while Office (which is the most common spreadsheet/document app) now is designed for 16:9. That this has changed just recently also makes the earlier comments about it outdated. The Office info gets relevant because aspect ratios and productivity tasks are being discussed and Office13 prove some of the comments in the article wrong. However I think the article should describe the history in a part named history instead of discussing advantages and disadvantages with different aspect ratios. That part should be written in imperfect./Acoriofs (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a contradiction, but not in favour of Office 2013. Like I said, it's just one example, and is still unreleased. What about the dozens of other productivity applications out there? What about Adobe's Creative Suite, AutoCAD, SolidWorks, ProTools, Final Cut, Sonar, Reason, Logic Pro, 3ds Max? What about Microsoft's own Visual Studio, Expression Studio, Visio and their numerous other developer and productivity tools? And those are just a few examples. Unless you can show that a significant number of such applications are also being designed for 16:9, Office 2013 on its own (regardless of how popular it is) doesn't invalidate the statement in question.

Also, even if you can show that productivity applications are switching to 16:9 en masse, listing each and every one in that particular section is redundant and unconstructive. Changing the sentence to the past tense would suffice in such a case, but right now doing so is premature.

Anyway, I see you've removed the mentions of Office 2013 and Windows 8, so I guess that makes this discussion moot. Indrek (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It was until you choosed to remove the properties part and change the history part from imperfect to Present tense./Acoriofs (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The Properties section was completely redundant as pretty much everything in there was copy&pasted from elsewhere in the article. As for your other point, can you explain how exactly the present tense is not appropriate? How is it not the case that most current productivity applications are designed for taller screens? And how is Windows 8 even relevant there (it's an operating system, not a productivity application)? Indrek (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No response for several days, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the irrelevant content. Instead of edit warring it back in, please explain here on the talk page how you think it improves the article. Indrek (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I made the article understandable. There should be no contradictions in a wikipedia article./Acoriofs (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Also the first part is just a summary. /Acoriofs (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"I made the article understandable." No. What you did was: 1) remove a whole bunch of valid, sourced content, with no explanation beyond a vague allegation of "contradiction"; 2) remove an Expand template from a section that clearly requires some more information beyond the current 2 sentences, again with no valid explanation; 3) added a section that does nothing except duplicate information already given elsewhere in the article. These edits have negatively affected the quality of the article and have therefore been reverted. I once again encourage you to discuss your point of view here on the talk page so we can reach a consensus, rather than ignoring valid issues and concerns raised about your edits and persisting in what can only be described as edit warring. Indrek (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

the contradictions are sourced. If one source claim one thing and another one claim something else then it isnt wiki standard to include it. Also the first part is just a summary./Acoriofs (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"If one source claim one thing and another one claim something else then it isnt wiki standard to include it." Can you link to an official Wikipedia guideline or policy that supports this claim? As far as I know, if two (otherwise equally valid) sources contradict each other, then Wikipedia should report just that - that opinions on the matter are divided. There's no reason not to report on contradictions. Of course, you haven't actually even shown that there is a contradiction in the first place (merely claiming there is doesn't make it so).

As for the first paragraph, yes, it's a summary. That doesn't mean information from it (and other paragraphs) should be duplicated elsewhere in the article. What exactly does that Properties section contribute to the article? Indrek (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

In this field things change so rapidly that a 2 year old statement isnt valid today. For that reason wikipedia schouldnt do any bold statements about the present based on history. Especially not when we have newer info that contradicts the previous statements. "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" Also this sums up the resistence against 16:9 pretty well./Acoriofs (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just evading questions and going in circles. I've already explained why Office 2013 on its own does not invalidate the statements you keep deleting. Unless you can prove the opposite, it's still very much the case that productivity applications benefit from taller screens. Right now, the only thing that statement is conflicting with is your opinion, which isn't a reliable source and thus doesn't count. Indrek (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If you claim something you need to show. It is not my job to show that what you say aint correct. Your statements are valid for the actual dates. And your talk about Office 2013 being proved to be optimized for 16:9 isnt valid is just your opinion./Acoriofs (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"It is not my job to show that what you say aint correct." If you're saying that I'm wrong or the content in the article is incorrect, then of course it's expected of you to back that up with reasonable arguments. So far you have given none.

"Your statements are valid for the actual dates." Yes. But until reliable sources are provided that show the situation has changed, it can be assumed that they are valid for the present as well. Bottom line - if it is no longer the case that productivity applications are designed to benefit from vertical resolution, it should be trivial to find reliable sources saying that. So far no such sources have been provided.

"And your talk about Office 2013 being proved to be optimized for 16:9 isnt valid is just your opinion." Actually, it was you who started pushing Office 2013 into the article and saying how it's been designed for 16:9. I'm perfectly happy with leaving it out of the article altogether, at least for the time being. Indrek (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

None?

"The Office 2013 interface is designed to work best on a 16:9 widescreen device" - http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/microsoft-explains-minimalist-office-2013-interface-1089279

"Much of the world’s TVs and video have gone to widescreen and HD formats, and so has PowerPoint. There’s a 16:9 layout, and new themes designed to take advantage of widescreen possibilities." - http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint-help/what-s-new-in-powerpoint-2013-HA102809628.aspx

Acoriofs (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. It's already been established that Office 2013 is designed for 16:9, I'm not arguing about that. It's every single other piece of productivity software that's the concern here. Unless you can show that a significant number of them are also being designed for 16:9, the statement that these "are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens" (emphasis on "mostly") is accurate and your removal of it violates WP:NPOV and diminishes the quality of the article. Indrek (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Office isnt just a program suite. It is dominating in this field. "Office is reported to now be used by over a billion people worldwide." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheet

It is beyond me that you want to write that spreadsheets are made for 16:10 when you now that Excel nowadays is optimised for 16:9./Acoriofs (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Office is just a program suite. And you keep misunderstanding me. I don't want to write that "spreadsheets are made for 16:10". I want to write that productivity applications in general are mostly made to benefit from vertical resolution. Until you can offer any counterexamples besides Office 2013, it's beyond me how you can argue with that. You need to stop fixating on Office if this discussion is to have a constructive outcome. Indrek (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"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, which are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens." /Acoriofs (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're trying to do here. I've explained a number of times that the sentence, and indeed the whole section, is about much more than Office, yet you still insist on focusing on just that one example everywhere. So since you don't seem to disagree with the rest of the sentence (or at least you haven't raised any valid concerns about it), how about just removing spreadsheets from that list? Would that be an acceptable compromise? Indrek (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is ok. "For this reason, some considered 16:9 displays less suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as using design or engineering applications, which are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens." /Acoriofs (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

3O

All, I do want to help, but the edit trail is pretty long. It seems that some degree of consensus has been reached on some points, but would you mind filling this out so that I can see what the remaining issues are? Thanks Paulthomas2 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick note: User:Acoriofs has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:Urklistre (a disruptive editor who caused trouble at this article a few months back) and consequently blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Urklistre for more information. Indrek (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Paulthomas2 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Indrek

The dispute is over the following three issues:

1. The following sentence in the Industry moves away from 16:10 in 2008 to 16:9 section:

"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, which are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens."

I do not believe that the recently released Office 2013, which is reportedly designed with the 16:9 aspect ratio in mind, is currently enough to invalidate that sentence. For one, office tasks are only one of the examples mentioned in the sentence, and MS Office is only one of the program suites (though admittedly the most popular one) used for such tasks. The main part of the sentence is "productivity-oriented tasks /---/ which are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens" (emphasis on "mostly", which already implies that there may be exceptions), and since no sources have been provided that say that any other productivity programs (besides Office 2013) have been designed for 16:9, I believe the sentence, as quoted above in its entirety, is currently accurate.

As a compromise, I did offer to have "spreadsheets" removed from the list of examples, since Excel is admittedly the de facto standard for those. However, I'm not sure if one could call that a consensus since User:Acoriofs has removed (or, to be accurate, failed to restore) more than that - mention of "editing documents", which I didn't suggest removing and don't believe should be removed, as well as several references (see this diff).

2. The need for a separate Properties section. I don't believe it is required, since everything in it has been copied from elsewhere in the article (mostly the lead paragraph), and I don't see how having it improves the article, which is short enough as it is that arbitrarily splitting the content up into more sections is not constructive.

3. Whether or not the tablets section requires expansion. I believe it does (and had previously added an {{Expand}} template to it), as it's currently only 2 sentences, which seems too little for devices as prevalent currently as media tablets. In stark contrast with the two preceding sections, it gives no reasons for the events it describes (media tablets moving to 16:10), nor does it cite any reliable sources. In short, it needs more work.

Overall, I believe the edits User:Acoriofs has made have not improved the article (compare with this revision). Indrek (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Indrek, Thanks for boiling that down for me. I'll see what Acoriofs has to say before offering my WP:3O. Paulthomas2 (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Acoriofs

Nearly all monitors (even office monitors) on the market today are widescreen and the most common resolutions among users are 16:9. So why would anyone design software for screens that hardly exist? It doesn't make sense. Software are designed after the monitors that their target group use/will use. Logically the software are designed for widescreen these days and I doubt there are any new software designed for 4:3 or 5:4. Microsoft also says that Office 2013 is designed for 16:9 and logically there are no reason to believe that other newer software are different. Still I can agree that there are applications that are more suitable for 4:3 or 5:4. We need to understand that "designed" and "suitable" isn't the same thing. We also need to raise the bar for standard of sources to controversial comments in this wiki article. It is better to have a short but correct article than a long article with false statements and more source criticism would be appreciated. /Acoriofs (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

About point number 2 and 3 I have no definite opinion. Both alternatives are correct so it is just a matter of taste./Acoriofs (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion by Paulthomas2

Fellow Wikipedians, given the sockpuppet delegation of User:Acoriofs, my third opinion is a bit moot. Also, I was going to mention that the fact that all of his/her contributions were @ 16:10 seemed a little fishy. So here's my opinion of the article as it stands.

1. Under Computer displays, maybe you should have two sections, one on Monitors/Laptops and one on Tablets? It would allow the removal of the Uses Section under Properties.
2. Your #3 to add an {{expand}} tag to the tablet section sounds good.
3. Golden Ratio section is too dense. I suggest:

   Golden Ratio

   Main article: Golden ratio

   The width of a 16:10 display is 1.6 times its height. This ratio is close to the golden ratio "$\varphi$" which is approximately 1.618.[11]

4. The sentence: "For this reason, some considered 16:9 displays less suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets, using design or engineering applications" might be better put into a Controversy section.

Again, these are just my considered opinions. Take 'em or leave 'em. I don't plan on editing the 16:10 page in the near future. Have a good day! Paulthomas2 (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond! I'll keep your suggestions in mind as I go over the recent edits and rewrite/reorganise as necessary. Cheers! Indrek (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Dr. Wilner

I agree Paulthomas2./Dr. Wilner (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, User:Dr. Wilner has been identified as another sockpuppet of User:Urklistre. I've reverted his edit as vandalism, as due to the extensive history of disruptive behaviour and sockpuppetry it's become impossible to assume good faith on the part of that user. Indrek (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2012 (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)

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)