Talk:16:9 aspect ratio

Various issues
I think it would be nice to have a section on how the customers and experts rate viewing movies on 16:9 vs 4:3 screens. And, the article is mainly focused on implementation of this ratio on computer displays, yet supported by film taskforce. Dmatteng (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting 360 Phoenix Street Views (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

3D video game tests
I've been doing tests, according to Perspective_projection_distortion a 30 degree vertical field of view angle is ideal for minimizing severe distortion while still having a 3D video game that is able to be played (people don't really grasp just how distorted these games are on a flat screen) whereas at 16:9 the vertical horizontal angle is 88.888... which pushes as far as possible against what is acceptable before things begin to grow visibly rotund at the sides. It's probably merely a coincidence, but it seems like a happy accident nonetheless--184.63.132.236 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

– Per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, the title should be “a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.” The current titles aren’t that at all. This move request comes after a failed attempt to move 21:9 aspect ratio to 21:9, during which it was suggested these titles should moved. See here.  Calidum   18:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 16:9 → 16:9 aspect ratio
 * 14:9 → 14:9 aspect ratio
 * 16:10 → 16:10 aspect ratio


 * Weak oppose. Per WP:CONCISE, titles should be no longer than necessary while still unambiguously identifying the article's subject. Since the terms "16:9", "16:10", "21:9" and "14:9" have no alternative meanings (at least, none that I'm aware of), and no one has demonstrated any actual problems with the current titles vis-à-vis recognisability, there seems to be no reason for the renames. At best, the proposed titles can be added as redirects, as is the case already with 16:9 aspect ratio. Indrek (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "16:10" certainly does; it's about the time of day I start getting hungry for dinner. Red   Slash  17:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. In addition to the fact that the proposed titles are more recognizable (and distinct from common sports scores), article titles should be nouns (WP:NOUN). In the applicable uses here, things like "16:9" and "21:9" are usually adjectives (e.g. "16:9 format," "14:9 cropping") not used alone. Dekimasu よ! 22:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point about WP:NOUN. Although ratios are simply dimensionless quantities, like resolutions, and aren't always used as adjectives. Even the first sentence of this article uses it as a noun: "16:9 is an aspect ratio". Indrek (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Current title could mean anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:CONSISTENCY (with 21:9 aspect ratio), as per the arguments made in the previous 21:9 aspect ratio move discussion. To me, the current article titles look like they'll be talking about mathematical ratios, not TV and film "aspect ratios". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, nom and previous supports. --Gonnym (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per prior discussion and comments above. No need for such ambiguous titles. The conciseness claim above, as if we had a criterion of "no longer than necessary while still unambiguously identifying the article's subject" is nonsense; such a criterion does not exist, and even if it did these are still just bare ratios, which are certainly not identifying anything unambiguously.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The conciseness claim above ... is nonsense; such a criterion does not exist It's the fourth of the five characteristics of a good title listed in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Indrek (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Slightly misquoted, but yet that "no longer than necessary" bit does tend to persist there, even after all the explanations that that's not what "concise" means. Typical dictionary definition is "giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive" which is really how it should be applied here.  The number-only titles do not give much information, and are as far as possible from comprehensive, in addition to being broadly ambiguous.  See WP:CONCISE on the same page, where it is explained that "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." Dicklyon (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

An edit added "said as sixteen by nine" – isn't this incorrect?
Hello,

This edit at 02:16, 24 January 2021 introduced the text "sixteen by nine" into the bracketed statement beginning with "said as". I thought that saying "sixteen by nine" was incorrect. The bracketed statement also says "sixteen to nine". I believed that the only correct way of saying aspect ratios was simply, for example, "sixteen nine". Any help would be appreciated here. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

In the UK it’s most commonly said as “X by X” for aspect ratios. Personally I normally hear/use “X to X” if it’s referring to things like scores, the gradient ratio of an incline, or to denote an unbalanced thing (e.g. “They were outnumbered sixteen-to-nine”). GabrielOGDC (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Names of resolutions be directed to the wrong ones.
Why is it when I click on some of the resolution names, the direct in Graphics display resolution page goes to the wrong resolution? I am mostly talking about FWVGA, WSVGA, and FWXGA. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They work as expected on my end. &mdash; Glenwing (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, I checked using my Chromebook, and they all work perfectly fine. I typed that message when I was editing on my phone. It probably has something to do with being on mobile. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * and checking again with my phone, it has the same problem. FWVGA, WSVGA, and FWXGA all go to 4K in the Graphics display resolution article when I am in Mobile view. But they work normal in Desktop view. What is up with that? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Like in mobile view, it is inconsistent. Many times it just goes to random resolution on the Graphics display resolution page, while other times it works like it should. I feel I did something wrong with editing that caused this to happen. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Dangerous urls
I clicked on a link (the 7th one in the order they are listed), and my security protection software I have on my phone popped up saying that the link is dangerous. Should be removed and replaced? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"HD resolution" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HD_resolution&redirect=no HD resolution] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)