Hosta

I posted and was reverted since we're not supposed to edit archives. But if this is true why is there an edit button for every section?

I did get a response after all. It seems the recipient found the emails in his/her spam folder. This still doesn't explain why I didn't get a copy of my sent email.HarleyRandomBoy 22:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having some issues with sending emails, which meant I had to click twice on the button in order to actually send it. I wonder if that's related. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the past 2 days I have been unable to browse the Wikimedia Commons. It returns an SSL certificate error. Blackberry Bold 9900 browser using the Desktop view. Checkingfax (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact error message and the full web address to try this with? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, AKlapper (WMF). https://commons.wikimedia.org/ is the URL. Here is the error: Refusing connection. This server has been previously noted as supporting http Strict Transport Security. Due to SSL certificate warnings/errors, a connection will not be made. Then there is an OK button. If I try an http as a workaround URL Wikipedia renders it to https. Checkingfax (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Yay! I can now get to the Commons. Thank you to the Wikigods. Checkingfax (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Materialscientist has used the "email user" three times from my Talk page and they never went through to me. I get Wikipedia emails all day but not these sent from the "email user" link". I use Gmail and have successfully for 10 years. Checkingfax (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Problems of this sort usually come down to "what is the sender's email provider?" see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Is "Email this user" on the blink? and the threads linked back from there, also phab:T66795. It mainly affects Yahoo, and the recipient's email address has little to do with it. That said, have you checked your spam box? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, nothing in my Gmail Spam folder nor Junk Mail folder. I do not know what email server Materialscientist uses. I need a Checkuser run because there is a security hole in Wikipedia that needs to be patched. I have a strong password plus a username that is not in the dictionary. Checkingfax (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got one. Checkingfax (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know why are not these buttons 1 and 2 being displayed while transcluded (i.e. in template’s documentation itself too), but correctly while using Show preview option? --Obsuser (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why saved pages and previews render differently. sr:User:PrimeHunter/sandbox has a simplified case where the only content is <span class="ui-button">Test</span>. I see a button in preview but only the text in the saved page. At the English Wikipedia it renders as a button for me in both preview and a saved page like here: Test. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotices, such as Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), are now editable by anyone. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I raised phab:T113121 about this issue. TTO's apostrophe (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at WP:BOTREQ#Bot to undelete 400,000 old IP talk pages - a proposal to use a bot to undelete some 400,000 IP talk pages that were deleted as stale. 103.6.159.88 (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AWB seems to have a broken preview today. I suspect that stylesheet changed on mediawiki or an API option changed? Can anyone help?

@Rjwilmsi and Reedy: Check this out. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No changes (it's weekend). It seems CSS is just missing. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If page A has been moved to page B and the protection settings for A moved to B, why is A still protected? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoffreyT2000: Do you have an example? Does it involve pending changes protection, by chance? Graham87 12:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: For example, Template:Edit protected, which is semi-protected, was moved to Template:Edit fully protected, which is also semi-protected, which in turn was moved to Template:Edit fully-protected, which again is semi-protected. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably intended. –xeno^talk 14:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when a page is moved, the redirect which is created during that move inherits the prot settings of the moved page. This has been the case for as long as I've been around. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. This worked before, it is supposed to sign your name when you add it to a page, but for some reason this time it added four tildes without them being converted to a dig. I wouldn't have thought that was even possible, but there it is. The only recent change to the template was a move, I don't know how that could have borked it but that's why I'm asking here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: I believe it's because you didn't substitute it. Sam Walton (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

aw crap, I believe you are correct. Never mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Last edited" part is now on the bottom rather than the top in Mobile Wikipedia. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We know. :) See phab:T104697. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly familiar with the different permissions that each user access level has. Can someone confirm whether this edit is correct or not? The edit changes the "skipcaptcha" permission for registered accounts from "granted" to "limited" status. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that edit is correct. Graham87 12:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take to present a Main Page that each user could personalize the inclusion/arrangement of the content features (Today's featured article, In the news, On this day, etc)?   The Transhumanist 08:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, make a copy of Main Page in your userspace. You will find that most of it is transcluded content that's been arranged into boxes with tables and <div>...</div>s. Just move it around to get the arrangement that you like. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is asking for a customisable Main Page, i.e. you can click a button and the Main Page suddenly appears differently, as if you're visiting Facebook. This kind of setup would require radical changes and extensive coding work that wouldn't be compatible with our MediaWiki software. Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More like My Yahoo. Select the components you want, and in what order they are presented. The Transhumanist 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And if you want to see your version instead of current Main page, then do this. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I started that page. Preferences are much more prominent (users can readily find them). The Transhumanist 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about pre-configured alternately arranged versions selected by gadget?

@Edgars2007:, you've given me an idea. There are only so many layout combinations possible with the few content features the Main Page has. Therefore, a version of the Main Page could be done with Today's featured article alone at the top, another with In the news and On this day at the top, etc., therefore offering several possible layout configurations. A gadget item can be placed in preferences for selecting each of them, like the one that is there now for the Main Page redesign.

This seems doable. What are the relevant issues? The Transhumanist 00:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latest note at User talk:KDS4444 surprised me: another editor reports that it's impossible to create pages with Visual Editor, so aside from creating pages in userspace, the only practical way to do it is to use the normal editor mode to create the page and then actually do the writing in VE. This can cause problems; the note is related to the GIET page, which consisted only of "GIET can refer to" upon creation and was therefore tagged for speedy deletion before the creator could add more content. Is this a known problem? I'm not seeing anything relevant at WP:VE#Limitations. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did succeed in launching a page through ?veaction=edit here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did you get there: did you have to change the URL, or could you simply pick an option somewhere? (I've never used VE, so I don't have a clue how it works.) If the former, I don't see the benefit, since the whole reason for VE is to support editors who just want to sit down and write, rather than worrying about coding and editing tricks. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By appending ?veaction=edit to the URL of the page. I believe there are settings to have a "VE mode" page but I don't use them - maybe these don't work on non-existent pages?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I have the visual editor enabled and I definitely have the option to create new pages using it without any URL manipulation. Not sure what's going on here. — Earwig ^talk 21:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This report is strange indeed. If you do have VE enabled in your Beta Preferences, then you do get a "Create" tab to start pages with VE. However, that will only work on namespaces where VE is enabled; even when you have VE enabled, clicking on a red link will not launch it for you - you have to click on the VE tab deliberately. I'll ask the editor for more information anyway :) Best, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I imagined, Nyttend, the problem was accessing VE from a red link (in this case, after searching for the article). The easiest workaround is the one I described above. FWIW other Wikipedias have changed the interface messages that editors see when looking for/landing on the page of an article which doesn't exist, adding a link so that editors can launch VE directly to create the article. Best, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never come across this before. In Firefox 40.0.3, at this article, I clicked on the table image of Akmal Ikramov, and it redirects to the main page of Commons. The article creator does not have that problem. I clicked on the image from IE 11, and it goes directly to the image in Commons. I did not have that peculiar issue with any other image in that table. — Maile (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have the Firefox add-on NoScript. The double parentheses in the url https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Soviet_Union_1968_CPA_3668_stamp_(One_of_Organizers_of_the_Communist_Party_of_Uzbekistan_Akmal_Ikramov_(1898%E2%80%931938)).jpg can trigger a Noscript filter against cross-site scripting. https://noscript.net/faq#qa4_2 mentions other problem url's. It should work if you disable NoScript, make a NoScript exception or use a url with percent encoding like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Soviet_Union_1968_CPA_3668_stamp_%28One_of_Organizers_of_the_Communist_Party_of_Uzbekistan_Akmal_Ikramov_%281898%E2%80%931938%29%29.jpg. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guessed correctly. Thanks for solving the mystery. — Maile (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to test for the first use of a particular template in a page? Use case would be to provide a longer alt text on the first use of a symbol template on a page, but for subsequent uses of the same symbol template to use just the name of the symbol as the alt text. Thisisnotatest (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were, it would likely break when the page was parsed with Parsoid. Anomie⚔ 01:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Bot is randomly intercepting occasional article edits performed by me. Then CB appends my Edit Summary with: Assisted by citation bot. Checkingfax (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably to do with what you have in User:Checkingfax/common.js, in particular https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zhaofeng_Li/Reflinks.js Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you didn't click the "Citations" button, assuming you have one? It can be disabled at "Citation expander" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Citations button and I have never pressed it. Checkingfax (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's hard to say with certainty. If you never use it intentionally then you can just disable it. Whether it's activated by a bug or misclick, it will probably stop if you disable it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it doesn't like you. The Transhumanist 00:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 5 and September 3 continue to be missing at http://stats.grok.se/. Note that in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_139#Missing_stats_dates, you can see I already mentioned this. I have left another note at User_talk:Henrik#Missing_stats_dates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I move protected the Great Western Railway (train operating company) article. It later became apparent that move protecting the article did not move protect the talk page, which I later move protected too.

Is there any technical reason that move protecting both article and talk page cannot be implemented by the action of move protecting the article? If this is possible, can it be introduced please? Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are distinct pages, and have distinct prot settings. To tie them would mean a change to MediaWiki software, and thus a feature request at phab:. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could have a bot that looks for such pages and move-protects the talk pages. Is there any reason why such a talk page should not be move protected? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be OK if automatic move protection was part of the software but let's not make a bot run around and add to protection logs unless unwanted talk page moves are a common problem. If move protection is removed from an article then the talk page might keep the protection until a bot catches up. Moves have been used to archive talk pages. It's still possible but generally not done. See Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a talk page non-move protected meant that an editor who objected to the article being moved was able to move the talk page back to its original title (but not the article). This left us with the situation of article and its talk page being housed at different titles. A bit confusing at best and highly disruptive in any case. Said editor threw a major hissy fit yesterday, moved a lot of talk pages and got himself indeffed. Would be nice if we could avoid this situation occurring again. If it means that Admins have to remember to move protect talk pages when they move protect articles, so be it. Mjroots (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There could be at least note, that talk page won't be move protected. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just now looked at a section higher up on this page and clicked the link to [2], a diff for a now-deleted page, but instead of getting the ordinary message about "you have followed a link to a page that does not exist in the database", I was presented with MediaWiki:Badtitletext. Same thing with [3]. Any idea what happened? It's not a case of someone accidentally including an illegal character in the URLs; in both cases, when I strip out everything after the title (i.e. &curid= and everything following), I'm presented with a normal this-doesn't-exist page, complete with the deletion log entry and (since I'm an admin) a link to view or restore the deleted edits. Nyttend (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs like that don't work for deleted pages because, as I understand it, once a page is deleted each revision stops being 'known' by its revision ID and is instead known by its timestamp. For example, here is a diff from the deleted page that works. Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diff isn't supposed to work but the error message should be different. It appears to happen when curid (a unique page ID seen on "Page information" in the left pane) is used with the old page ID of a deleted page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghazanfar_Ali_Abbasi&diff=681046280 with no curid in the url works (in the sense of saying the page may have been deleted), but https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Waz&curid=47816432 fails (in the sense of giving a confusing message). If the page name is replaced by an existing page then it still fails when curid is for a deleted page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example&curid=47816432. curid works when the ID of an existing page is used: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example&curid=1646233. I don't know whether it's a new issue. A page name and not a curid is usually in url's so it may have gone undetected but Largoplazo posted url's with both page name and curid in #History: flagging speedy deletion template removal when it wasn't removed. I don't know where Largoplazo got the url's but they worked at the time when the page existed. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A large curid which has never been used also produces the confusing error message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example&curid=99999999. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The confusing error message on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Waz&curid=47816432 is made with MediaWiki:Badtitletext which has been customized at the English Wikipedia and could add mention of this possibility if it's a feature and not a bug that the message is used on non-existing curid. The default message MediaWiki:Badtitletext/qqx is maybe less confusing but still unhelpful. The more helpful message on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghazanfar_Ali_Abbasi&diff=681046280 is MediaWiki:Difference-missing-revision which has not been customized so we see the MediaWiki default. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And an additional update, just for English Wikipedia: as requested in an earlier discussion, we now ask that search engines do not index pages in the user name space. [19] /Johan (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I losing it or does the page move tool still look exactly the same? Or was the change just some backend stuff that users aren't meant to notice? Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You're not losing it. I noticed no difference myself. --Izno (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  As written above on the "changes this week" section, the newest version (1.26wmf24) will be deployed on Thursday (Sept. 24). --Stryn (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I could have formulated that clearer. Mea culpa. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to this, I tried to help someone on the Help Desk and what he/she needed help with disappeared. I saw V-T-E with a navbox, and then I didn't. And I went to Temporary test page and the navbox there appeared and then disappeared.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: Please try completely clearing your browser's cache one more time, and tell me if that works. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed. I can't see tags saying articles need improvement either. Whether there's another step to "completely" clear the cache I don't know, but I followed the directions in the Wikipedia space directions. CTRL and F5, and I cleared my history too.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion

I have completely cleared my cache in IE9 on Windows Vista, and I still don't see navboxes in mainspace, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temporary_test_page&redirect=no where the navbox is only visible a fraction of a second when the page is reloaded. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see it if you go incognito? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's called InPrivate-browsing in IE. It makes no difference. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does logged-out status. phab:T108727 had been closed 10 September, I just changed that.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: The change I made wouldn't have affected you, so clearing your cache wouldn't do anything. At this stage I'm not convinced that you and Vchimpanzee are experiencing the same issue, because that CSS that was in Vchimpanzee's subpage would definitely remove navboxes. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pageNavBox is not used in navigation templates. It's only used in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/header for a floating box at the bottom left of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. It has been used similarly on Wikipedia:Help desk in the past but was removed there.[20] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deskana (WMF): win7_ie_9.0 and win7_ie_11.0 PrimeHunter has outlined the exact issue at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temporary_test_page&redirect=no. I'm assuming the navboxes will display properly on Win7/Vista IE9 if the related css classes are temporarily removed from MediaWiki:Print.css, but the underlying issue at phab:T108727 needs to be fixed. - 185.108.128.10 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, you all know far more about this than I do. I guess I'll leave you all to it. Good luck. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep a watch on everything in several categories that contain a boatload of subcategories; e.g., Category:Prehistoric mammals. 'Related changes' would normally be the tool of choice, I guess, but this will not descend into sub-categories, forcing me to set up 50+ links to individual subs. Is there a way to have 'related changes' span pages in sub-categories? At the moment I'm using CatScan as a work-around to show all pages in a cat with changes in the last 24h, which isn't half bad, but it still requires me to click into the history of each article to check the nature of the edit, rather than providing a nice summary for quick triage. Any advice? -- Elmidae (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is such tool, but it isn't working. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. So no dice on that front, I suspect?-- Elmidae (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many searches I use to find errors are now coming back with the message "An error has occurred while searching: Search request is longer than the maximum allowed length." Indicating that a search string can only be 300 characters long. Examples of such searches are at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Centuries1. The only reference to this I can find is at www.mail-archive.com/mediawiki.... What is the reason for this change? Is there a work around? Any other ideas? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons, see the corresponding Phabricator task. This change was also mentioned in Tech News. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I guess there is a good reason for it, and if a workaround would leave vulnerabilities to a denial-of-service attack I'm out of luck. This is a small thing Wikipedia wide, but it dramatically affects the wikignome work I do. I suspect this will similarly affect other people looking for typos etc. Any other ideas would be appreciated.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just edited List of pharmacy schools, the Rwanda section; it shows completely blank, other than the heading, on the page, though the section (in the edit screen) has the correct text. What am i missing? I have bypassed my cache and purged the page (though i barely know what those phrases mean, i can talk the talk!), and if i go back to the editor what i expect to see is visible, it simply is not showing on the rendered page. In addition, the History page shows the right increase in page size, so the edit "took". I use Chrome, on Windows 7, if that matters. Oh, and i should add that i have made several other edits, to that page and to others, and have not had the same issue arise. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 14:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My gosh, now i feel silly. Thanks, Trappist. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia returned a 503 error for me for about five minutes. Was anyone else having this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwightt (talk • contribs) 16:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Servers are back! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It went down and came back. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whilst we are on this subject. I have noticed occasionally that some references on WP have been deleted on Saturdays and Sundays on the basis that they are dead links, when all that is happening, is that the site is under going a little weekend maintenance. I ask editors here to please wait at least 48 hours. Perhaps we should approach the Wayback Machine organisation to make an archive copy of all the pages we link to - or do it ourselves. I've spent hours tying to find alternative copies of verifiable source material that has just evaporated into the either when the sites die. Would this idea get support if I posted it on proposals?--Aspro (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References should not be deleted, and never on the grounds that the link is dead. Add a {{dead link}} inside the <ref>...</ref> but outside any {{cite web}} (or similar) that might be present. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Yet, WP has so many polices and guidelines that many editor are not aware of all of them all and just delete. Even then, {{dead link}} leaves the reader without the verifiable source to read. Jimmy Wales has had the foresight to provide the WMF with a little war-chest. A expository of verifiable WP references may not cost a lot and would be well worth it. It would make WP not just an encyclopedia but the depository of human knowledge. Oh gosh, on re-reading that last part, it sounds far too grand and precocious – but I hope you see through to what I am getting at.--Aspro (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When following a link to a section on another page, I sometimes end up, not at the beginning of the linked section, but lower down on the page. I've been noticing this on links to sections of talk pages for a while now, I'm not sure if I've seen it with links to sections of article pages. Is this a known issue? (I'm using the latest version of Firefox on a Windows 7 desktop.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: Is this the same as Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Redirect to section, or maybe Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Section link malfunction? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]