Talk:Page orientation

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 10:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: This article seems to have a large number of ways to discuss the same thing. This is an attempt to keep track of the redirects.
* Display orientation
* Display rotation
* Graphics orientation  
* Image orientation
* Landscape display
* Landscape graphics
* Landscape monitor
* Landscape video
* LCD rotation
* Monitor orientation
* Monitor rotation
* Portrait display
* Portrait graphics
* Portrait monitor
* Portrait video
* Screen orientation
* Screen rotation
DMahalko (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just redirected portrait mode and landscape mode here as well. The articles were too short and redundant with what's here. —KCinDC (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects to here 

message: It's not really plausible that the Earth's magnetic field affects the shadow mask of a colour CRT in the way the article currently claims without citation.  If that process occurred as described, then rotating the CRT in the horizontal plane, for instance from facing North to facing East, would have a similar but even greater effect compared to rotating it in a vertical plane; and that clearly doesn't happen in general - monitors just don't go dramatically out of adjustment when rotated in the horizontal plane.  I think it's much more plausible that the effects shown in the pictures are due to the Earth's gravity, not magnetism, affecting the shadow mask differently when the CRT is on its side.  Shadow masks are thin, flexible, and highly position sensitive; turn one sideways and its weight will pull it enough out of shape to produce a visible effect.  However, either way the claim seems to be OR and shouldn't be in the article. 130.179.29.59 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth's magnetic field 

message: It seems odd that the title is 'Page Orientation', but the article is mostly about 'Screen Orientation' ! I would have thought that the terminology 'Landscape or Portrait' existed for paper and printers before screens and computers, no ? Certainly photographers would use it historically for vintage cameras lacking a 'rotating back'! Perhaps artists even before photography ? Even so, maybe priority doesn't determine precedence (or vice-versa?). Perhaps paper is so easily turned that it didn't matter before monitors ? Picture frames ? It all gets a bit metaphysical - generally the screen is used for designing something that will ultimately be output on paper, and could be a portrait of a person lying down (but couché in heraldic terms implies 25-45 degrees) or a landscape dominated by a tall steeple. See also Ceci n'est pas une pipe ! --87.194.174.252 (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to expand the article to discuss paper orientations. That should be included. DMahalko (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to move this page to Screen orientation, only to find out that such a page already exists—and redirects here.  Would it be fair to say that there is a consensus that it should be moved, and make a request to someone who can move it?  CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 04:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this two year old notion. --Mudd1 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Page vs Screen

message: The overview contains an uncited claim that landscape "visually caters to the natural horizontal alignment of human eyes". That sounds like an old wives' tale to me. Is there an evidence for such a claim? A few minutes Googling does not support this claim, so I propose we remove it. 
Garionh (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientation and human eyes