Talk:16:10 aspect ratio/Archive 1

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 Wikipedia'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,[3] 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 [PC users] 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.
 * "[16:9 is] 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 [the menubar and Dock] 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,[3] 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,[3] 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,[3] 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." Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia'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.

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)
 * 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.


 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. 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, and 16:9 displays are often considered more suitable for films and video games. However, 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, or have someone else do it for him) has been edited into the article, see this revision. 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 propose and promote them as "the greatest" which should be elected. Thats why we cant have two proposals like this. It is the info that should discussed, not the so called proposals.
 * 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 when Inderek has decided to not collaborate it is nearly impossible to get this article further. He doesn't want to change text written by anyone but himself, he refuse anyone to change text in the article that he has written and he refuse anyone to add new text to the article, because they are not included in his "proposal". Indereks 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/wiki/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". This talkpage refers to one article which we should be working on together, equally./Urklistre (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever I've tried to improve the article, your immediate response has been to revert my changes, so I think it's pretty clear at this point that that's not going to work. Also, I'm not sure why you're implying I'm not being cooperative when you're the one who's refusing to participate in proper dispute resolution processes and editing the article without prior discussion or consensus (which you've been called out on several times now).
 * Your accusations about me not yielding to consensus are also moot, because there is currently no consensus to yield to.
 * As for the proposals, I'm not sure why you're uncomfortable having yours compared to mine. The point here is to have a third editor read both so we can choose one that seems a better starting point and work from there, to incorporate legitimate suggestions from all involved editors. Collaborative editing and discussion just between the two of us has failed to produce any results, so getting someone else involved in the dispute is the logical next step. You may wish to give WP:DR a read through, to gain a better understanding about how dispute resolution works on Wikipedia. Indrek (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On a related note, please stop removing your proposal from the beginning of this section. Note that I've retracted the permission for you to edit my comment, due to you abusing it. Should you continue to edit my comment (a violation of WP:TPO), I'll have to report it. If you feel your proposal isn't adequately or correctly represented, post it yourself and I'll remove it from my comment. Indrek (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You write your proposals. I have none. I write an articles together with other wikiusers./Urklistre (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, then lets yield towards consensus by writing together. As I have said before I want you to change the text in the article./Urklistre (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Article is good and neutral as it is so leave it alone and this dispute is solved. You guys are taking this way to personal./QAQUAU (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make a few points of order. Comparing two different proposals to try and find consensus is normal and happens on wikipedia all the time. Discussing proposed changes on the talk page rather than edit warring is good practice. Saying you won't discuss a proposal because you "write articles with other wikiusers" when this is practically the only article you edit rings quite hollow.
 * At the moment I'm leaning towards Indrek's proposal because it's a good and neutral summary of the sources provided, while Urklistre's includes information not in the sources and a potential COPYVIO. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Article is better than Indreks proposal. More extensive./QAQUAU (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Urklistres proposal seems to be withdrawn./QAQUAU (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Urklistre has edited his proposal into the article; see the disputed section. Indrek (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * QAQUAU: you say that Urklistre's version is more extensive. Can you point out anything specific that you feel is missing from my proposal? Indrek (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited the article so that it isnt missing anything from your proposal. Please contact me if Urklistre revert these changes./QAQUAU (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The second section still includes the potential copyright violation, plus one redundant sentence. The third section includes an unsourced claim (the part about 1920x1080) and the wording could be improved. The fourth paragraph (about screen diagonals) seems to add nothing of value to the article.
 * Could you explain what you think is missing from my proposed version? Indrek (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't share your opinion and think that the article is really good./QAQUAU (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please address the specific points he raise? Specifically the material that's not in the sources? I think the copyright issue should be taken to the relevant board as none of us seem to know enough about it to make an informed judgement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked about the copyvio at WP:CP (already on 10 August), but no one has responded yet. Looking at the other reports there, it might take a while. Indrek (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Turns out the suspicions about the copyio were correct. So unless there are any objections to my proposed version of the second paragraph, I'm going to go ahead and edit it in (seeing as no alternative versions have been put forth).
 * As for the third paragraph, I've amended my proposal above slightly. Still waiting to hear from User:QAQUAU, re the issues raised about the current version of the article. Indrek (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing that has changed is that the article has improved even more. VernoWhitney just find the previous DS part to be to similar to source, he is not for your proposal. His post is for the actual article which he has read through, edited and approved. QUQAUA find the article to be great but your proposal to be poor. I also find your proposal to be really poor. Your proposal still has no support. The article has been examined, edited and approved by VernoWhitney, QUQAUA, 76.118.106.107, 75.72.206.149, 108.91.132.198, 74.71.247.171 and me./Urklistre (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out that your proposal probably break the copyright WP:COPYVIO because it includes sentences and wording that are nearly identical to the display search source. The article has no such copyright issues./Urklistre (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither User:VernoWhitney nor those anonymous editors you listed have indicated any support for your proposal. Just because they've edited the article doesn't mean they approve of it in its entirety. The only reason your proposed version is in the article in the first place is because you insist on going against established dispute resolution processes. As it stands, my proposal has support from myself and User:No More Mr Nice Guy and yours has support from yourself and User:QAQUAU. The only difference is that, unlike your proposal, no legitimate issues have been raised about mine. User:QAQUAU has thus far failed to elaborate on why exactly he thinks your proposal is better, and all you've put forth are vague allegations of "false rumours" and "controversial and groundbreaking claims".
 * As for the potential copyvio in my proposed version, I don't think that's the case. If you're referring to the quotation, that should be fine - Wikipedia's policies allow short direct quotations from source material. Nevertheless, I'll contant User:VernoWhitney and ask him to take a look at my proposed version. Indrek (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It isnt my proposal, it is the article. After all the changes that all the mentioned wikiusers have done it looks totally different. VernoWhitney was the last one to make any significant change so if anything it should be seen as his proposal. And it hasnt been changed so it has been approved in silence.
 * Thats how wikipedia works. You actually have written much of the article too. Then I edited it. The IP numbers edited it. QUQAUA edited it and VernoWhitney edited it. But thats what wikipedia is about. You write something and then others improve it. The problem with you is that you don't accept that people change in "your" text. But this isnt your article. It isnt Indrekpedia. It is wikipedia.
 * With your proposal all good changes from VernoWhitney, QUQAUA, 76.118.106.107, 75.72.206.149, 108.91.132.198, 74.71.247.171 and me gets lost.
 * /Urklistre (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And you are not the judge here to decide which peoples opinion that are of importance. According to wikipedia we are equal and all peoples opinion is of importance. /Urklistre (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"It isnt my proposal, it is the article." The only reason it's in the article is because you keep pushing your non-consensus edits while dispute is still ongoing, which you've been called out on several times. Fabricating opinions and support for your proposal where none exists does not change that fact.

"With your proposal all good changes from VernoWhitney, QUQAUA, 76.118.106.107, 75.72.206.149, 108.91.132.198, 74.71.247.171 and me gets lost." Let's examine that claim, shall we? So as we can see, your claim that my proposed version would remove changes by anyone else than you is an outright lie. Obviously some changes by you would be lost, just like some changes by me have been lost due to your edits. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be having this dispute in the first place.
 * User:VernoWhitney removed a copyright violation . My proposal would have also removed it and replaced it with a summarised version. No problem here.
 * User:QAQUAU added some examples from my proposed version, so again, no problem here. By the way, you originally removed those same examples as "false rumours" - maybe you'd care to explain what made you change your mind (as you haven't reverted his edit)?
 * 75.72.206.149 fixed some spelling in your proposed version . No problem here because those errors don't exist in my proposed version.
 * 76.118.106.107, 108.91.132.198 and 74.71.247.171 all edited completely different parts of the article.

But fine, let's try it your way. I'll edit the article where I think it needs improvement, and we'll see how it goes. Indrek (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Urklistre: can you explain how removing valid examples backed by sources, as well as one of the sources themselves, constitutes "better wording"? Indrek (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is just overwording and the source is not valid. The other two got ok from NiceGuy so lets use them./Urklistre (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Overwording? You mean that 2-3 extra words make the sentence harder to read or something? I don't agree, and think it's important to illustrate the statement about productivity-oriented tasks with examples. We already agreed to remove some examples during the original dispute, and I don't see any reason to trim them down even more.
 * As for the source, why exactly is it not valid? User:No More Mr Nice Guy didn't oppose its use, and no one else has voiced any complaints either. VR-Zone is a well-known tech news site, used as a reference elsewhere on Wikipedia, and has recognition by other similar news sites (Engadget, PC Mag and The Inquirer all have referenced it), which makes it seem like a good, reliable source to me. If you disagree, please point out exactly which Wikipedia guideline or policy with regards to sources it fails. Indrek (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indrek: can you explain your removal of valid text backed by sources? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=16%3A10&diff=508280057&oldid=508279907/Urklistre (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify exactly which text you think was removed (rather than just reworded or restructured for readability)? Indrek (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just edited again. Approve, change or back to previous version if you want. The vr zone article is a mess. No reason to have it as source./Urklistre (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "The vr zone article is a mess." Sorry, that's just your opinion and not a valid reason. Either point out how it fails Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources (which I assume you're familiar with), or accept it and move on. Indrek (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The VR Zone doesnt meat any critera for being a reliable source. It isnt published material with a reliable publication process. The author isnt regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. Also it is just a blogtext based on opinion and has no research behind it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources /Urklistre (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are also wrong about the source process. It is you that shall demonstrate the qualifications to other people. It is not the other way around. Now I was friendly and showed that the VR Zone isnt reliable anyway but I want to inform that your way of doing it is against the wikipedia rules./Urklistre (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If throwing around baseless accusations is your idea of being friendly, I don't want to know what you're like when hostile.
 * As for the source process, I assume you're referring to WP:BURDEN. That policy assigns the responsibility of providing sources. When it comes to discussing the reliability of sources, as with any other dispute, all involved editors are expected to support their point of view by providing reasons and evidence for their claims, especially when asked to do so (per WP:ETIQUETTE, "Do not ignore reasonable questions"). Throughout the dispute I've repeatedly asked you to explain why you think the sources I provided aren't reliable, and it took you until now to come up with some kind of response. Before that you've only thrown around vague allegations like "noob sources" and "low quality blogs", which I've refuted to the best of my ability. So, while I appreciate that you've finally started referring to actual Wikipedia policies to back up your arguments, I reject your accusation that it is I who has been remiss in following them.
 * At any rate, in the interests of getting the article back on track, I'm conceding the point (the reliability of VR-Zone as a source) for the time being, until I've had the opportunity to consult with a more experienced editor. I guess that finally wraps up this dispute? Indrek (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you need more input regarding the reliability of a source, try WP:RSN. Show them the source and what you want to use it for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's exactly what I've done, but it seems to be taking a while to get a response. Indrek (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it can take a few days. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Urklistre: so what's this about? "Do not edit page during dispute"? Didn't you yourself repeatedly encourage me to just edit the article, instead of discussing on the talk page? And what dispute are we still having? The last thing you contested was the VR-Zone ref, and that's been removed. Kindly explain what issues you still have with the article, instead of just stubbornly reverting everything you find the slightest problem with. Indrek (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no dispute about it. Continue to edit, just dont undo my changes and we will be fine./Urklistre (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly which changes you mean, but alright, I'll continue to edit the article where I think it needs improvement. I hope next time you'll explain your edits either on the talk page or at least in the edit summary, though. Indrek (talk) 09:09, 26 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.[3] 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.[9] 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.[10][11]" /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".[2]
 * 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,[3] 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.[8][9][10]
 * 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.[3][10] 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.[9] 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.[10][11]" /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)
 * While the content has to be supported by the source(s) there is no obligation to parrot it back. Even with slightly different wording what was created was a close paraphrase of the original. This means it was still a derivative work of the original and so a problem under Wikipedia's copyright policy. It would need to be rewritten from scratch in order to be reinserted into the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! I will rewrite it from scratch. It may take a day or too but please check it out when I am finished./Urklistre (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary reason for move to 16:9
User:Urklistre added the following content to the article (highlighted in bold): "The primary reasons for this move is considered to be that 16:9 match the HD formats used in televisions and 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." Diffs:

I reverted the changes due to two reasons. Firstly, the content is a direct copy&paste from one of the sources (, 4th paragraph) and thus a WP:COPYVIO. And secondly, it does not accurately reflect the sources - the source it's taken from considers it a pretext for the move, not the primary reason. In fact, both of the cited sources unanimously mention only production efficiency as the main reason.

This section is therefore for User:Urklistre to explain (per WP:BRD) why he thinks the content he added is accurate, as well as, if necessary, for other editors to help come up with a better wording that isn't a copyvio. Indrek (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Questioned part about opinions
I agree with Yoko. I isnt relevant for the article. Let me also remind Indrek about the The three-revert rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring /Urklistre (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with what? The word "speculations" ? I hardly think that's sufficient explanation for the removal of a whole paragraph of valid, sourced content. Besides, I thought we had agreed that the paragraph itself was useful, and disagreed only about the specific refs to use and the best way to summarise them. What made you take that U-turn to wanting to remove the content completely?
 * Also, your claim that "all others want it removed" is demonstrably false. Before User:Yokononos' edits, no one argued for the complete removal of the paragraph. Even now, the only people who want it removed are you and a newly registered editor with no prior participation in the dispute, and neither of you have offered any real explanation. How is content about people's opinions about the move from 16:10 to 16:9 not relevant in a section about the move from 16:10 to 16:9?
 * Finally, I don't see why you feel the need to remind me about 3RR, when you're the only one who has violated it thus far. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that you remember that policy, I just don't see how it's relevant at the moment. Indrek (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I support inclusion of the paragraph as written by Indrek, as it is coherent, germane, and well-sourced. —Torchiest talkedits 21:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just noting here that wp:checkusers found User:Yokononos to be a wp:sockpuppet of Urklistre, so he's agreeing with himself above. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as User:Urklistre was blocked as a result of an ANI report, and there's consensus for the inclusion of the paragraph as a whole, as well as the VR-Zone ref (per discussion at WP:RSN), I don't think there's anything left to discuss. Unless there's any objections, I'll be archiving the dispute threads in a day or two, to make room for new discussions. Indrek (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2012 (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 Sockpuppet investigations/Urklistre for more information. Indrek (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion
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 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.


 * 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.
 * Your #3 to add an tag to the tablet section sounds good.
 * Golden Ratio section is too dense. I suggest:
 * 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]
 * 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.
 * 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)

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


 * 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: 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)
 * 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.
 * 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, 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, /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 (Dispute_resolution_noticeboard). 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)

User:QAQUAU has also been found to be a sockpuppet, which basically makes this entire dispute yet another case of vandalism by one person. I'll archive this section of the talk page in a couple of days (as I've done with the previous disputes), to make room for constructive discussion and legitimate suggestions from other editors. Indrek (talk) 23:21, 3 May 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)


 * and don't look like blog posts to me, they're regular articles on the respective news sites.  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, 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)