Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/1

Old requests

 * Please delete Learning in preparation for moving the now-merged Learning (Wikibooks) there. Garrett 01:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. The redirects need to stay because they are being linked to from Wikibooks and Meta. -- sebmol ? 08:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please move this page http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity:School_of_Engineering/Statics moved from wikibooks to the empty statics link under http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/School:Engineering. Thanks! Mirwin 11:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Please list future requests like this one at Import. -- sebmol ? 11:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I need an explanation of how adminstrators are currently being created under what authority so I can fleshout the future administrator policy being drafted at [Wikiversity:Administrator_Creation_and_Behavorial_Criteria_Guidelines_and_Policy]. Some review by some experienced administrators for viability as it develops would not hurt either.  Thanks! Mirwin 10:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Users can be promoted to Admin only by Bureaucrats of which we have one (Cormaggio, member of the special committee). -- sebmol ? 10:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a feature of the software? Does a designated bureaucrat have other implications on Wikimedia servers such that we must view this as a mandated piece of Wikiversity's functional organization or can we setup the community's responsible volunteer positions such that all administrators are bureaucrats?  I am not trying to be pedantic this has implications regarding how procedures are layed and what is possible in terms of our community's organization.  Are there other functional positions besides administrator and bureaucrat that we must fill or account for in organization (besides Wikimedia Technical Developers) development? Further information from any quarter will be useful. Thanks! Mirwin 10:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats are users that have certain additional privileges compared to admins. Specifically, they can promote users to admins (but not demote), rename user accounts and set bot status for user accounts. There's usually a limited number of bureaucrats per project mostly to avoid conflict when it comes to admin "elections". For example, the English WP has 24, German WP has 2, and the French WP has 7 (just to give an idea of dimension). The other distinctions are with one exception outside the scope of any one project. We don't have to worry about that exception though. -- sebmol ? 10:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. In regards to all users being admins, one has to keep in mind that demoting admins is more difficult. It can't be done within the project but must be requested at Meta. That's one of the major reasons that most Wikimedia projects don't allow every user to become admin. While every admin action can be reverted, admins on a rampage are difficult to stop. Therefore it's necessary that there's some sort of process where trust for an admin candidate can be established. -- sebmol ? 10:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks sebmol! This explanation was sufficient along with some data at meta regarding stewards to resolve my drafting issues for the moment. I consider this action closed. Thanks again!Mirwin 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So that there are not edit conflicts, please upload the layout edits that I have made recently to the main page from here: Main Page/Design. Reswik 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing this Reswik 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Proposed: Main page editing policy - Custodians and bureaucrats will not directly edit the Main page, unless it is urgent. All editors can make main page edits at the Main Page/Design page. This page will be uploaded regularly. There will be enough time between new substantial content edts and posting, perhaps a 24 hour lag, so that design/layout editors can adjust layout for new substantial edits that change layout.
 * Why this policy? Well, for instance, a few times, I have wished to adjust the layout and/or do minor copyedits to the content of the Main page but I felt discouraged and decided not to do so because the page is locked *and* admins are editing it in ongoing way. I felt that my edits might get lost on the design page. If the design page were the sole place for edits if some off-page editing space was available -- then all could participate. Is this acceptable? Thanks for considering. Reswik 18:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The main page is only semi-protected. Meaning, anonymous and new users cannot edit the page. This was done to prevent vandalism, not for content reasons. To cut it short: you should be able to edit the page within a day or two if you cannot already. -- sebmol ? 18:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've been editing with this account since 8/17, 5 days and I can not edit the main page. Please see the new request at top of this section for transferring edits. Also, I believe some version of a main page editing policy to make edits on a design page is still a good idea. Reswik 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * According to this, your account was created exactly three days, 23 hours and 37 minutes ago. Semi-protection covers all users that are "younger" than 4 days so you should be able to edit away in a few minutes.
 * Also, I'm not sure we need to be that restrictive with the main page for now. The rollback button is only a click away and so far we don't really have much controversy over the page's contents or layout. I don't want to stifle people's creativity by adding process. -- sebmol ? 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny :) I counted the 17th as a day when it was the origin, zero. Thanks. And thanks for updating the main page. Well, the idea of suggesting the design page was so that all can edit the main page. Four days doesn't seem a restrictive limit. But if the page gets locked up regularly due to preventing vandalism, perhaps the design page will be needed then. Reswik 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You also logged in as User:Doug on the first few days if that makes any difference. And yes, you should be able to edit the main page - I suppose we might properly lock it once we're relatively happy with it. Cormaggio 07:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to mention in email that I was on vacation last week and didn't have the password to the "Doug" account or the reg email for that account. I ended up having internet access so I decided to play some and created "Reswik" here for that. :) It is the name of my other wikimedia accounts so I decided it makes sense to keep using that. Reswik 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Topic namespace: Perhaps you are discussing this somewhere. If not: This is a big potential time waste based in a structural/linguist problem and so I am raising this here.  The topic namespage is starting to be used for sub-department "topical" areas that are at a topic/course level (like Calculus). Do these need departments? Further, the naming convention policy is not getting strong support on the policy vote page. One complaint is that "Topic" is counter-intuitive for structuring departments. I agree. To save time: I think we need a decision soon about the naming conventions for Departments/Areas. If we stick with departments, then I think all Divisions/Departments should be under School namespace (to keep things simple).  If we try the Network naming conventions I wrote up today, then I think we should go with a new namespace of "Area" (in place of departments).  I do not think "Topic" should be used at all for structural hierarchies (traditional or network). It might be good to eliminate the "Topic" namespace entirely or have all courses put there. How can editors be educated to create new courses in the appropriate namespace?  Am I getting this correctly/explaining myself clearly? Reswik 03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "The topic namespage is starting to be used for sub-department "topical" areas that are at a topic/course level (like Calculus). Do these need departments?" <-- I assume you mean "topic namespace". Just explain to people that "course" material goes into the main namespace. Wikiversity needs an introductory tutorial (featured on the sidebar?) to explain this. --JWSchmidt 04:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be careful in how strict we want to be about how work is organized at Wikiversity. As I said on the naming conventions page, I don't like the idea of creating a fixed standard that everyone must follow in this regard. I'd rather see some diversity and flexibility. For example, I have no problem at all if the different schools figure out their own way of organizing their work. -- sebmol ? 06:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. This is not the right place to discuss this since this page was intended to be used to request actions only custodians can perform. -- sebmol ? 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this here because it seemed to be sysops who were setting up the namespaces and who might have to do extra work if parts of the naming conventions change down the line. So, addressing this sooner than later seems a good idea for reasons mentioned in my next comment below. Reswik 02:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this matter was resolved. --JWSchmidt 21:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not so worried about the network issue as it seems a done deal now, but my criticism was two-fold. The minor part of this is still a concern: That is, I still think that "topic" should be replaced with using "school" or a new "area" or other structural namespace in the current structural naming convention model. It seems a namespace change may called for if the trend continues of the majority of opinions regarding naming conventions continue to be against the current naming conventions policy in some way.


 * As for network organization, it does seem that due to lack of interest and general practices emerging that the structural model of organizing "schools/departments" is going to be the default one that people use for initial page development for awhile -- until the portal/category system grows as a network process (which is a fine place for that). So, I am not intent on advancing the network model as an alternate namespace convention unless others begin to support or call for that somehow. Reswik 02:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's some text at the top of the community portal that says "Please help design the www.wikiversity.org portal and Wikiversity logo on meta.". But the page linked to by the portal link actually goes to www.wikiversity.org TEMPLATE instead of portal.  That looks like a bunch of HTML code.  I assume this needs fixing.  TimNelson 10:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the code for the Wikiversity Hub. See: . --JWSchmidt 11:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This link could actually be fixed to direct to the talk page : . guillom 11:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now it does. --JWSchmidt 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I wanted! Thanks TimNelson (Talk) 06:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Deletion requested - Adding content IT'S AN EMERGENCY!!. Reason: No pages link in, page is a redirect to Adding content, I can only assume it breaks naming conventions (if any), the excessive capitalisation is unneccessary. The page was initially created with a vandal page move from the original Adding content guideline and is now redundant. --Draicone (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The page was deleted. --JWSchmidt 14:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist

 * I've just registered (first time with any Wiki.) In "My WatchList" I have "9 changes in the last 3 days." But I've been registered for maybe two or three hours at most. I doubt that this is any real concern. Just curious.
 * p.s. I hope I'm posting in the right place. CodeFish 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No concern, your watchlist shows all the most recent changes to watched pages, so if those were three days ago, it will show them.-- digital  _  me   01:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pearle bot

 * Can we get a bot like the one called Pearle on Wikipedia? See w:Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Opentask.  The main reason I'm interested is to keep track of things that need doing, since we seem to have a lot just at the moment.  TimNelson (Talk) 10:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Name removal

 * I'd like to complete the removal of my name from the main page redesign (in order to make it impartial and not my "pet project"). I'd like to keep the edit history intact though. I'd ask that someone delete Main Page/Design, move User:Trevor MacInnis/MainPage there, and then undelete the original to merge the edit histories. - Trevor MacInnis 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's really necessary. IMO there's no need not to take credit where credit is due. -- sebmol ? 21:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Posting of new main page design

 * There is strong support for posting the new main page design. The new design has been extensively revised as design 2 based on comments. Design 2 is almost ready to post. If you agree with this interpretation, could a sysop post the new design 2 to the main page, perhaps after reviewing the discussions here: Wikiversity_talk:Main_Page? We are still waiting on a few usability fixes and final check for Design 2 (related to viewing for persons with visual impairments). David will post a note when that is done. Trevor did a great job developing the new Design.  David has revised the design per comments on the main talk page. Trevor has adjusted the 1st design based on David's edits to Design 2. Now, the two new options are quite similar. I don't wish to declare the discussion closed and post design 2, since I was involved in revising both new designs. If I were to close this, I would summarize the process (along lines of what I wrote here) and invite people to continue polishing Design 2. Thanks much, Reswik 17:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the new Main Page ready? --JWSchmidt 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think David will let us know when remaining usability issues have been fixed with "Design 2." I just left a note on his talk page asking about this. Reswik 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A few days ago, David said to me (see his user talk page) that the usability issues with Design 2 seem to be resolved - with a very minor graphic issue resulting from those tweaks. He does not seem to have been active here since 9/3. For my part, I think the new front page design (Design 2) can be posted. Reswik 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I can find the page for "design 2", but please provide a link so I do not have to guess. Beyond the design, the new Main Page should have basically the same content that is on the existing Main Page. For example, the section called: "What is Wikiversity?" is different beteen the current Main Page and what I see at "design 2". Also, I personally object to putting on the Wikiversity Main Page an image of people trying to stay awake during a lecture. That is not at all the message to put on the Main Page. --JWSchmidt 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Design 2 is included in the discussion linked above. The direct link is: Main Page/Design 2. Design 2 has graphic features at the top that encourage brief text passages. This is indeed distinct from the current main page. Please feel free to edit the text in Design 2 before you or another copies it over. I am sure a number of us will continue to revise the text after this is posted. Reswik 01:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding photos: Photos can be easily replaced. Perhaps it is easiest to copy one of the other photos to double up in the rotation until someone with photo experience can provide a wider selection. Reswik 01:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is additional discussion of the new main page at Wikiversity talk:Main Page. --JWSchmidt 14:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Languagefun
Could somebody either copy or import the Languagefun pages from Incubator (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/Languagefun)? They are not suitable for Incubator, and will be deleted soon anyway. Dbmag9 11:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A request has been made for the ability to import pages from the incubator to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 13:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Import is enabled now, please move the pages. Thanks. Dbmag9 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Signature

 * Hi, I am new here and was wondering if I could have my edits automatically include a signature- I know four tildes produces username and date, but I would also like to have my userpage link and talk link be included in that. Or perhaps there would be a consesus to have this assigned to all tilde-signed edits. Thank you. Pedmands 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied here. --SB_Johnny | talk 09:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Colloquium Date Function
The date function for comments seems broken on the Colloquium page. --Reswik 01:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no automatic function, the new dates have to be added manually. -- sebmol ? 08:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I boldly took the step reogarinizing the Colloquium dates by week (instead of by day). The dates not being maintained looked not so good. It will be easier to maintain weekly dates manually -- and it will be easier to archive by week (after being up for a certain number of weeks). Reswik 01:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Motto contest

 * The Motto contest needs two things.:
 * Your participation please - Please choose a motto and slogan! We need a sense of the community's intent for this important identity-forming process.
 * This selection process needs checking for sockpuppets in round 2 (sometime in next week hopefully) and later again for round 3. (For instance, within the last day these two ids were listed in the same edit--are these distinct: Yazeed, ShAdIa). Can anyone check for sockpuppets? Thanks, Reswik 05:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this an issue fundamental enough to worry about sockpuppet abuse? It's not a vote. -- sebmol ? 05:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion: very much so. This process is just as important as selecting a logo. The motto(s) will be listed on many wikimedia project main pages. The slogan(s) will be listed at the top of the Wikiveristy main page, in part defining the project for new comers and in part inspiring our mission statement and the gradual formation of project collective identity(ies) by wikischolars. It is quite possible for the selection process to be subverted and steered (especially early on--given the nature of this open dialog) towards options that do not serve the community as well as some others might. So, yes, checking for sockpuppets or any kind of duplicate voting seems an essential check. Participation is important too! Reswik 12:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To allow time for more input at this stage, I think it would be helpful to extend the timeline for round 2 for another two weeks. It would be nice if someone can check round 2 for sockpuppets. --Reswik 01:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There won't be any Checkuser requests fulfilled, unless there is strong suspicion, that there's sockpuppet abuse to protect the privacy and anonymity of users of Wikimedia projects. -- sebmol ? 08:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this idea should be revised when it comes to the matter of support and voting processes for Wikiversity wide materials, issues and policies. If people are supposed to put one support statement, they should put one statement or vote. A support statement or vote is quite different from editing a page. Is there some other way to check for the motto contest that someone is using multiple votes, so to speak? --Reswik 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, especially since the project is so new that almost all users are recent registrations. I'd rather see use some good faith and discussion to find the motto that works best. A simple vote won't be good enough anyway. -- sebmol ? 13:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, the policy for checkuser is set by the foundation partially for legal reasons. It's not really up to us to change that. -- sebmol ? 13:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked because at least one time (maybe twice-can't recall at moment) people have put up multiple IDs in one posting. I don't think that assuming good faith applies to voting/support statements. It is a responsibility to ensure a fair vote. Some few will abuse voting (especially a closed system) - so you need to check. It occurs to me there are a few other ways to check things: Check if any of the ids are only being used for motto voting. Check if any of the ids have been doing anything out of the ordinary.  Is there a list of such.  Anyway, Robert offered to check this stuff - i think. I'll check with him about this. Reswik 00:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to add a phrase that makes notice of the motto contest to notice of the logo contest notice that appears at the top of all Wikiversity pages? A phrase like this could be added to the first sentence that appears at the top of all pages: "and Wikiversity motto and slogan on this site"; or, more simply, "and Wikiversity motto and slogan".  This could help the process unfold in a more timely way.
 * Also, following the lead of the logo contest, round four of the motto contest starts with no support listed. Please list your support for your selections again. Thanks, Reswik 21:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. sebmol ? 06:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Reswik 15:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Also...
 * I can't resolve issues with the bad logo link and extra left brakets (next to logos) as they appear in the use of the logo macro template here: Motto_contest/Examples. Can someone trouble shoot this? Is it possible to make the loading of the logo contest images faster (or perhaps my net connection just slowed down a bit)? The logo links are from the Wikiversity/logo contest page. It could be helpful to show or refer to these Wikiversity logo-motto contest combinations on the motto contest page. Reswik 15:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Problem was the template, which doesn't work too well when there's no link target (it's intended to place a link on an image). I've simplified the code to regular image links but the center image seems to have a bad address. Since you created this page, maybe you know which image was meant to appear there and can fix it. sebmol ? 01:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much again. :) I replaced the logo link (as the old one, though seemingly correct, wouldn't work for some reason) and copied the examples into the goal statement section of the motto contest. --Reswik 04:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If anyone can comment on a problem with the motto contest discussed here, discussion of motto contest], I would much appreciate it. As I explain at length in that discussion string, I changed the motto contest process by shifting one of the candidate motto groups to the slogan contest. That group just doesn't fit the purpose of the motto contest. Several participants are objecting. I think it is clear that to fulfill the goals of the contest we need to adjust the options somehow to fit with the contest goals (to fulfill the purpose of the contest). What do you think about this? I am going to raise this in the colloquium soon, but first, I would really appreciate the comments by some experienced wikimedians on this issues. --Reswik 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, after reflecting on this some more, I think the best solution may be to subdivide the motto contest in this way: 1. keep all of the motto contest suggestions and repurpose this contest as seeking a motto which expresses the mission of wikiversity and may be inspiring (which is what some people have been doing) and 2. (the original purpose of the contest) select a subset of the motto contest options which briefly describes wikiversity in a way similar to other short descriptions -- call this the "short description" contest. We would then have 3 contests: motto contest (repurposd more broadly); short description contest (original motto contest purpose but fewer options); the slogan contest (for the main page subtitle). There could be a review time of 2 weeks for this new process. This can be described in the colloquium. What do you think? --Reswik 14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope this particular issue may be resolved *for now*. Based on points in a discussion string now on the motto contest talk page, I followed a suggestion by Cormaggio for revising the motto contest in a simple inclusive way. We may need to resolve issues of multiple purposes of the motto contest in discussions in round 5 or whatever is the end stage of the contest. --Reswik 14:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I think the slogan part of the contest will be ready to wrap up by the end of the month with a clear winner. The motto part of the contest is about tied. Not sure what to do there. Will raise question in colloquim in a few weeks. If you have not put in an opinion on this round of the contests, please feel free... :) --Reswik 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Submitting Homework Assignments as Images and PDFs
Help! My students are submitting images (which is no problem) and PDF files for their homework assignments. How do I upload and view a PDF document?

As an example, when a student finishes typing their movie script assignment with Final Draft for " Lesson 1, Page 4 - Typing the script", they email me their finished assignment which is a tiny PDF document.

In turn, I want to post the completed assignments so others can view it… as a PDF file.

This is what I have done so far:


 * [[Image:SBTDS Storyboard CDinAshton.pdf|thumb]] → This is the first completed assignment by a student at the WikiU Film School. Congratulations to CDinAshton.

This is the recommened linkage by the Upload software (Namespace = Image) but this linkage is really awkward but using a namespace of Pdf or PDF does not seem to work.

What to do? Robert Elliott 00:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. You can use [[Media:SBTDS Storyboard CDinAshton.pdf]] to create a link that when clicked on will download the PDF file. Do you mean you want to convert the contents of a PDF file to text that can then be added to a wiki page? --JWSchmidt 02:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Great!
 * I knew it would be something simple like that. I never thought to use Media.  Problem solved.  Thanks  Robert Elliott 04:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ops! Got another one!
 * I want to display a picture that is located in Wikipedia. [[Image:Dewback sketch.png]].  How do I get it to appear on my page WITHOUT transfering it to Wikiversity? If I say w:Image:Dewback sketch.png only the link shows up, not the picture.  Any suggestions?  Robert Elliott 04:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to either upload it to wikiversity or upload it to commons. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Block, please
Can someone please block for vandalism? AmiDaniel 22:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I luckily flagged down User:Sebmol on IRC to deal with him -- 'twould be nice to have some sort of quick response for vandalism though.... AmiDaniel 22:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something like w:WP:AIV, but with a different name? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure another page would result in any speedier reaction. The best bet for the time being is going to the IRC channel and finding a custodian there. sebmol ? 16:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanish keyboard
Could you instal special letters and signs of the Spanish keyboard under the editation window?--Juan 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As shown in the image to the right? --JWSchmidt 19:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So how to write "ñ" without having installed Spanish keyboard on my computer?--Juan 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Both the uppercase and lowercase "ñ" are already in MediaWiki:Edittools, which is displayed below the edit window. You can find it in the fourth group of the first "characters" row. Nonetheless, JWSchmidt, you might think about bringing over the much more comprehensive w:MediaWiki:Edittools if you have a spare moment :). AmiDaniel (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism
There are a number of pages that have vandalism by Special:Contributions/F.U.C.K I corrected a couple of them, but there are more.--mikeu 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help in cleaning up! JWSchmidt 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons Images
Take a look at Image:NGC6543.jpg. Clicking on the edit tab brings up an empty edit screen, despite the fact that the page includes a description and license info. The File tab is also shown in red, and goes to the same blank edit screen (as if the file page doesn't exist.) This seems to be a problem with images from Wikimedia Commons. See also: Image:Cellarius_ptolemaic_system.jpg. All I was trying to do was add the image to Category:Astronomy_Images but I wasn't sure if the description info would be preserved. Not that I'm looking for things for you to do in your spare time... but also a search for "moon" will not return Image:Moon.jpg but it does show the Image:Moonl.jpg file that I uploaded. --mikeu 21:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The two images seem to work for me. I'm going to guess that it took a while for the servers to catch up with you. Search can be a problem. The database used for searching may not be updating correctly. --JWSchmidt 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When you say it works, do you mean that when you click on the edit tab you see the image description and license template in the edit box? I just get a blank edit box.  In this case the search is not likely related to time.  I uploaded Image:Moonl.jpg recently and it does show up in search, but Image:Moon.jpg has been uploaded for a longer time and does not show up.--mikeu 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As a test I just edited Image:Cellarius_ptolemaic_system.jpg. The page had a description of the image, but when I clicked on edit I saw nothing in the text box. I added the page to Category:Astronomy_Images and clicked save. Now the description info is gone, and it looks like the page was just created now, even though it has been there for a long time. I can not revert the page to the previous version to get the description back.--mikeu 17:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No Problem!!!!
 * I think the problem is not a problem. The image is stored in Wikimedia Commons and the EDIT button is in Wikiversity.  That is the reason why you cannot edit the description (or see the description) in Wikimedia Commons when you select EDIT in Wikiversity.


 * When people start work on Wikiversity, they believe (as I did) that Wiki Land is fully integrated. Sorry, not so.  Wikimedia Commons does not talk to Wikiversity and Wikiversity rarely talks to Wikimedia Commons.  There is only one simple link which allows Wikiversity to use pictures stored at Wikimedia Commons.  Wikimedia Commons is NOT part of Wikiversity.


 * You need to go to Wikimedia Commons and log in and do your stuff INSIDE Wikimedia Commons, not Wikiversity. (Look at the logo on the upper left hand corner of the page to make sure you are at the right Wiki site -- Wikimedia Commons vs. Wikiversity.)


 * Does that explain things? Robert Elliott 17:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, it looks like the page here on wiki has the image from commons and then includes the description from there in the page here. But this wiki allows me to edit the page, and then the descriptive include goes away.  This means that other users might try to make a change in an image file they see here and mess up the description.  I think there needs to be a template or something that tells users to edit the description on commons with a link.  Otherwise we are going to wind up with pages like Image:Cellarius_ptolemaic_system.jpg that are broken.--mikeu 17:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A few minutes after I made the change above, the descriptive text from commons reappeared and my category edit is now included. So things are working, but I still think we need to document this since it causes confusion.  I'll take a look at this later, and try to write something up.--mikeu 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Too little documentation
 * There is still too little documentation how the system works. Instead, instructors must figure out all these weird oddities by themselves.


 * Two months ago, I experience exactly the same problem you had. Two months from now, the next instructor will have the same confusion because Wikiversity and Wikimedia Commons do not play well together.  People (such as me) expect that EDIT on these pages would work the same as EDIT on an image page stored at Wikiversity.Robert Elliott 01:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We have Help:Contents, but the help system could be made more user-friendly. We could do mare along the lines of the Guided tour and [[Media:Editing tutorial-large.ogg|video tutorials]] <-- an OGG video format (Help with OGG video file play). --JWSchmidt 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. You want to add categories to a page on commons? The reason images are uploaded to commons rather than local projects is because that enables all wikimedia projects to incorporate the image onto a page using the familiar link, without needing a local copy on every project (i.e., if it's on commons, it can also be used on wikipedia, wikibooks, es.wikiversity, de.wikiversity, etc.). I don't think you can then categorize it locally (but why would you need to?), but it might end up being categorized on commons with similar files, which in turn might help you find more images. --SB_Johnny | talk 19:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I decided to organize the astronomy pages, so the first step was to locate them all and stick them in a category so I could easily find them later to make edits. At first I thought that the images had been imported here (ie. the image and description copied from the commons server to wikiversity) so I decided to include them also.  As I did this is it was not clear to me what was going on.  Then, as I started to realize what was really happening I felt that this should be documented since it is likely that someone else might try to do the same thing.  I no longer see a need to categorize commons images, since there is already a category there.  Thanks for mentioning the

As you can see, this allows you to annotate the images as well, rather than having to go to the image page and see a full description.--SB_Johnny | talk 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

When an image from Commons is used here at Wikiversity, the image is linked to a Wikiversity page for that image. On such pages (example), shown below the image from Commons is a message box that says, "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." Wikiversity editors are able to add discussion, comments, categories to these Wikiversity image pages. The software also automatically provides us with a list of other Wikiversity pages that are linked to the page for an image. We could certainly change our page that generates this message so as to make it more informative. --JWSchmidt 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Robert Elliott 01:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)