Happened to be looking at a wikipedia page for someone whose birthday is today, but the auto calculation seems to be out.
I doubt she's wearing a "31 today" badge, anyway.
Wait!, what? Wikipedia date?
-
Gfamily
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 6008
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
- Location: NW England
Wait!, what? Wikipedia date?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
-
geejaytee
- Clardic Fug
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:32 pm
- Location: Norf Landan, mate
Re: Wait!, what? Wikipedia date?
Weirdly, I've just tried editing and previewing without any changes, and it updated to 32, when the original page shows 31. I've obviously not committed the edit as I haven't changed anything.
My thought was that it depended on the which TZ "Wikipedia" exists in, but it would now have to be ~20:30 before GMT, which wouldn't happen even with a fractally convoluted Date Line.
My thought was that it depended on the which TZ "Wikipedia" exists in, but it would now have to be ~20:30 before GMT, which wouldn't happen even with a fractally convoluted Date Line.
-
Gfamily
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 6008
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
- Location: NW England
Re: Wait!, what? Wikipedia date?
Well, Bo Derek (born 20 Nov '58) is showing as still being 62 today.
But I've looked at two people born on 19 Nov, and one is showing the correct age, and the other is showing the 'year earlier' age.
Odd.
But I've looked at two people born on 19 Nov, and one is showing the correct age, and the other is showing the 'year earlier' age.
Odd.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
-
dyqik
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
- Location: Masshole
- Contact:
Re: Wait!, what? Wikipedia date?
It's probably cached somewhere.
-
Gfamily
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 6008
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
- Location: NW England
Re: Wait!, what? Wikipedia date?
I tried a 'Ctrl+F5', but it didn't shift it.
I then 'published' the page as an edit (without having changed anything) and it's showing "age 32" now. However the 'mobile' page is still showing '31', so you're probably right.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
-
dyqik
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
- Location: Masshole
- Contact:
Re: Wait!, what? Wikipedia date?
Ctrl+F5 is just for your local cache. There's probably caching server-side for things like derived content.Gfamily wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:13 pmI tried a 'Ctrl+F5', but it didn't shift it.
I then 'published' the page as an edit (without having changed anything) and it's showing "age 32" now. However the 'mobile' page is still showing '31', so you're probably right.
-
GeenDienst
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:10 am
Re: Wait!, what? Wikipedia date?
I thought they'd started a dating service. It would be great, you could edit them if they turned out to be horrible.
Just tell 'em I'm broke and don't come round here no more.