Talk:Display resolution standards

DCI 2K

dci 2k is an exist. why removed from table and no added to table 95.26.146.183 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I added DCI 2K! DCI 2K is exist resolution! 95.26.146.183 (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It was just mistakenly lost as part of the revert.  — Glenwing (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

2048x1152

2048x1152 is not QWXGA. Not 4x bigger pixels than WXGA: is not QWXGA. It is resolution not naming QWXGA 95.26.138.33 (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe 2048x1152 is not QWXGA because the pixel count is not 4 times that of WXGA. It's a marketing term, as 2048x1152 has a 16:9 aspect ratio, and calling it QWXGA is incorrect, as it has 2.25 times more pixels than WXGA 1366x768. 95.26.138.33 (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems to have been called that historically.

• https://www.techpowerup.com/75610/samsung-launches-the-23-inch-2342bwx-office-lcd-with-2048x1152-resolution?cp=2
• https://techcrunch.com/2008/11/10/dell-says-me-too-and-unleashes-the-sp2309w-qwxga-23-inch-lcd-monitor/

 — Glenwing (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

2160x1440 is not FHD+

2160x1440 is not FHD+. Do not adding FHD+ to 2160x1440 ~2026-59311-0 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

3840x1600 UW4K aspect ratio

I made this edit to change the aspect ratio of the 3840x1600 entry from 21.5 to 21.6. However, it was later reverted. Why? Please open any calculator and do the following:

• 1600 / 9 * 21.5 → 3822.2222…
• 1600 / 9 * 21.6 → 3840

Thus, I believe it should be 21.6. CrazyTerabyte (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Your edit was restored less than half an hour later, here :) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Display_resolution_standards&oldid=1343728439  — Glenwing (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, you're right! I missed that and got confused! Sorry for the noise! CrazyTerabyte (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Other WXGA

I've added some cleanup notices to the Other WXGA section. Most of the additions there are lacking citations, which is simple enough.

However, the 1280x720 section seems to have some larger issues. Given it exists fully within the High-definition section, I'm not sure that it needs a full section under WXGA anyway, even if a ref could be sourced for its inclusion there. A mention of its own WXGA credentials (if any) in its entry under the High-definition section should be sufficient.

It also seems to include some... dubious, unspecific, and contradictory claims (inline-cleanup templates added to those sections, with explanations). Unless there are any significant concerns, or someone can clean them up to the point that they make sense, I plan on removing that last sentence entirely. McCovican » log • shhh 08:48, 1 September 2026 (UTC)