Talk:screensaver
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
There is a separate article for "screen saver" (with a space). Can someone merge them? 86.131.102.228 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- We don't merge them, but leave alternative spellings in place. I have done that. Conrad.Irwin 16:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Not the usual sense of an idling animation, but "the background picture of a computer screen." I suppose they mean the desktop background? Equinox ◑ 14:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sense added by Dmol (talk • contribs) who said, at the time that it was erroneous. Just delete the sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think he meant that it was erroneous in the sense of being a misnomer, not that it wasn't used. Normal RfV seems appropriate given our lax standards for this kind of misnomer. If we were to get three cites of someone referring to what is usually called a "horse-chestnut tree" instead as a "chestnut tree", we would certainly include the second definition. DCDuring (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm... I used to hear it used all the time. It's probably hard to cite though, since it would be used in almost identical contexts to the main sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think I may have cited it, as well as an expansion of the sense that includes phone and ipod backgrounds. I added so many cites so that I'd cover both, but some can easily be relegated to the Citations page. It's hard to be 100% sure about all of the excerpts, but given that they seem to be referencing a static photo, I assume it's not referring to an actual screensaver, since those are always animated, AFAIK. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not always animated: the most basic screensaver (sense 1) is simply a blank screen. (Any non-blank non-animated screensaver would be just as bad for screenburn as having none at all; but I believe Disney did produce some of these, which just displayed various cartoon characters in fixed poses.) Equinox ◑ 20:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. I should clarify too that when I said "animated" I was thinking simply of movement, so that includes slideshows/changing images as well. The cites I used refer to single, fixed images, and are from the past five to ten years, so I assume they're referring to desktop backgrounds. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not always animated: the most basic screensaver (sense 1) is simply a blank screen. (Any non-blank non-animated screensaver would be just as bad for screenburn as having none at all; but I believe Disney did produce some of these, which just displayed various cartoon characters in fixed poses.) Equinox ◑ 20:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think I may have cited it, as well as an expansion of the sense that includes phone and ipod backgrounds. I added so many cites so that I'd cover both, but some can easily be relegated to the Citations page. It's hard to be 100% sure about all of the excerpts, but given that they seem to be referencing a static photo, I assume it's not referring to an actual screensaver, since those are always animated, AFAIK. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm... I used to hear it used all the time. It's probably hard to cite though, since it would be used in almost identical contexts to the main sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think he meant that it was erroneous in the sense of being a misnomer, not that it wasn't used. Normal RfV seems appropriate given our lax standards for this kind of misnomer. If we were to get three cites of someone referring to what is usually called a "horse-chestnut tree" instead as a "chestnut tree", we would certainly include the second definition. DCDuring (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)