Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European event - European date format

This is very explicitly contravening what WP:DATEVAR actually says. To whatever extent you've enforced this interpretation in other articles, you need to undo it. Remsense ‥ 论 11:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:RETAIN states When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. It seems a lot of the articles you have changed/reverted to mdy format have no ties at all to the USA. Orange sticker (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get it twisted: I'm undoing unilateral switches to DMY that are totally unjustifiable both by what WP:DATEVAR clearly says, and what has been hashed out in talk discussions over and over again over the years. Remsense ‥ 论 12:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing up unilateral switches with date consistency. I might be guilty of unilateral switching in a few articles, but the main rule is that the date formats should be consistent in the article, and in many articles, they aren't. In those cases I pick the most suitable format for the subject. Marbe166 (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I made a couple mistakes in reverting a few dozen of yours. Remsense ‥ 论 13:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you get tired of scrolling on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I will answer your question here. Yes, Norris retired but was still classified as he completed more than 90% of the race distance. This means it should be shown as "20†" in the standings table on the Wikipedia page. However @Island92 (if I remember correctly) changed this to "20" some months after the Grand Prix, because the final classification for the race indicates that Norris actually finished the race some laps behind the leader. The classification should show "DNF" as the gap of Norris to the leader, instead of "_ LAPS". BryOn2205U (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Norris was classified as 7 LAPS. DNF would have been put had he covered 90% race distance. This has always been the case per FIA final race PDF results. He is classified as 7 LAPS, not as DNF which makes you aware that 90% race distance was covered. Island92 (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean DNF would have been put had he not covered the 90%. Marbe166 (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Russell retired from the 2024 Australian Grand Prix hence DNF was put, but was classified as 17th as he covered 90% distance.Island92 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the wiki pages here. They should both be listed as finished with † since they were both classified. Marbe166 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why there should be † next to the "20".

So generally, my point is that these official classifications, as well as the official Drivers' and Teams' Standings tables (at least the ones for F2 and F3) often have mistakes, and it's a shame, because it's the number one source for the Wikipedia standings tables. Especially the mistake where they list "DNS" drivers as "DNF" happens too often. BryOn2205U (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant. The same applies to Norris, when he retired from the 2024 Austrian Grand Prix on lap 64/71. As he completed at least 90% of the race distance, he was classified in 20th place. However, unlike in Russell's case, the classification shows Norris's gap to the leader is "7 LAPS", which would indicate he still crossed the finish line 7 laps behind the winner, which is not true as he retired in the pit lane. BryOn2205U (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In place of 7 LAPS there should be DNF (as he effectively retired), but classified 20th for 90% race distance covered, all this to match Russell case. It's FIA mistake in that document this time out, as well as on F1.com results section. It's the first time I am encountering something similar. Island92 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]