# Template talk:Monitor resolutions

See also Template:Widescreen monitor resolutions. Captain Zyrain 07:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the following be merged into the current monitor resolution table?

Computer Standard Resolution Ratio Ratio (Decimal) Pixels
SXGA- (succeeds XGA+) 1280×960 4:3 1.3333 1.2M
QXGA 2048×1536 4:3 1.3333 3.1M
WQXGA 2560×1600 16:10 1.6 4.1M
QSXGA 2560×2048 5:4 1.25 5.2M
WQSXGA 3200×2048 25:16 1.5625 6.6M
QUXGA 3200×2400 4:3 1.3333 7.7M
WQUXGA 3840×2400 16:10 1.6 9.2M
HXGA 4096×3072 4:3 1.3333 12.6M
WHXGA 5120×3200 16:10 1.6 16.4M
HSXGA 5120×4096 5:4 1.25 21M
WHSXGA 6400×4096 25:16 1.5625 26M
HUXGA 6400×4800 4:3 1.3333 31M
WHUXGA 7680×4800 16:10 1.6 37M

-Ice Ardor (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

## Impossible percentages

In this chart we show a negative percentage as a comparison value between two whole integers. It's mathematical nonsense. It should be fixed, I will look at this later and try to correct when I have some time. —fudoreaper (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessarily nonsense. Depends on how exactly you're reading the table; specifically, which resolution (the one in the row or the one in the column) you're taking the percentage of. For instance, for WXGA and WUXGA, the -120% means that the difference from WUXGA to WXGA is -120% of WXGA's pixel count; the - sign means that WUXGA is larger. It's perhaps a bit unintuitive, but not nonsense.
If consensus is that this should be changed, then the fix is to simply flip the percentages across the diagonal, preserving the signs. So the -120% for WXGA and WUXGA would become -54%, meaning that WXGA (the row) = WUXGA (the column) - 54% of WUXGA. And across the diagonal would be +120%, meaning that WUXGA (the row) = WXGA (the column) + 120% of WXGA. Now that I'm typing it out, that does make more sense.
Another option is to show the percentage of the two resolutions, not the difference between them. So WXGA would be 46% of WUXGA, and WUXGA would be 220% of WXGA. Then the signs wouldn't be needed at all. Indrek (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_change_and_difference -> (x - xr)/xr -> x/xr - 1 -> cannot be less than -1. Someone completely misunderstood how to calculate those. 69.70.84.26 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
fixed using a spreadsheet to insure validity.184.163.250.6 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on this. The chart looks reasonable and understandable to me now. Good work! —fudoreaper (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)