Help desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 24

Start button lost

i cant geet back my start button — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.125.7 (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. RudolfRed (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript and Wikipedia

Hi all. I would like to be able to make a template that uses Javascript. I've done my research: it's not currently possible and it probably will never be possible because of security concerns. It's possible to include a video, which is not really what I want. It's also possible to use the WP:Lua language to create a template, which isn't what I want either.

This is my concern. On a page that describes a chess game, like Immortal Game, the text of the article describes the moves of the game. At the top of the article there's an animated GIF showing the moves being made, and later on in the article there are two images (from templates) that show the position of the board at various points in the game.

The ideal would be to have a set of images, possibly generated by templates, and provide the user with a set of four buttons:

First Image
Previous Image
Next Image
Last Image

In the context of a chess game this could be used to let the user step through each move one by one at their own pace. But it could be used to show the steps of any biological or mechanical process, like an embryo growing into a fetus or a cell undergoing mitosis.

This is the kind of thing that could only be created if there were community consensus that it was a good idea. Where could I post to have that discussion? Mattj2 (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Village Pump Idea Lab would be a good place to start. WP:VPI RudolfRed (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I want. Thanks! Mattj2 (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#PGN viewer. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks! I decided to revive the proposal.. we'll see what happens... Mattj2 (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location map

Resolved

Hello,

could someone fix the error in User:Tomcat7/Sandbox28/1#Locations? The places appear on the wrong side despite numerous attempts to fix the locations. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It happened because you chose the Europe map instead of Russia. If it is still wrong let me know. --Ushau97 ^talk 11:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will also add non-Russian places. --Tomcat (7) 11:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the map to Europe back again. When using {{Location map~}} choose Europe instead of Russia. --Ushau97 ^talk 11:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tomcat (7) 11:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing my "deleted edits"?

Resolved

I have a few over 1000 edits, and recently found that six of them were "deleted edits". I'm curious to see which of my edits were deleted; perhaps that could help me improve my editing in the future.

I know that only Admins and above are able to view users' deleted edits, so would a friendly Admin (or above) please let me know which of my edits were deleted? I'm OK with seeing just an overview, although it would be nice to see more. I also have no problem with any of this being in the public space if that's the easiest way to send me the information.

Thanks, Dan Griscom (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted edits are usually edits to pages which were later deleted. None of your deleted edits had problems. They were to Talk:LED anchor light, E-Flite, Groovology, Tren Mat Dat, and a deleted version of Janis Siegel. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: it's good to know. (Nineteen minutes from query to answer: pretty darn quick.) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, when I was new to Wikipedia, I saw something about deleted edits, and resolved that I would keep my number at zero, assuming that a deleted edit was some sort of edit so bad it had to be removed by someone, so I can sympathize with your question. I subsequently learned what they really are, which is good, because I have 1080 of them.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Dinenage MP

I object to user Dolescum repeatedly editing the Wikipedia page of Caroline Dinenage MP in a manner which grossly misrepresents Ms Dinenage's position on the issue of the 2nd reading of the Same-Sex Couples Bill in the House of Commons.

By taking a few choice extracts reported in an online publication (without looking at the comments in the original context in which they were made) I feel this this contravenes Wikipedia rules on articles being editorially neutral. I am concerned at the motives behind the revision, in previous comments, Dolescum refers to this revision as a "war", rest assured I do not see it as such.

Furthermore, the public record is not being seen to be amended, the official record (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/) will always state what an MPs position has been, respectfully, Wikipedia is not the forum for which to highlight Ms Dinenage's position on one of many hundreds of votes.

Assistance with this matter would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M1922 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is already discussion at Talk:Caroline_Dinenage, which is the right place to discuss this. If you feel that you can't reach a consensus, then look at WP:DR for guidance and next steps. RudolfRed (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The fact that you (and your preceding IP account) have reverted the article 6 or 7 times in the last 24 hours definitely makes it edit warring. Please read about the consequences, and what to do to avoid edit warring. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of templates?

An editor of the Urination#Other animals article recently "simplfied" some subsections by partially or completely removing their contents to specially created templates. I only discovered this when I tried to clean up a simple page layout problem. Clicking on the "edit" link showed me this (and nothing more): ===Canidae=== {{Canidae scent marking}}

This is somewhat baffling to me, and makes it difficult for me to understand the integration of the material into the rest of the article, or to search for specific material in an article. This "subroutinization" of a chunk of text also makes it more difficult to edit the article as an integrated whole.

Is this a recommended usage of the template mechanism? If so, please point me to more information so I can learn about it. If not, can some editors more experienced with the use of templates help to guide the editor who created the template as to the recommended way of achieving his intentions? I don't yet feel very competent to discuss this in depth, having not created or extensively modified any templates, only having used a few of them. But I haven't seen this usage of templates before. My intuitive impression is that this was not an intended use, and that it risks breaking up a Wikipedia article into an intimidating maze that will deter potential editors without much Wikipedia insider expertise. Your guidance would be appreciated. Reify-tech (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't typically the way things work; however, in this case, since the content in that section is used in more than one place (see Special:WhatLinksHere), the template helps keep it up to date in both places. You're right, though, in assuming that it deters new Wikipedians...I don't think there's ever been an explicit consensus (or even a discussion) expressed among the Wikipedia community...other help desk volunteers, prove me wrong! —Theopolisme (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Transclusion is a useful feature when the same information has to be presented on more than one page. It's not terribly complicated to follow the links to the page that contains the text – if you use WikEd (enabled on the Preferences->Gadgets page), you can Ctrl-click on any such link while editing to open the target link or template in a new page. Just like having to go to another page in a book because there isn't room for the information on the current page. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]