Talk:Anti-aliasing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Professional sound production NA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
NA	This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Broad concept article Edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Anti-aliasing was not too long ago renamed Spatial anti-aliasing because of its narrow focus on imaging. This left a gap in coverage of the topic that I tried to fill with this disambiguation page. It was definitely the quick thing to do. Please convince me it was not the right thing to do. --Kvng (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the move/dab was a good idea. The aliasing article is a fairly comprehensive discussion of the problems solved by anti-aliasing. Any article that pointed to this but was talking about anti-aliasing in general should point to aliasing. Perhaps anti-aliasing should redirect to aliasing with a disambiguation tag at the top? --Mblumber (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Anti-Aliasing Edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Too narrow a topic for a Category Robert.Harker (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With or without a hyphen? Edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In Spatial anti-aliasing, I noticed sixty-some instances of anti-aliasing with a hyphen, and only four instances of antialiasing without a hyphen. Before deferring to the majority, I decided to check a dictionary.

At first it seemed Wikipedia got it wrong. I found multiple dictionaries giving antialiasing, without the hyphen, as the main entry for the noun.

Digging deeper however, I found some support for the hyphen. The hyphen appears to be preferred in British English. It's at least acceptable in U.S. English, as an author's choice for clarity.

MOS:HYPHEN talks about trends and tendencies of hyphenation for prefixes, not absolute rules. It defers to dictionaries, but I don't see a clear enough answer from dictionaries on this particular word.
Dictionary.com (Collins): anti-alias
An Oxford Reference search shows both antialiasing and anti-aliasing, with a noticeable preference for the hyphen in British English contexts.
Google web search results are about equally divided.
The Chicago Manual of Style (cited in Grammarly: hyphen in anti-aging?) seems to encourage hyphenation for clarity, when anti- is followed by a vowel.

So I'm deciding in favor of the hyphen, at least for today, in the spirit of MOS:COMMONALITY.

For the future, I encourage lexicographers to clarify U.S. and British orthography for this word, especially in its verb and adjective forms. If that happens, then we should revisit these Wikipedia pages again, and confirm we're presenting the word in a way that's consistent with MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN.

Mrevan (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TuanqA1025E Edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

TuanqA1025E 117.20.113.161 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add topic