Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gfigs (talk | contribs) at 11:20, 1 March 2021 (→finding a MW page in search: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator (see how to report a bug). Bugs with security implications should be reported differently (see how to report security bugs).

Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. If you want to report a JavaScript error, please follow this guideline. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for five days.


Visual editor copies ref to top of page

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T275650

Hi all, does anyone know why visual editor seems to do this from time to time? I didn't click anywhere near the top of the article and just was expanding the ref. I don't have any other examples off hand, but I have noticed this happening every now and then. Rather odd. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor, Wow, that's weird. I've never seen it do that myself. Do you have some other examples? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Definitely a weird one. Unfortunately not off hand or that I could find in around a 30 minute search. I know that I have seen it before (typically IPs notice and correct lol), but it seems to happen every few hundred to few thousand edits. Special:Diff/1002506672 is the closest I could find, where it inputted random text at the start of the article. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor, You've got under 500 edits that have been reverted. Maybe look over that list and see if any ring a bell? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Good idea. Found one on Taylor Swift Special:Diff/988510759 --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor, Thanks. Were these both instances of you having copied the completed cite template from somewhere and pasted it into the article? The next time this happens, could you please set your time machine to t minus 5 minutes and video record your earlier editing session? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: What's your web browser/operating system, and do you find that you "lose focus" after some things? (Like you know where the cursor is supposed to be, and then you click on something, and the cursor seems to be nowhere)? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Whatamidoing (WMF): I was using Google Chrome on Windows 10. In the Twitter article case, all I did was update the ref and then click apply & then save the edit. As for the Swift article, it was too long ago for me to remember. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor, thanks for your quick response. I realize this is a tiny detail, but do you happen to remember if you needed to click the button twice to get the ref, or to generate it twice? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Could you please clarify the question? Do you mean whether it took two clicks to have the "edit" button show up? If so, that sometimes happens but do not know if it happened in this case, unfortunately. If not, please elaborate and I will answer as best I can. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was wondering if you needed to click one of the "Cite" buttons twice. But I think it will be a wild goose chase. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potential example from my watchlist. CMD (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It happened to me last night in Firefox, and an editor fortunately undid the whole thing instead of correcting it, which meant that I saw it. (It's not a page that I routinely check the history for). The key detail in both my and @Chipmunkdavis's diff is that it's replacing the first template at the top of the wikitext with the citation template.
I think we have enough information to file a bug report. I'll post the bug number here when I've got it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Changes again

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T275017

After this archived thread was resolved, I am once again unable to set pending changes on articles. @Xaosflux:. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

phab:T273317 may be still a problem, could you see if you can add/remove users from the new page patroller and autopatrolled groups? You can test with Special:UserRights/Xaosflux_ep (just set it to expire in a day). — xaosflux Talk 17:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. No problem there.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added to phab:T275017. — xaosflux Talk 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Ponyo, thanks for the report and @Xaosflux thanks for putting it on Phabricator
As a possible workaround, can you try to add yourself to "pending changes reviewers" group to see if that helps you to workaround the issue? Martin Urbanec (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(I know it can sound unrelated, but when debugging the previous occurance of the same issue, it sometimes worked with reviewer, but not without for some weird reason, so that's why I'm suggesting it) Martin Urbanec (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For information, the same happened with my last edits. --Delfield (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes auto-accept error again

In this this thread last month, several users (including myself) mentioned an error where our edits are not being auto-accepted on semi-protected articles. This techincal issue was eventually resolved. Now I'm having the same issue again, as seen here (same article as last time). Can this technical issue be fixed again? Thanks. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect this is same problem as Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Pending_Changes_again above. — xaosflux Talk 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still having the same issue, as you can see from recent edits to the same article. I'm still getting the "pending changes" thing again. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also just experienced this issue on Scratch_(programming_language) [1] - the diff shows the version as current, but the Scratch page shows 1 pending revision, mine. Might it be because I undid an accepted revision? Dialectric (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't know where to put this, but my edits to pending changes pages have recently not been accepted automatically. This is weird because I've been able to make many edits to pending changes pages without any problem earlier this month. My account is almost a year old and I have over 500 edits, I've been able to edit extend-confirmed and semi-protected pages without any issues. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just experienced the same problem. Please see others' complaints at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes#Why I am being caught up in this?. --DB1729 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the same problem. Link to Teahouse discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Pending_Changes_problems) and Phabricator. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

My ignorance of technical matters is complete. My IP address is currently subject to a range block. (1) The instructions given to IPs are confusing and misleading, and I think they ought to be changed. Is this the right place to raise this issue? (2) Up until today, this has not been a problem for me, since I can simply log in to my account. Today, the system kept telling me that I was not allowed to edit Wikipedia because my account had been blocked – it was logging me out in the middle of a simple edit. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not the correct place to raise my query, I would be grateful if someone would tell me where I should do so. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether it’s a global block on Meta or a local one on English Wikipedia. Can you share part of the message you receive, Sweet6970? (No need to divulge the IP address if you’re not comfortable with that.) — Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:15 Fri 26, AEDT) 21:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelagic: Thank you for your reply.

It’s a local one on English Wikipedia. [2] [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:0:0:0:0:0:0/33

The wording I receive as an IP is """""""""""""""""""""""""""

View source for Melvyn Bragg ← Melvyn Bragg Jump to navigationJump to search You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: 

 Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.

Editing from ‪2A02:C7D:0:0:0:0:0:0/33‬ has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Drmies‬ for the following reason(s): Persistent addition of unsourced content: Persistent addition of incorrect content: change to site-wide This block has been set to expire: 13:15, 29 June 2021. Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators. For information on how to proceed, first see the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful. Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked """""""""""""""""""""""""

This wording is incorrect for me, since my account is not blocked, it is my IP address which is blocked. More importantly, it is incorrect for the IPs, because there is no point in appealing, they have to create an account if they want to edit.

I am no longer having trouble being logged out, but I am still concerned about the wording, which does not make it clear to IPs that if they want to edit, they have to create an account. You can see that 8 people have created a Talk page in order to appeal, which is not what the intention is. I have checked some of the IP addresses, and found various parts of London, Middlesbrough, and Glasgow, and I am wondering if everyone in Britain who uses my ISP is blocked from editing as an IP, and not being told that they have to create an account if they want to edit.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally IP blocks extend to accounts created using that IP or the IPs cannot create new accounts. Otherwise they would be too easy to avoid, and telling the users how to circumvent a ban wouldn't be a good idea either even if it would be possible. Things can cascade from there, see Wikipedia:Autoblock. --mfb (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfb: In this case, the intention is that any IP affected should create an account. See [4] The range of this block is absolutely enormous, and as I said, it looks like the range block covers anyone in Britain who uses the same ISP as I do. But the problem is that the instructions received by the IPs do not tell them that they should create an account. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweet6970: Typically, any significant range block should use the {{rangeblock}} or {{anonblock}} (or {{schoolblock}} or similar) templates, which I believe are relatively clear. Most admins are quite good about doing this. I don't enjoy taking over such large range blocks, which is what would happen if I were to change the message; what we can do is ping the blocking admin User:Drmies, or you can head over to his talk page, and ask him simply and nicely to please add a template. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzuuzz: Thank you for your comment. It looks like the {{anonblock}} would be the most suitable, but it still does not actually say ‘You are allowed to create an account, and this is what you should do’. (Under this particular block, there is no need to make a special request to create an account.) I did raise the question of this range block with Drmies in January. [5] The reply I received [6] felt like a brush-off, and I felt that it implied that I was on the side of vandals. I expect that if I raise this matter again I will be told that this is none of my business, so there is no point. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your previous note to Drmies didn't clearly identify the problem, or the solution (which you probably weren't to know about). But no worries, hopefully my ping from here will clarify the issue and result in a positive outcome. If not, ping me again, and I'll begrudgingly take over Drmies' block with a suitable message. Generally, the anonblock template is tried and tested, and I think it should be good enough, but suggestions to improve the wording are always welcome. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I don't quite get the problem. If it's that the block notice isn't inclusive enough, sure, someone higher up on the technical food chain can fix that, I suppose. But still, Sweet6970's note on my talk page was odd: "It looked like it would have been possible for me to create an account (I didn’t go through with it)"--well, they already had an account. The template's second sentence is "you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account", and that links Wikipedia:Why create an account?, where as-yet unregistered users can create an account. Many if not all as-yet unexperienced editors are able to "work this out", to use Sweet6970's phrasing, so why not here? And "If the idea is that anyone who is affected by the block should create an account, then the instructions need to be improved to give a clear route to this option"--well, the instruction is right there, and it's clickable. So no, I'm not saying this is none of their business, and I appreciate advocacy, and if someone thinks the template should be improved, go for it. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: (1) Regarding my note being ‘odd’: Yes, of course I have an account. Now. But I am looking at this from the point of view of someone who does not have an account, and remembering the bafflement, frustration, and annoyance which I felt when I was subject to a range block before I created my account.
(2) I don’t understand what you mean when you say The template's second sentence is "you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account". That’s not what I get when I go to edit logged out. I have already copied the wording in my previous post above:

“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””” Jump to navigationJump to search You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: 

 Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.

Editing from ‪2A02:C7D:0:0:0:0:0:0/33‬ has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Drmies‬ for the following reason(s): Persistent addition of unsourced content: Persistent addition of incorrect content: change to site-wide This block has been set to expire: 13:15, 29 June 2021. Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators. For information on how to proceed, first see the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful. Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked “””””””””””””””””””

There is nothing here about creating an account. The instructions lead you to appeal the block (as several IPs have done) which is pointless.
(3) Your block prevents people from all over Britain from editing as IPs, and does not notify them that they have the option to create an account. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was pointing at the block notice that Zzuuzz linked. Let's change that then, if we can (I can't). Drmies (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be possible to cancel the existing block and immediately replace it with a block using the anonblock template? Alternatively, the template which is currently in place includes your own wording for the reason for the block. Presumably, you could add something here like ‘If you wish to make constructive edits to Wikipedia, please create an account in order to do so’? This would be clearer for IPs subject to the block. Is it possible to cancel the existing block, and immediately replace it with another block with the same template, but with the additional wording? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. The problem is that IPs who are blocked under a very large range block are not getting the message that they should create an account if they want to edit. (I know very little about these things, but I think this is what is called a 'soft block', because my IP address is covered by the block, but I usually have no problem editing if I log in.) Sweet6970 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The issue is that the default (interface) block message is not helpful, compared to having the {{anonblock}} template in the block (log) message. This is why we have the block log templates. The range is actually soft blocked with AC enabled. All we need is for someone to copy-paste {{anonblock}} into the current block reason. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzuuzz: MediaWiki:Blockedtext should be showing a different message if a non-logged in user is blocked, along the lines of: You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia due to a block affecting your IP address.... If there are improvements to that message suggested, anyone can place an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext. — xaosflux Talk 20:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it should, and that I can't readily explain. On another IPv4 range, I've only been able to confirm that MediaWiki:Blockedtext-composite is working correctly, but I'm not in a position to check this situation. However, I think my point remains, this block - any block of this size - needs a block log template. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzuuzz: You first mentioned the {{rangeblock}} and {{anonblock}} templates in your post of 12:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC). If I block a range of IPs (something I've never done, but recently I have had cause to), where should these templates be placed? I normally put templates like {{subst:uw-vblock}} on the user talk page - but an IP range may have hundreds (if not thousands) of talk pages. Am I expected to put the template on all of them? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any template placed in the block reason is transcluded to the user. So, if you pick one of the templates in the dropdown list (the bottom half of this list), the full template will be displayed when the blocked user tries to edit. Every IP in the range will see the transcluded template when they try to edit. You can also just place the template in the 'custom reason' field, or mix it up as I recently did here. That user will get the full username block template, plus the custom message I added. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global user page

As I understand it, it is possible to configure one's preferences at meta to create a global user page that will be transcluded from meta to all wikis, MediaWiki:Help:Extension:GlobalUserPage. When a user does that, a user page is no longer editable on en-wiki and its history log is not viewable here either. Most of the time this is fine, but I can see some potential problems, e.g. if somebody starts putting some inapprorpriate material (spam, using the userpage as a webhost, personal attacks etc) on their global user page, and we are not able to address the issue here. Another situation concerns users who are banned or blocked (e.g. for sockpuppetry) on en-wiki. Often in such cases we tag their userpages accordingly but it would seem that for a user with a globally transcluded user page we don't have this capability. Or do we? I saw a user who got indef blocked at ANI yesterday and they seemed to have implemented a global user page option via meta today. Is there anything that can be done in such situations? Nsk92 (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way is to create a user page locally. All local user pages override global ones. Note that meta has also policies against inappropriate material like spam, webhosting, attacking others, so for some pages requesting deletion there is an option too. Majavah (talk!) 13:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is blatant inappropriate material on a meta-wiki user page, you may tag it for speedy deletion on Meta, if you aren't sure you can ask at meta:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. You should not put project-local scarlet letters on someone else's meta-wiki page though. — xaosflux Talk 15:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nsk92: the local user page can still be created if there is a transcluded meta page. Try it on your example. If someone is using their meta global page for abuse, a global lock is probably in order also. –xenotalk 13:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The blocked user in question, User:Tisquesusa, did have a local user page before. Then it suddenly disappeared and got replaced by a global user page transcluded from meta. The globally transcluded page does not contain any abusive or improper material at the moment (there was a G11 user subpage that I CSD tagged today and it got deleted). But the situation still somewhat concerns me. In fact I don't understand how I can try to create/edit a local user page for this user now (assuming I wanted to do that). I can't create a red link. I can't access the history log for the user page. The global user page just sits there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user page was deleted as WP:CSD#U5 by Deb today. I don't see how it qualifies as U5, mind you. An admin can recreate it if necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can restore it if you think it's worth the effort - it looks pretty awful, mind you. Let me know. Deb (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page that was deleted (as both G11 and U5) was a subpage User:Tisquesusa/Más Muisca, not the parent user page. I don't remember what the user page itself contained, but the subpage was an advertisement page for a guided tour/adventure operation run by the user. That's U5 in my book. Nsk92 (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb and Nsk92: U5 only applies when the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages. Tisquesusa has made lots of non-userspace edits, so the criterion cannot possible apply. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see you are right. I should have only tagged it as G11. Nsk92 (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nsk92: what do you mean "I can’t create a red link"? Unless there was a change I didn’t hear a about, any user can create another user’s user page. –xenotalk 14:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it doesn't exist already. When I type 'User:Tisquesusa' in the search window and press 'Go', I am taken to the global user page, User:Tisquesusa. If I press 'Search' instead, I get a line 'There is a page named "User:Tisquesusa" on Wikipedia.' Nsk92 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When visited locally, it can be edited locally, despite the global presence. Generally if there is abusive content it would simply be turned into a redirect to the user talk page. –xenotalk 14:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But how, exactly? How can it be turned into a redirect or edited locally, if necessary? I can't access the local history log for this user page now. And the edit button for it is not available either. Nsk92 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, try clicking here. Maybe it is limited to administrators? –xenotalk 14:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, even though I'm not an admin. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your link works, and it allows me to create a local user page (it does look like it has been deleted or displaced somehow, presumably by the global user page being activated). But I have no idea how you created this link. Did you just manually type an entire http address? Interesting and strange ... Nsk92 (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m using the desktop monobook responsive view; I have some custom scripts but I don’t think they are what’s adding the edit button for me. –xenotalk 15:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. I am also using the desktop monobook view, but I don't have an edit button for that page. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nsk92, the link you are probably looking for is "Add local description" which takes you to the edit page. It is confusingly named, but I think it is because it uses the same system as images on commons use (i.e. random file File:Rueda de prensa sobre la sentencia del tribunal europeo acerca de los desahucios en España (8558751810).jpg when viewed on enwiki has the "Add local description" link instead of "Edit"). The "Add local description" link makes more sense for images, as you are adding a local description of the image. However, it doesn't make as much sense for global userpages. Perhaps this should be renamed for global userpages to something like "Create local userpage"? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Depending on preferences there may be one or more of the tabs "Add local description", "Create", "Create source", "Edit", "Edit source", or MonoBook variants. Don't you have any of them? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, there is an "Add local description" button. I didn't realize that it acts as a local edit button (which would presumably override a global user page?) Nsk92 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
← Yes it would Nsk92. Dreamy Jazz, good suggestion for the interface change. The responsive view was giving me an intuitive pencil but in landscape, it is indeed Add local description. –xenotalk 16:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, if I'm not wrong, would that be achieved by placing the text needed in MediaWiki:Create-local? I also presume that mediawiki pages can contain parser functions and magic words which will work per page (so that the page knows where it is being used and then can modify the wording based on the namespace). It could, if I assume correctly for those both, use a parser function to check if the namespace number is 2 (i.e. userspace) and then output "Create local userpage" instead. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a sandbox for this and when adding "?uselang=sandbox" to the URL it seems to work as intended. So my assumptions were correct. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this change is pretty minor, so I'm inclined to sync the sandbox (what is currently in MediaWiki:Create-local/sandbox) to MediaWiki:Create-local. However, I'll wait for a bit in case there are objections. Interestingly this page had no history until I edited it. That seems to be the same with MediaWiki:Create-local. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are around 26,000 MediaWiki messages and only around 2,000 pages in the namespace. The rest display a MediaWiki default. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and merged the sandbox to the main page so that it shows for everyone with their language set to en. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Chrome from scrolling the editing box when I press enter

I asked this already at the reference desk but was unable to arrive at a diagnosis or solution. When I am editing Wikipedia, Chrome has some weird annoying feature that is horrendously annoying. Usually, but not always, when I press the enter key, the editing textbox will scroll so that the new line is at the very top of the text box, rather than the text box staying where it is and the new line pushing the text down under it (as is the expected behaviour). This only happens on Wikipedia (although I have not found any sites that use plain multiline text boxes to test... everything is script-based these days), and it happens on every computer I try it on. It happens logged out as well as in incognito mode, so this is the behaviour that IPs would be experiencing unless they use the visual editor.

I've used Chrome for years, but this behaviour has only been happening to my knowledge for the past several months. How do I stop text boxes from scrolling when I press enter? I'm up to date with v88.0.4324.150. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This happens to me when I paste in one or more lines of text, but it is not consistent. Subsequent pastes do not always make it happen. Using Chrome on Lubuntu.--Verbarson (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's already tried mw:safemode, and that didn't help. I'm stumped. Anyone else have any ideas? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply tool

Just checking in to see if anyone else has information for me about mw:Talk pages project/Replying. I'm talking to the devs about offering this as a default-off Beta Feature here. There are lots of comments at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Experiences from people who've been using it, but we might be biased. ;-) So if you're aware of any problems that make you nervous about having more people try it out, or if you've been secretly cleaning up messes every time I use it and you just never wanted to mention it, please ping me. (Try it out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)?dtenable=1 and look for the [reply] buttons. If you switch to the visual mode, it'll make it really easy to @-mention editors. As long as nobody breaks the page with, say, an unescaped half of a parser code, an unclosed div tag, or a broken wikitext table, then it should work even on a page as big as this one.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, silence means no obvious problems? ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist parameter

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T11790

Hi all,

my question is when I enable the HIDE->bots parameter - in order to reduce the size of my watchlist - the problem is the hidden articles may contain as well non-bot new edits before the latest/recent bot edit, that have been made earlier (but was not present in my earlier listing, since those edits did not have been made then, but between my two listings). With other words, in case the last=(recent) edit has been made by a bot, then that article will not displayed on the actual listing of the watchlist, and it will remain until a non-bot edit will be performed, however, if again a bot edit would follow (and meanhile I would not make a fresh listing by any purpose), again it would be/remain hidden, and I would not know anything about any intermediary non-bot edits, like that. This is the problem. I would like just to hide those articles in my actual listing, which had just and only both edits from a given time, but not the non-bot edits have been done after the given time, but before the recent/latest bot edit. I hope I formulated my problem in a way to be correctly understood. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@KIENGIR: this is known issue phab:T11790, not something we can fix directly here on the English Wikipedia. You can follow that ticket for more details. — xaosflux Talk 00:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank, I looked through the thread, but as I see the outcome tended the opposite direction I wish to achieve...or I would be wrong?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
That problem is still "open" meaning that no one has implemented a fix for it, yet. — xaosflux Talk 01:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not tried this but elsewhere, others have suggested this:
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk:,
thank you, I am very afraid to make tryout changes, since in the past a village pump discussion was needed to fix another issue with the watchlist, and I had luck with the tweak that was proposed, however, the whole system did not work as should be, so my current result is a test&tweak alltogether, far from perfect (not listing back to the set days, in a way number of diffs limited, etc.). Explanding watchlist to show all changes - even with after hiding bot edits - is out of qustion, since I wish to reduce, it would dramatically enlarge it (I assumed the directive you put as a sequential step and not separate). The group changes I don't understand what would exactly means, can someone explain it?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
No need to be afraid; if you don't like the results of this, uncheck those options. You want to see all edits except bot edits. Until T11790 is fixed, this is the only way I know of to accomplish that. 'Group changes by page' groups the changes into collapsed lists so that grouped entries on your watchlist watchlist look something like this (except a lot of it will be wikilinked): 
►       22:47 	Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)‎‎ 24 changes history  +8,012‎  [TheDJ‎; Suffusion of Yellow‎; Roxy the dog‎; PrimeHunter‎; Pelagic‎; ONUnicorn‎; KIENGIR‎; Dreamy Jazz‎; 0mtwb9gd5wx‎; Slywriter‎ (3×); Xaosflux‎ (4×); The Anome‎ (8×)]
When you click on the ►, it changes to ▼ and shows the changes for the page sort of like this: 
▼       22:47 	Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)‎‎ 24 changes history  +8,012‎  [TheDJ‎; Suffusion of Yellow‎; Roxy the dog‎; PrimeHunter‎; Pelagic‎; ONUnicorn‎; KIENGIR‎; Dreamy Jazz‎; 0mtwb9gd5wx‎; Slywriter‎ (3×); Xaosflux‎ (4×); The Anome‎ (8×)]
  		22:47 (cur | prev)..(+828‎)..KIENGIR (talk contribs) (→‎Watchlist parameter rollback)
   		22:08 (cur | prev)..(+1)‎..Slywriter (talk contribs) (→‎Edit filter to prevent http: //%5B(and cousins) making good links bad: Indent (Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit)
   		22:08 (cur | prev)..(+793)..Slywriter (talk contribs) (→‎Edit filter to prevent http: //%5B(and cousins) making good links bad: Thanks PrimeHunter and question on long term Maintenance (Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit)
   		etc
Click ▼ to collapse the list. Line wrapping in the real watchlist is prettier. Try it. If you don't like, undo it.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the demonstration...well maybe once I will try, but as I see I have to really wait for the fix...(KIENGIR (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
As far as I know, "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" is irrelevant in this equation. Older edits to pages whose latest edits are hidden show up as long as "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" is checked. Nardog (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So while playing on toolforge and running a search on %.%[7](which terrified me that I would blow up a server), I stumbled onto the fact that potentially hundreds of links/refs are broken because http://%5b (as well as %5b%20 , %5E and a few others) are appended to the beginning of the url.

Working my way through cleaning up what I can but wondering if an edit filter would be viable to that warns an editor adding a double http:// in an edit summary (I say warn because possible their are valid reasons - Interner archive comes to mind) Slywriter (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example one added. No apparent cause. 10 years ago. Unclear why it's happening. %5B = open square-bracket. Old MediaWiki bug? -- GreenC 02:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, sorry, totally forgot to add examples. I've already cleaned up a bunch but let me go back through them and see if there is any similarity in when the edits were added. Slywriter (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Special:Diff/472050129
2018 Special:Diff/822925977
For it to be a bug, it would be a long standing one. Not seeing any commonality in tags either (web, mobile, iOS, visual)Slywriter (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah hard to say. BTW notice some of the URLs have trailing %5D that also should be removed. It may be pretty difficult to automate a fix given how many forms it takes. -- GreenC 04:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like this URL http://%5Bhttp://www.drukgyelhss.edu.bt/%20Drukgyel%20school%20%5D%20 in Drugyel higher secondary school should be [http://www.drukgyelhss.edu.bt/ Drukgyel school]
5B & 5D there. Cut and Paste of a wiki link gone wrong?
Tested what happens when you manually type/cut and paste [http://example.com] into the edit screen(&visual editor manual cite wizard) as [http://[example.com]] but that didn't trigger a change to unicode, the brackets remained.
Doubt I'll have much luck figuring out the how they do it but the brackets showing up give me the idea to search against other special wiki characters (<>{}~) unicode equivalents. Might be some other unicode characters that will cause obvious problems at beginning or end of a url.
If the double html remains constant, may be able to at least automate the generation of a list that can be manually checked. Slywriter (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With some sleep and a new look at the data, assuming I am correct in my assumption that my search string is returning an alphanumeric sorted list of ALL websites links found in article space, then the problem is less than a 100 links. Only reason I question my assumption is the surprisingly low number of IP only web addresses that are used for links. Slywriter (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can happen if you try to use the toolbar link feature on code which already has external link syntax. An article may say [http://www.drukgyelhss.edu.bt/ Drukgyel school]. Click the chain icon in the toolbar and paste the code in the top field. You get a warning and cannot save. If you select "To an external web page" then you can save but it becomes [http://%5Bhttp://www.drukgyelhss.edu.bt/%20Drukgyel%20school%5D [http://www.drukgyelhss.edu.bt/ Drukgyel school<nowiki>]</nowiki>]. I don't know whether nowiki was always added. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation. The sequence also explains why it's mostly, though not exclusively, low quality pages that its occurring. Situations where it seems the editor was determined to get the link in.
I've found a few other bad link styles like web addresses starting with a period http://.example.com . ::For now, I'll work on cleaning up through toolforge but once I have a good list of the errors is here the best place to see if someone with better backend knowledge can setup a query that I can run on my own or updates a page to show likely bad URLs? Would be better for long term maintenance and I suspect lower overhead than me running constant toolforge searches. Slywriter (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we disable magic links?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T275951

This 2017 en.WP RFC determined that once bots and scripts have replaced magic links (ISBN et al.), magic links should be disabled. As far as I know, bots and scripts have done this work (except for new untemplated and nowiki-wrapped ISBNs that are added continually by manual editing and buggy VE copy-paste editing), and the ability to disable magic linking locally has been provided.

This MW page appears to explain how to disable magic linking on a per-wiki basis. It is past time to do it here, if we have this local control and if there are no show-stopping feature requests that depend on magic links. There are a bunch of magic-link-related bugs and feature requests linked at T145589, but I am unable to determine whether any of them will be affected if we disable magic linking locally.

Is there anyone here with the sysadmin-level knowledge to figure out whether we can finally disable magic linking here at en.WP? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that these should be disabled at some point, but there are more than 11,000 ISBN magic links in use and a few thousand of the rest combined. If the magic links are disabled how will they be replaced? Perhaps we could start with an edit filter that does not allow any more magic links to be added, and then hopefully the fixer bot can get rid of those remaining? RudolfRed (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the bots don't mess with User-space or Talk-space pages, for good reason, and there is no need to "fix" old AFD or other discussion pages. There should be no problem disabling magic links in those spaces.
That leaves only about 1,000 article-space pages with ISBN magic links, down from an initial population of about 500,000 in 2017, and with many tens or hundreds of thousands of pages fixed up by bots over the years. That's 99.8+% done, which is good enough. Those stragglers presumably exist only because the bots are taking care not to mess with edge cases like this one or this one. I'm fine with keeping the maintenance categories or WPCleaner reports around if we think they are useful, but the RFC said we should disable these magic links. It's time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I say go for it. The effects of T162291 are the same (I assume they will stop doing that once the change goes through), T179769 is stalled because it has not been requested to disable magic links yet and T145589 is just about autolinking new magic links in a new way. It is possible to make an specific tool to make VE link those links the new way, once T179769 is fixed, see mw:VisualEditor/Gadgets. At the most, just warn VE users that adding magic links the new way is not going to work until T179769 gets fixed. Tidy was repaced with linter errors outside of mainspace still remaining, so that should be fine (seemingly not on enwiki, but elsewhere, see phab:T192821).--Snaevar (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also support disabling these. It's long overdue, and we can easily clean up anything that breaks. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

servers crashing

An error occurred while attempting to preview your changes. The server did not respond within the expected time.

11 times...... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latest version of Firefox appears to break Wikimedia single sign-on

Firefox 86.0 comes with "total cookie protection" (see https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/02/23/total-cookie-protection/ ) that sandboxes cookie storage to prevent cross-site tracking by third party cookies. Unfortunately, it also seems to break the Wikimedia single-sign-on mechanism. See https://hacks.mozilla.org/2021/02/introducing-state-partitioning/ for a description of how it works.

This clearly either needs WMF liason with Mozilla to whitelist the single sign on mechansim, or to use the Storage Access API to request it be permitted on a site-by-site basis. Where is the best place to report this? -- The Anome (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome, welcome to the club. My Safari ticket is here phab:T226797 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly needs to be fixed ASAP -- how do we get the WMF's attention on this? -- The Anome (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But does it need to be fixed if it isn't broken? Using firefox as always, version 86, has continued to give great service, and hasn't broken yet. just an observation. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Anome: to be clear, simply having FF v86 doesn't appear to be breaking logon, does it? Is this an opt-in feature that users have to select? (I think the option is labeled All third party cookies (may cause websites to break)). — xaosflux Talk 12:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logon is fine, cross-site logon between sites ending in "wikipedia.org" is also fine. What doesn't work is SSO between top-level domains, such as Commons or Wikidata, if you log in from a wikipedia.org site. -- The Anome (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Anome: is this only in "strict mode" ? — xaosflux Talk 12:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. But the system sould support strict mode, as this is what any privacy-conscious user should be using already. -- The Anome (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time, can anyone verify if someone enables this strict mode (that warns it may be breaking) if they can still exempt site-by-site as talked about in this article? — xaosflux Talk 14:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The mozilla blog says Total Cookie Protection makes a limited exception for cross-site cookies when they are needed for non-tracking purposes, such as those used by popular third-party login providers. – SD0001 (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly workaround

I threw together a hacky little user script at meta:User:Suffusion of Yellow/central.js. Works for me with FF86/Linux with all third party cookies blocked. Install in your global.js, then click "Central login" under "tools" on any site you are currently logged in to, and follow the directions. You will be logged in to all the other wikis, too. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical help needed on the helpdesk.

Technical minded people may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Series_of_failed_pings. I can't figure out what's going wrong with this person's pings. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dotcodegh

This user has only a single edit, made one hour after registering the account, which created an article, George Takyi. How could an account which is not autoconfirmed create an article? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: The page was created in Draftspace and then moved by User:Kinvidia into mainspace. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 23:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Firefly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! :) ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search history on Wikipedia app on iPhone

I am using the Wikipedia app to browse through Wikipedia. It really annoys me that it saves your search history. I know how to clear my search history in the app, but I would like to how to prevent the app from storing my search history so I don’t have to keep clearing it. Same goes with the article viewing history. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Class Parameter

Someone recently pointed out to me that the class parameter for a Wikiproject banner is better left blank for Drafts and Redirects because those articles are likely to change in the future and the class is auto-populated simply by virtue of the article being in Draft or Redirect space. I was curious what the standard conventions for WikiProject banners in general, but I'm specifically interested in whether it would be better to have a shortened WikiProject banner for Categories and Files because they are unlikely to change, but would be auto-populated. Would a short banner without a class parameter be best or should the class be included? Or if it doesn't matter, what would you suggest? I would assume that it's best to keep a standard convention across a large number of articles so if I'm making sure it's one specific way for an entire WikiProject what would be ideal?

I've never used the Village Pump so let me know if this is the wrong place. I figured it was a technical question because I want if there is a benefit to adding optional parameters. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think most WikiProjects also auto-assess class on categories and files. So I think the answer to Would a short banner without a class parameter be best? is yes? @Redrose64: --Izno (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not just categories and files - rather than listing the namespaces explicitly, it's easier to say "all talk namespaces except for Talk: itself". More specifically, if the |class= parameter is omitted or left blank, all WikiProject banners that have class ratings (with the exception of {{WikiProject Military history}}) will automatically set the class if either (i) the subject page is a redirect; or (ii) the subject page is not in main (article) space - if both apply, it's classified as a redirect. In the case of {{WikiProject Military history}}, which doesn't autodetect redirects, it will automatically set the class if the subject page is not in main (article) space. So, generally speaking, the |class= parameter should only be filled in if the subject page is an article or disambiguation page. Remember that pages in Draft: space are not articles (although they may become articles when developed sufficiently) so WikiProject banners in Draft talk: space should not have the |class= filled in. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending review edits

There's this recent problem of mine that when I edit pending changes protected pages it says that my edits need to be reviewed first and not "automatically accepted". The first time that this happened to me was at Dire wolf, where I reverted an edit and didn't automatically accept it. Two edits of mine at Carnosauria [8] [9] also weren't automatically accepted, and there were no previous edits pending review. I've been extended confirmed here for a long time already (almost 8,000 edits and 1 and a half years), so why do my edits at pending changes protected pages need to be reviewed? Can someone please explain what's happening and how can this be fixed? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 06:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JurassicClassic767: Pending-changes protection is different from extended-confirmed protection. To accept pending changes you need the pending-changes reviewer userright. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I know I'm not a pending changes reviewer, what I'm saying is that my edits at pending changes protected pages don't appear as "automatically reviewed". And what I meant was "autoconfirmed" (which is what you need for your edits to become "automatically accepted"), and I've been an autoconfirmed user a long time ago. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JurassicClassic767: Ah I see what you mean now, apologies. Edits from logged-in users to pending-changes protected pages are automatically accepted if and only if there are no prior edits pending review. If there are prior edits pending review, then the edits will go into the queue to be reviewed. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what's happening though, in my examples above (Furileusauria and Carnosauria), there were no previous edits pending review, and when I edited, my own edit needed to be reviewed, that's the strange thing. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... yes that does seem odd. This edit was accepted on 31 Jan, and then your edit was made on 27 Feb. I'll see if I can dig anything up. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 14:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
#Pending Changes again? PC has been on the fritz lately. --Izno (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two-dimensional schematic diagram

I would like to do a two-dimensional schematic diagram to represent a streetcar network of 3 north/south lines and one interconnecting east/west line. I would like to use Template:Routemap but I would want the east/west line to be a horizontal line instead of twisting it into a vertical line. Thus, the schematic would resemble the city street grid. However, I suspect I would have problems indicating and labelling east/west stops. Is there any existing examples of doing this?

My second choice would be to acquire some inexpensive, easy-to-use diagram software to produce a diagram similar in style to this svg example or this gif example. Could someone recommend software to do this? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Publish changes' should ask for confirmation but doesn't

When finished editing a Wikipedia article and clicking 'Publish changes', your changes go live, immediately and irrevocably. That is arguably reckless and wrong.

When editing, I will click 'Show preview' incrementally, many times, to make sure each change I make is correct. But it is very easy to click the adjacent 'Publish changes' button by mistake. Especially because 'Publish changes' is hi-lited in blue but 'Show preview' is white, visually tempting you in a moment of inattention to click the former when you didn't mean it.

Allowing all comers to commit, with a single click, a permanent write action on a Web site used by untold millions egregiously fails to err on the side of caution. A good user interface, let alone publishing to a world-wide audience, demands that on clicking 'Publish changes', you put up a box asking 'Are you sure you want your changes to go live? Yes / No,' with 'No' the default, hi-lited in blue.

It should obtain for all editing on Wikipedia—articles, Talk pages, this Village Pump page, all contexts.

I, for one, desperately want a safeguard against my own inattention.

Jimlue (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimlue: An extra step sounds annoying but I searched Wikipedia:User scripts/List and found "SafetyEdit for all pages" at Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Previewing and summary: "adds a check box for all pages during editing, which must be clicked before saving is enabled." PrimeHunter (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing lately that this works fine, but if I [ https://wikipedia.org mistakenly put a space in before the URL], the link breaks. Is there a reason for allowing the space there? Possibly (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: it isn't "allowed there" it is just ignored - when you put in whitespace you don't trigger the link generator - the only reason you are then seeing the link is that a separate link generator is formatting your bare link. — xaosflux Talk 10:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

finding a MW page in search

I thought of looking for a phrase "Proton will be proxied" in this page https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Proton in order to find it on Search. although the page does not seem to be appearing..please advise..Gfigs (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as per "Chromium" ,and suspected "Puppeteer"..Gfigs (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gfigs: Selecting "MediaWiki" in searches means the MediaWiki namespace in the English Wikipedia. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Proton is not a page in the MediaWiki namespace but a mainspace page at the MediaWiki wiki. You have to make searches at https://www.mediawiki.org to find pages there. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter:, ah, ok..thank you Gfigs (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&oldid=1009602172"