Talk:Display resolution

Table missing row for 5k

The iMac 27" with Retina display is a 5k monitor with the resolution 5120 × 2880. It should probably be included, as this has been a standard since 2014.

Discussion of inclusion of external website

This discussion is regarding this edit and subsequent dispute between me and User:Blackraider77, which added an external link to www.screenresolutiontest.com. This is a website which displays the resolution (window.screen.width and window.screen.height) reported by the web browser. These types of websites are not accurate in many situations, because the information reported by the web browser is not the true width and height of the screen, and is affected by OS and browser scaling. That means an incorrect result is displayed on any mobile phone, any MacBook, any Windows device with text scaling enabled (which is most people using 4K monitors), anyone using the browser zoom function, and so forth.

While other pages have external links to relevant calculators, in this case I think it is just as likely to cause confusion as it is to be helpful. While the correct resolution can sometimes be obtained by multiplying the result by window.devicePixelRatio, and the page explains this, it does not actually do that calculation itself, and in some cases that calculation is also wrong (Apple retina computers at non-native scaled resolutions for example). So the main result displayed on the page is the browser's CSS resolution, not the resolution of the display, and there is not necessarily any way to calculate the true display resolution from that information, depending on the system. Since this article is about Display Resolution, people clicking on the link might expect the result to be the resolution of their display, when it isn't. Since the website is called screenresolutiontest, and the result is labeled "your screen's resolution", and the link appears on the Display Resolution article, but the result is actually the browser's CSS resolution (which is basically arbitrary based on individual user/system settings), there is a high chance of misleading many readers and I don't think it's really a good idea to include this utility.

Secondly, I believe this link is self-promotion. There are many screen resolution test websites, they are easy to find with a quick search, so it is a bit strange that the one being put forward here is a very obscure site, one that I have never encountered before. A quick Google search for "screen resolution test" did not turn up this website in the first dozen or so pages, and searching explicitly for the URL turned up almost no results, so no one has posted about it anywhere and it doesn't come up in search results. It also has never been archived on the Wayback machine (until I archived it just now). So, it does not appear to me to be a known or highly-traveled website, so it seems unlikely to me that anyone but the author would be trying to add it here, since I doubt many other people would have even been able to find it. Additionally the editor who has been adding it has no previous edit history, and writes with similar grammar and style to the text on the website. In addition the editor is highly defensive and aggressive toward continually adding the website link back into the article, which I would not expect from an unaffiliated person, although that may be my fault for not being diplomatic enough. But I think this is just an attempt to use Wikipedia to attract ad revenue to this website.

Lastly, regarding the editor's comment:

and who exactly died and made you owner of Wikipedia? where did you get the idea that you could order what someone should do? You questions have been answered and you have been shown to be wrong. If you have any other questions open a discussion on the talk page yourself

Anyone can tell another editor they need to do something, if that thing is a Wikipedia policy. It is also not a good idea to write insults or other remarks like this to other editors. Please revert your edit for the time being, discuss the issue here, and wait until a consensus has been reached that the dispute is resolved before reinstating it. GlenwingKyros (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Currently, on my iMac 27" (2560 x 1440 screen), the webpage shows a display resolution of 1067 x 600. I find the users article edit comment "Your example is local and i have no way of disproving it, therefore your argument is irrelevant" illogical and totally unacceptable. The same error can be seen on any iMac. --Janke | Talk 09:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"That means an incorrect result is displayed on any mobile phone, any MacBook, any Windows device with text scaling enabled (which is most people using 4K monitors)"

That's not true, site in question works perfectly well for all Retina/HiDPI displays in which case it shows resolution in CSS pixels which is only relevant resolution for users of Wikipedia since Wikipedia is a website that is shown inside a browser.

"So the main result displayed on the page is the browser's CSS resolution, not the resolution of the display"

Website in question shows CSS resolution even for traditional desktop monitors but in those cases CSS resolution corresponds 1:1 to physical pixel resolution. CSS resolution is the resolution of the display, fact that you don't know that is troubling for someone who wants edit Wikipedia on subjects they are obviously not qualified for.

"people clicking on the link might expect the result to be the resolution of their display, when it isn't"

You need to stop ruining wikipedia with your ignorance, find something more useful to do and in line with your capabilities.

"but the result is actually the browser's CSS resolution (which is basically arbitrary based on individual user/system settings), there is a high chance of misleading many readers"

Wrong, Device Pixel Ratio is hardcoded for particular device and there is nothing "arbitrary" about it.

Your points about website in question "not being popular" and "being owned by someone" have nothing to do with wikipedia policies and are therefore moot, irrelevant and only your opinions. All other external links on all other wikipedia articles are owned by someone, maybe you should go around and delete them all. There is nothing in Wikipedia's "Links normally to be avoided" that forbid this website to be added to Wikipedia. Adding relevant links to articles is enriching Wikipedia.--Blackraider77 (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

"illogical and totally unacceptable"

Only thing that is illogical and totally unacceptable is that you seem to think your anecdotal stories counts as evidence for something. It sounds to me you should talk to your local Apple representative, you might have a faulty device--Blackraider77 (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the discussion. However, please stop reinstating your edits without waiting for consensus. When there is a dispute, you do not decide yourself when the dispute has been resolved. Otherwise everyone would just decide in their own favor without waiting for response, like you have been doing.

That's not true, site in question works perfectly well for all Retina/HiDPI displays in which case it shows resolution in CSS pixels which is only relevant resolution for users of Wikipedia since Wikipedia is a website that is shown inside a browser.

It correctly displays the CSS resolution recognized by the browser. This resolution is different from the resolution of the display, and therefore it is not an accurate representation of the display's resolution. The numbers shown by the website are not the same number as the physical pixel dimensions of the display (the display resolution). This is a verifiable fact. Therefore it is not an accurate representation of the display resolution. When this is pointed out, you say "it accurately shows the CSS resolution". And when I pointed out that this article is about display resolution, not CSS resolution, you said "Browser resolution is display resolution". This is a contradiction.

People reading the article about display resolution will expect the "screen resolution test" to test the resolution of the screen, not the resolution of the browser they are using to read the article. The link does not say "browser resolution test". What they are using to read the article is irrelevant. The subject of the article is display resolution.

Website in question shows CSS resolution even for traditional desktop monitors but in those cases CSS resolution corresponds 1:1 to physical pixel resolution. CSS resolution is the resolution of the display, fact that you don't know that is troubling for someone who wants edit Wikipedia on subjects they are obviously not qualified for.

Correct, in the situation of a standard desktop without a high-density monitor, it is accurate, because a CSS pixel is the same size as a physical pixel in that specific case. However, in other situations, it is not correct, because a CSS pixel is not the same size as a physical pixel. I gave several examples of situations where that is the case, such as any phone or MacBook, which are both very common viewing devices. CSS resolution is sometimes equal to display resolutions, and sometimes not equal to display resolution.

Wrong, Device Pixel Ratio is hardcoded for particular device and there is nothing "arbitrary" about it.

This is factually incorrect, sorry. Device pixel ratio can be changed as easily as adjusting your browser zoom with the mouse wheel. It is not a hardcoded value based on the device. It is an entirely arbitrary number and is just based on how the user has configured their system and browser settings.

Your points about website in question "not being popular" and "being owned by someone" have nothing to do with wikipedia policies and are therefore moot, irrelevant and only your opinions. There is nothing in Wikipedia's "Links normally to be avoided" that forbid this website to be added to Wikipedia.

If the website is being added for self-promotion purposes, then Wikipedia policies are relevant. Janke has notified you about the WP:LINKSPAM policy on your user talk page already. GlenwingKyros (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Who gets to decide, you and few of your buddies with nothing more useful to do? like i said who made you owner of Wikipedia or this article? What consensus? Everybody in the world can be a wikipedia editor. Nobody asked for my consensus for any of your additions, maybe i should delete them all.

Physical pixel resolution only defines sharpness of display. You seem to be under illusion that there is something called "real" resolution. No such thing defined in any literature. Only thing real is resolution that is actually used - which is CSS pixel resolution, which is used not only by browser but also any other app on device. They all use CSS pixel resolution. Your ignorance is hindering addition to this article.

"It is not a hardcoded value based on the device. It is an entirely arbitrary number"

Really, why don't you change device pixel ratio of your smartphone and then get back to me, show some photographic evidence. You would be first in the world, a true pioneer once in your life.

"If the website is being added for self-promotion purposes, then Wikipedia policies are relevant"

You still haven't answer why don't you go around deleting all external links on Wikipedia that are owned by someone? Like I said there is nothing in official Wikipedia's "Links normally to be avoided" that forbid this website to be added to Wikipedia which means we are just talking about your feelings and i'm not particularly interested in those.

"Janke has notified you about the WP:LINKSPAM policy"

Then you need to stop spamming articles you are not qualified to edit. I see that you got me banned since you couldn't win in debate, truly pathetic display. Larry Sanger is right, Wikipedia has turned into heap of garbage runned by mediocrities.--93.140.167.117 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Who gets to decide, you and few of your buddies with nothing more useful to do? like i said who made you owner of Wikipedia or this article?

Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone. That means neither of us has the authority to make the final decisions about the contents of the article alone. You will need the support of other editors.

Also, the "don't you have anything better to do" insult doesn't really work when you're just as committed, you just end up insulting yourself. Also I'm in transit for several hours right now, so yes I really don't have anything better to do at the current moment :) I hope the same is true for you, because otherwise you might want to consider using your time for more productive things than trying to save face in an internet debate.

What consensus?

A consensus of other editors involved in maintaining the other page. Not just you or me.

Everybody in the world can be a wikipedia editor.

Yes, and sometimes there will be disagreements about what the article should contain. To solve this problem, we have a procedure. This procedure is explained in WP:CONS, and involves convincing other people that you are correct.

So far, three editors have participated in the discussion and two of them agree the link should not be added. If you want the link to be added, you need to participate in discussion until you have persuaded enough people to have a clear consensus (not just reply with arguments that you think are convincing, and then declare that you have won, without waiting for any reply and without anyone else saying they agree with you).

Nobody asked for my consensus for any of your additions, maybe i should delete them all.

If you believe they don't improve the articles and you are prepared to convince other editors of that through discussion, then yes, you can. However, please don't edit without justifiable reason (WP:VANDAL).

Editors don't need to ask for permission or consensus to make a first edit. However, if another editor disagrees and reverts the edit, then the dispute needs to be resolved through discussion before the edit is reinstated.

Physical pixel resolution only defines sharpness of display.

Yes, and this article is about that resolution.

You seem to be under illusion that there is something called "real" resolution.

No, but there is something called "display resolution", which is the physical resolution of the display, defined by the number of pixels in each dimension.

No such thing defined in any literature. Only thing real is resolution that is actually used

The pixels on an LCD are fixed physical objects and can be literally observed and counted with a microscope if you want to. They are very real.

which is CSS pixel resolution, which is used not only by browser but also any other app on device. They all use CSS pixel resolution.

This article is about display resolution, not whatever resolution is used by apps.

Really, why don't you change device pixel ratio of your smartphone and then get back to me, show some photographic evidence.

Certainly. Here you can see the device pixel ratio as reported by your own website is 2.608. But by changing a simple system setting, now it reports 1.764. As you can see, the device pixel ratio is not the same number between the two pictures. The number has changed. This indicates it is not a "fixed hard-coded value" based on the device. Do you agree?

Perhaps you are confusing the device pixel ratio with the pixel density of the display. CSS device pixel ratio is the value returned by calling window.devicePixelRatio in a browser. This value changes when based on system scaling and other factors that change how big a CSS pixel is. So no, device pixel ratio is not a fixed hard-coded value based on the device.

You still haven't answer why don't you go around deleting all external links on Wikipedia that are owned by someone?

Because that doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies. The reason your link was removed is primarily because the numbers that it shows are not the numbers of the display's resolution. Therefore it is either inaccurate, or not showing the display resolution but rather the resolution of something else (the browser) in which case it is off topic.

Like I said there is nothing in official Wikipedia's "Links normally to be avoided" that forbid this website to be added to Wikipedia

I agree it's not forbidden by that list. If it were on that list, it would be disqualified automatically. Since it's not on that list, it isn't disqualified automatically, and is instead decided based on a consensus from editors about whether it improves the article or not. I believe it does not, for reasons that I explained clearly. Janke also believes it does not, for reasons that he also explained. You believe it does. That is 2 to 1, so currently the consensus is that it does not improve the article. That ca change, but the only way it will change is if you to provide enough convincing argument to persuade other editors to agree with you.

Then you need to stop spamming articles you are not qualified to edit.

The WP:LINKSPAM policy has to do with adding external links, which none of my edits have involved. It has nothing to do with qualifications.

If you believe any of my edits violate WP policies, please feel free to report me to an administrator and they will evaluate the situation.

I see that you got me banned since you couldn't win in debate, truly pathetic display.

No, you were banned because you violated the WP:EDITWAR and WP:LINKSPAM policies. This was clearly explained by the administrator who banned you. A ban was issued in order to stop you from editing the page. It was necessary to stop you from editing the page because you refused to stop editing on your own, even though you were fully aware that your edits were violating Wikipedia policy.

It doesn't have anything to do with our debate; if you had continued the discussion here without attempting to reinstate your edits, you would not have been banned. You were warned about these policies several times, so you were fully aware of these policies, but made a decision to continue behaving in opposition to them. Were you expecting not to be banned while refusing to comply with policy? I think the outcome is really quite an obvious consequence of your behavior.

If you are still confused about why you were banned, then you should seek clarification from the administrator who banned you.

Larry Sanger is right, Wikipedia has turned into heap of garbage runned by mediocrities.

It's unlikely anything here will change, so if you don't like it here then find something else to spend your time on. GlenwingKyros (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

16k missing..(?)

There is an article about 16k but nothing in this wiki. Should i...? -- LAZA74 (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Overscanning on a C64

In this image of a Commodore 64 startup screen, the overscan region (the lighter-coloured border) would have been barely visible when shown on a normal television.

I spent a lot of time on a C64 and old TV set in the 1990s. A very significant chunk of the border was visible, and indeed many programmers employed the raster interrupt hack to display information in it. While overscanning is very much a thing, 1980s home computers were pretty conservative with their borders. There's probably a better example of a barely-visible border. (The ZX Spectrum's border was quite visible too. Both machines often used it to indicate loading data, the Spectrum in its firmware.) ZoeB (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are two resolutions labelled HD

Isn't FHD = 1920 * 1080 and HD = 1280 * 720. 2001:4647:C4D4:0:E92A:99E7:A0AE:5548 (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)