User talk:Yowanvista

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WDDM claims[edit]

Hello, Yowanvista

I'd like to inform you that your claims of WDDM 1.3 and Direct3D 11.2 support in Windows Display Driver Model and DirectX Graphics Infrastructure failed verification against the sources that you supplied and are therefore reverted. If you think I might have missed the sentence that says WDDM 1.3 or Direct3D 11.2 is supported, please quote the exact sentence so that I use the Find function in my browser to verify it.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The Microsoft MSDN article clearly states "Windows 8.1 Preview introduces version 1.3 of the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM)" and "The following functionality has been added in Direct3D 11.2, which is included with Windows 8.1 Preview, Windows RT 8.1 Preview, and Windows Server 2012 R2 Preview." along with all the features that I supposedly 'claimed'. WDDM1.3 is in fact used in Windows 8.1 Preview, you can verify it by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yowanvista (talkcontribs) 15:12, 6 August 2013‎ (UTC)
Hi.
Mind if you keep the entire discussion here? It is very uncomfortable to switch between talk pages to keep track of replies. (Wikipedians reply in their talk pages and use {{talkback}} to notify their correspondents of first reply.)
Right now, I have your source on my screen. I cannot find the sentence "Windows 8.1 Preview introduces version 1.3 of the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM)" or even "WDDM" in this article. So, could you please double-check the URL?
By the way, please considersigning yourr messages by appending ~~~~ to the end. Best regards, 15:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clearer but the two references[1][2] which I originally added to the WDDM article state WDDM1.3 and the list of new features along with the quotes. Yowanvista (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Now that's why I call a good source. Happy editing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Units in Rimac Concept One[edit]

Hi! Regarding your recent edit at Rimac Concept One which flipped the imperial and metric conversions around. Our policy is to use the value that was given in the reference as the input to {{convert}}. If the article wants the conversion shown in the other order (e.g. to make metric display first, the we use |disp=flip. This makes it easier to verify the value against the reference, consistently displays the correct unit first throughout the article and avoids double conversions.

Whereas your version took 0-60 mph in 2.8 seconds from the reference (displayed as '0–97 km/h (0–60 mph) in 2.8 seconds') and changed it to '0–100 km/h (0–62 mph) in 2.8 seconds'. You unwittingly changed it from '0-60 mph' to '0-62 mph', which is typical of double conversions.  Stepho  talk  23:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The figures were obtained straight from the Rimac's website[3] which very clearly gives everything in metric. It's obvious that the existing primary U.S sources for that article had the units converted from metric to imperial and thus introduced a certain degree of false precision. For instance, 310 miles when re-converted back to metric gives 499 km and not the exact 500 km as stated by the manufacturer[4] in their press release. The same goes for that 304km/h (305km/h according to manufacturer) which was converted from 189mph and '0-97km/h' which should actually be '0-100km/h' as given by Rimac.
The first paragraph also states "With a total output of 1,088 hp, an acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h in 2.8 seconds" but the values present in the 'Specifications' section are misleading and inaccurate since they were converted back from imperial. Wouldn't it be better if official sources were used instead of relying on 3rd party references? After all, this is not an American car and metric units should be used in {{convert}} tags. Yowanvista (talk)
Hi! You make some good points. However, WP:WPNOTRS tells us that Wikipedia tries to avoid primary sources (because it is in their interests to "exaggerate" their claims). Instead, we prefer secondary sources from trustworthy publishers who are more likely to give unbiased figures. In the Rimac article, the only reference gave the measurement in imperial figures. However, the Rimac website gives the same measurement within the scope of rounding, so I'm happy to accept that the Rimac website is the more accurate figure. To make the article reflect this correctly, we need to change the convert figure in the way that you did, followed by both the Rimac web page (the untrustworthy primary source with more accuracy) and the topspeed web page (the more trusted secondary source with rounding).  Stepho  talk  09:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)