Talk:Video Electronics Standards Association

message: I'm not a fan of how this is phrased. VESA had been criticized for holding miserable track record when it comes to digital interface standards.[2] -216.138.38.86 20:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. The linked criticism wasn't a reliable source. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean 

message: 所謂的視訊電子標準協會Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) 乃是一個國際性的團體, 成立於1980年代的後期由 NEC Home Electronics以及八個視訊顯示器adaptor製造商所聯合發起的. 起初的目標為制定一個標準提供給解析度為 800x600 SVGA 的視訊顯示器使用. Andypongtw (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. --76.254.85.70 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese version 

message: IMO it's noteworthy enough to warrant its own article, as a very large number of monitors (especially LCDs) use CVT-based custom resolutions.24.106.24.122 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Coordinated Video Timings exists as a separate stub. ~Kvng (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coordinated Video Timings" redirects here 

message: There's useless information here about pronounciation. 
Which is the misconception - 
*that it's pronounced vísa, which is the claim which immediately precedes the statement "that's a misconception"? 
Or, 
*that it's pronounced vésa, which is the apparent fauxpas that's described in the statement immediately preceding "that's a misconception"? 
--76.254.85.70 (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the pronunciation misconception? 

message: The entire criticisms section is hard to understand because of the grammar.  The sentence "VESA has the practice of heavily charging published standard", I am afraid to try to fix because I am not sure of the intended meaning.  (Did they mean frequently changing?  Did they mean charging a lot of money?)
76.233.145.185 (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded it to what I think they were intending to say.  It still needs to be looked at from NPOV.Makyen (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure what this means 

message: Someone, IP 93.103.44.244, added a NPOV tag to the "criticisms" section without starting a discussion on the issue even though the NPOV tag explicitly says go see the discussion on the talk page.  I have re-worded the section to be a bit more neutral, but it could still use some work.Makyen (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]