Talk:Regions of Peru

message: :Image:Logo Ucayali reg govt.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Logo Ucayali reg govt.png

message: The image :Image:Logo Cajamarca Region in Peru.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:Logo Piura Region in Peru.png
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Logo Cajamarca Region in Peru.png

message: This article has an abundance of non-free logos representing individual entries on a long list. Per the non-free content guidelines this is not acceptable. There is no critical commentary of the images provided, meaning that they are unlikely to be "significant", something required by the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many non-free images 

message: There's complete chaos in naming the Peruvian administrative divisions on WP. The section Peru#Administrative_divisions claims there are 24 departments plus Lima Province but links to Administrative divisions of Peru, which says there are 24 regions (subdivided into provinces) plus Lima Province and links to Regions of Peru. That article explains in a chaotic way that apparently legislation was passed according to which the departments have been or are to be turned into regions, but it doesn't really explain what the result is. On the contrary, its introduction claims the process has been completed but its section has the heading Regions_of_Peru#Departments but simultaneously lists them as regions! 
And then there are editors who move individual articles back and forth between names switching region/department such as has happened with Department of Loreto and Department of Huancavelica. 
What is the real situation and please fix this mess immediately, at least on Peru! --Espoo (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  regions or departments?! 

message: For example Lima is shown in the table as having a population of 864,853 people. But the department page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Lima , shows a population of 9,485,405.
So not sure what is going on here. Some COVID-19 trackers, like covidly.com, seem to have used information from this page, resulting in very high case per capita and death per capita statistics, due to the incorrect population numbers.
Can anybody fix this? I'm very busy this week but, if nobody fixes it, I may attempt to do it myself this weekend. If there's something I'm missing, and the numbers are actually somehow correct, please let me know.
109.98.21.177 (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  apparently incorrect population numbers for the departments