Talk:Winnipeg

message: There has been some disputes to have flag icons in the infobox on various cities
WP:INFOBOXFLAG states:
"Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, and swamps – should not. Where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan), or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not." Meaning that cities, being human geographic articles could potentially be permitted to have flag icons. In addition there are many other articles such as New York City, Moncton, Fredericton, Las Vegas,  etc. that have flags in the infoboxes. I am interested to see you input. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They are allowed, but not required, and I'm not sure they add much value here - the Manitoba flag in particular is quite hard to recognize at that size, and is unlikely to be recognized by most readers anyway. I see you have been going through articles systematically to add/remove these - you would probably be better off waiting until a definitive consensus either way emerges at the relevant guideline pages (where I see you have posted), or failing that just leave it to the discretion of those working on each individual article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point you made about its size. The Canadian flag however, is easy recognizable. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag icons 

message: *This RFC also applies to Flag of Winnipeg and Coat of arms of Winnipeg
It is currently disputed by  whether :File:Flag of Winnipeg.svg and :File:Crest of Winnipeg.svg are free-content images. For this reason, they have taken it upon themselves to police these three articles in refusing to allow their use of these images. To further this, they have uploaded low-resolution PNG versions ( & ) under non-free content licenses and will only allow their usage on these articles. I therefore ask the community to decide if we should use the files from Commons or not. Fry1989 eh? 21:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I support them I guess, but without all the heavy "anti-other poster" rhetoric. Nikki does good work, FYI. Krazytea(talk) 21:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not stated anything outside of their actions regarding this issue, or any judgement of such. As "anti-other user" as it may sound, I have attempted to keep this factual and specific. Fry1989 eh? 02:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Nikkimaria's position seems to be that you should show that this image is in the public domain and you don't seem to, though correct me if I am wrong ., Where have these images already undergone the DR process? Why would this alternate flag not be allowed in the article? Nikkimaria, you apparently hold the position that this alternative flag would be accepted, how does it differ from the flag that Fry1989 wants? Or more specifically why is it acceptable? Fry1989, So you mean Nikkimaria hasn't went offsite to the wikimedia commons to have this removed? Let me offer you another piece of trivia, Nikkimaria hasn't went to the French wikipedia to have this removed either. This is not important but neither is her lack of action over at the wikimedia commons. Nikkimaria may not be familiar as to what actions to take there or long list of acceptable reasons for nor going there. Being Thursday would simply be an acceptable reason for not doing so. But since you have mentioned this and suggested that we actual put weight behind it, I notice that you yourself could have done this but as of yet have not. That self serving desire, eh? This page is a FA already. She's trying to take an effort to maintain that status it seems. This as far as I am aware is standard practice in regards to FA's. Consider toning down the rhetoric.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The versions currently in the article are of lower quality, in accordance WP:NFCCP 3b; they also have a fair-use tag and rationale. The images Fry proposes are on Commons, where fair-use tags are not acceptable, and are of higher quality than would likely be permitted under fair use. I do not believe that the tags used by those images are supported by the evidence given so far: as you note, they are derivative works of non-free images, and the PD-Canada designation that one asserts has not thus far been adequately supported. In the absence of clear evidence that the images are free or freely licensed, we are obligated to assume they are non-free, and act accordingly - using lower-quality versions hosted locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such obligation at all. You claim they are disputed, but only by you and you will not take this through proper channels. You admitted yourself what our true motivation is. Furthermore, I have spoken with several Commons admins, and they find it extremely disturbing your belief that you have the right to side-step the trust between Wikipedia and Commons regarding licensing and unilaterally decide if an image is rightfully licensed and prevent it's use on Wikipedia. Fry1989 eh? 16:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is such an obligation, both here and on Commons. See for example c:Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence. Typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified,[1] along with the original source where the file is a derivative work... If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence... In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed". That burden of proof has not been met here. See also WP:COMPLIC: "If in doubt, assume you cannot use it". My "true motivation" is to ensure that images used on this article are appropriately licensed, and this is an appropriate place to discuss that. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your motivation is irrelevant when you refuse to go through proper process. Those I have spoken with agree with me that in our many many years of involvement with Wikimedia (7 years alone just for me), we have NEVER seen your behaviour before and that it is wholly inappropriate for one user to take on the role you have chosen. You got away with it the first time I brought this up only because you were an admin and were able to pull the "admins stick together" narrative and whine that I was harassing you and threatening me with a block. You don't have that excuse this time around. YOU have decided all by yourself that you think Commons was wrong and that you will refuse to let Wikipedia use the files in question. That's inappropriate on many levels, and honestly I think it is you who should be blocked since you refuse to do things the right way, when as a former admin you should know better. Fry1989 eh? 18:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For the information of others looking on, Fry is referring here to a thread he began at ANI in June 2014. As can be seen from that thread, Fry's description of events is not correct (I did not participate in the ANI at all). Indeed,  and others responding agreed that the licensing of these images was problematic. Fry, you ostensibly posted this RfC to resolve the question of whether or not this article should use these images; you could best achieve your desired outcome by providing evidence to demonstrate that they are appropriately licensed, rather than continuing down the path you are now pursuing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My recall  of the events are absolutely correct. I was not harassing you, I raised a very important question: Do Wikipedia users have the right to circumvent the trust between Commons and Wikipedia and decide by themselves that a Commons image can't be used on Wikipedia. This isn't about copyright and it never was. If it were about copyright, you would get some pep in your step and go through the right methods, including going to Commons and nominating the image for a second deletion review, which you refuse to do even though I have asked you to more than once. What this is about is the relationship between Commons and Wikipedia. Commons handles it's copyright affairs and Wikipedia is supposed to trust that. What you are doing erodes that trust, and if you can decide all by yourself that Commons is wrong and block the use of an image locally on Wikipedia, then what is to stop any or all users from taking the same course of action? That is harmful, I see it as such, I know several Commons admins who see it as such and I'm sure Jimbo would see it as such were it brought to his attention. The question I raised last year was never properly answered, instead I got the "admins stick together" response, was told that I was harassing you and to let it go or else be blocked. Whether you personally cried "he's harassing me!" or your colleagues did so on your behalf does not matter, it is the response I received and it deliberately ignored the very important question at hand. Fry1989 eh? 20:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I didn't say I was taking this to Jimbo nor do I have any such intention. What I said (and I would enjoy you reading my statements for what they actually say and not what you think they say in the future) is that I, several Commons admins, and no doubt would so Jimbo were he aware, are disturbed at the erosion of the trust this action causes between the two sister projects. Commons purpose is as a image repository for all Wikimedia projects, to serve as a single place for all images wherever possible. Yes there are images that can't be on Commons for copyright reasons and they have to be hosted locally under NFCC, but that is the last resort and undesirable. As I queried, if Nikkimaria can self-appoint to decide that a Commons image is wrongly licensed and therefore personally interfere in it's usage on a local project (in this case the English version of Wikipedia), what is to say other users can't also do so? Can I also decide I think Commons is wrong about one of it's images, and by myself force it's exclusion from an article here on Wikipedia? Can anyone? The relationship between the two projects demands that not be possible and that if there is a concern that a Commons image is wrongly licensed, it be dealt with there. Nikkimaria doesn't want to, and while they most certainly are not being forced to, if they choose not to they shouldn't then take this course of action. Fry1989 eh? 03:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, pardon, you didn't argue that you would take it to Jimbo but just that he simply wouldn't like it. Argumentum ad Jimbonem none the less. What I've said is that you haven't linked to any English Wikipedia policy or guideline.  You have been hostile, casting aspersions, and most of your comments read like a conspiracy theory. Now you follow your appeal to authority (that of the commons admins and really again Jimbo) with this appeal to emotion. If Nikkimaria can unilaterally do this then so can anyone else? Well except she didn't do this unilaterally. She did this based on a policy interpretation and in order to maintain this articles FA status. You have responded by ignoring her policy basis and you haven't actually offered any policy basis yourself. If it should be dealt with there, then provide a policy basis. You do not speak things into being. Right now, Upholding this FA seems a whole hell of alot more important than upholding your sense of "tradition". -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Jimbo is frequently scathingly critical of Commons, stating that he would be upset by criticism of it is rather ill-informed... Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Critical he may be, but I still believe that he as well as most users would be disturbed by the undermining of the intended relationship between Commons and the other projects. Serialjoepsycho accuses me of drawing on "emotion" and "tradition" in replacement of policy, but the fact is that Commons is supposed to handle it's copyright affairs and in order for Commons to serve as an image repository for the other Wikimedia projects the trust in Commons ability to do so is paramount. I ask the question I have always asked regarding this matter in earnest: If Nikkimaria can decide that Commons was wrong and block Wikipedia's usage of one of the images hosted there, what stops any and all other users from the same course of action? I don't see that as an emotional argument, I see it as a very serious issue. If Nikkimaria is concerned about the copyright of this image, they can visit Commons and re-nominate it for a second review. Considering the unified login and the two being sister sites, it's not like Wikipedia is Facebook and Commons is Tumblr, a completely different website. I'm not asking them to do something very difficult and it would only take maybe 2 or 3 clicks of the mouse at most. But it is imperative that the question of the image's status be dealt with there, not here blocked by one user who disagrees with Commons' decision. I have tried to explain this pandora's box in the most simple of ways, surely you can understand my concern when the proper channels are not being observed. Fry1989 eh? 01:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I have made quite clear what my argument is and I won't entertain your goading demand that I quote some policy when I have never claimed such. There is a clear intent for Commons to serve as a unified image repository for all projects and the only way that is possible is if Commons is trusted in it's competency to handle its own affairs and when an image's status is in question that it be handled there. If you are incapable of answering (as you seem to make it clear you are) for me what I see as a very serious question and undermining of that intended relationship, don't then skip around demanding I quote some policy you imagine I've claimed. Answer my question, or don't, but don't pretend I've said things I have not. It is not a difficult thing to go nominate the image for deletion which is the proper way of dealing with this if you believe Commons is wrong about the status of one of it's images, and as much as you demand I quote some policy Nikkimaria's action is not rooted in policy either. There is no policy for one user to block Wikipedia's usage of an image hosted on Commons in this manner and it is unacceptable. Don't waste my time with further spurious demands. Fry1989 eh? 17:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not goading you. The Commons should be trusted to handle its competency but not at the cost of the English Wikipedia's competency. WP:IUP is Wikipedia policy. Before uploading a image as public domain make sure that you can prove that an image is public domain. There is no, "but it's on the commons" exception that I can see. Either you can show this image is public domain or you can not. Don't ask for trust if you can't provide verification. That is simply blind faith. You want us to ignore WP:IUP, and we can with a consensus, but a consensus is not a vote. I'm asking you for policy to provide some swaying factor for your position. You could open up a deletion discussion over there and then provide evidence that these images are public domain. You could skip that step and simply show here that these images are public domain. The facts that these images are improperly licensed has already been shown. The facts that there is no evidence that these images are public domain has been shown. Going back to 2014 in June, WP:IUP was used as a basis and more clarity was provided that these images were improperly licensed. This was explained to you at the ANI opened. This has been explained here. It has also been mention that this article is a featured article. WP:FA mentions that there are 4,485 Featured articles. FA's are the best quality work that we have here at the English Wikipedia. There are no better. Your pictures would do not meet the standard set for Featured articles WP:FA?. This would require to meet the FA status. Both following wikipedia policy and maintaining a featured article hold more sway to your feelings about how things should be. WP:CONEXCEPT makes the position that we are co-equal to the commons, the position you present is that we are subordinate to the commons. The images they host are not up for consensus here and the images we use from there right here are not up for consensus from there. Your position might as well simply be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You keep talking and providing irrelevant details. Though you may have saw in your Crystalball what Jimbo might think, unless he comments here we simply can't know what his position would be. The commons moderators positions are irrelevant. You have mentioned that this you had already undergone a DR process and asked to show where they had, yet you ignored this. A DR that we can't review isn't relevant. Provide something. Some swaying factor. As far as your question, it was already answered.  Nikkimaria had a policy based reason to remove these pictures. Any Wikipedia editor can make a similar change to an article to make it conform to policy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You want policy, WP:NFCC#1 clearly applies. So long as there is a free equivalent, a NFCC file can not be used. The fact remains that as long as those files remain on Commons under a free license they remain considered a free equivalent and Nikkimaria's NFCC upload can not be hosted by Wikipedia. There is only one proper way to dispute their free status, and simply deciding all by yourself that you think it isn't free and blocking it's use on Wikipedia in this manner doesn't cut it. I have explained well enough the only proper way of dealing with this and that is somebody, whether it's you, Nikkimaria, Nick-D or whoever else that thinks it isn't free, getting off their behind and going to Commons and nominating it for a new review. You can't have it both ways,  you can't say it's not free and host an NFCC file on Wikipedia, but let the file remain on Commons under a free license. Fry1989 eh? 20:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Without evidence that the images are free, they cannot be considered free equivalents. Opening this discussion in yet another forum (Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_March_22#File:Flag_of_Winnipeg.png) doesn't change that. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have stated, you can not have this both ways. The policy demands (under the section regarding enforcement) the deletion of your images, UNLESS you will do what is required and I have explained what that is. Fry1989 eh? 21:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

text: The source is not used in any manner to assert the copyright status of the image. It simply provides confirmation of the image's existence, as all Commons images have sourcing requirements. Secondly, there are proper channels to go through when you believe an image is not compatible with the licensing requirements of either Commons or Wikipedia, but you refuse to go through either and instead feel it appropriate for you to be sole judge of these images' status and whether they can or can not be used. That is an abrogation of the proper way of doing things. Fry1989 eh? 21:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If, contrary to what you indicated in the DR, the source's sole purpose is to demonstrate that the image exists, then do we have any evidence at all that the given copyright tags are correct? Without that, we can't use them here, regardless of what Commons chooses to do with them. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I haven't read through the above (and won't, given that it appears to rehash the ANI discussion from last year in which there was a consensus that the images aren't usable). This is a no-brainer: both images are clearly improperly licenced on Commons (the PD-Self claims made by the uploaders are patently false) and so should not be used here. Moreover, if they are used in this article, then it would be in clear breach of FA criterion 3, and hence consideration would have to be given to delisting the article. The first three points in Fry's statement above indicates a misunderstanding of the relationship between En-Wiki and Commons: all the various Wikimedia projects are independent of each other, and we are not bound by the results of Commons' generally very poor quality deletion processes: I'd suggest that we have much higher standards, especially in regards to the content of FACs - and this was the consensus of the ANI discussion. I have no idea why this is being rehashed a year later, complete with entirely unjustified attacks on Nikki, who really does know what she's talking about and really isn't going to be motivated by some kind of ulterior motive. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NFCC#1  clearly disagrees. You can not have a free equivalent on Commons and an NFCC file on Wikipedia simultaneously. Fry1989 eh? 20:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: NFCC doesn't make a case against anyone. It actually stands more to hurt your case.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for a policy, I gave you one. I don't have to prove the Commons files are free, that has already been decided and a rag-tag team of users on Wikipedia don't get to just ignore that without properly asking for a new review. Either nominate them, or the NFCC files have to be deleted. You can't have it both ways. Fry1989 eh? 14:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I in fact did ask for policy. I am still waiting for policy. NFCC especially #1, does not back you. NFCC #1 says that we should use free content in place of non-free when it's available. It does not say that we should use commons photo's in place of non-free. The photo's have to be free. The images that you suggest be used on the commons are (and this point has been extensively covered) not properly licensed. There is no (again let's repeat this) evidence that the images on the commons are free and to be more specific, there is no evidence that the these images are in the public domain. With WP:NFCCE the burden of proof has long been met. It was met a year ago. This burden of proof is now yours. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Should this article use the SVG files of the Crest and Flag from Commons?

message: Whereas
*Wikipedia and Commons have a relationship dependant on trusting Commons' ability to determine the status of the images it hosts.
*These SVGs have already undergone DR process and have been sofar determined by Commons to be free content.
*It is preferable by Wikipedia to use, wherever possible, free images from Commons.
*Nikkimaria has no proof of these images being non-free, and refuses to re-nominate them on Commons for further scrutiny
*Nikkimaria does not appear to have any problem with the use of :File:Flag-of-Winnipeg.jpg on Flag of Winnipeg, which were the flag copyrighted would be in conflict with such a preference and would not be allowed on that article either.
*Nikkimaria's motivation for these actions appears to be based on the self-serving desire to elevate the status of the article for the City of Winnipeg rather than a truly serious concern about these images' copyright status.
I see no valid reason against using the Commons files. Fry1989 eh? 21:24, 
17 March 2015 (UTC)
: I support them I guess, but without all the heavy "anti-other poster" rhetoric. Nikki does good work, FYI. Krazytea(talk) 21:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not stated anything outside of their actions regarding this issue, or any judgement of such. As "anti-other user" as it may sound, I have attempted to keep this factual and specific. Fry1989 eh? 02:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Nikkimaria's position seems to be that you should show that this image is in the public domain and you don't seem to, though correct me if I am wrong ., Where have these images already undergone the DR process? Why would this alternate flag not be allowed in the article? Nikkimaria, you apparently hold the position that this alternative flag would be accepted, how does it differ from the flag that Fry1989 wants? Or more specifically why is it acceptable? Fry1989, So you mean Nikkimaria hasn't went offsite to the wikimedia commons to have this removed? Let me offer you another piece of trivia, Nikkimaria hasn't went to the French wikipedia to have this removed either. This is not important but neither is her lack of action over at the wikimedia commons. Nikkimaria may not be familiar as to what actions to take there or long list of acceptable reasons for nor going there. Being Thursday would simply be an acceptable reason for not doing so. But since you have mentioned this and suggested that we actual put weight behind it, I notice that you yourself could have done this but as of yet have not. That self serving desire, eh? This page is a FA already. She's trying to take an effort to maintain that status it seems. This as far as I am aware is standard practice in regards to FA's. Consider toning down the rhetoric.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The versions currently in the article are of lower quality, in accordance WP:NFCCP 3b; they also have a fair-use tag and rationale. The images Fry proposes are on Commons, where fair-use tags are not acceptable, and are of higher quality than would likely be permitted under fair use. I do not believe that the tags used by those images are supported by the evidence given so far: as you note, they are derivative works of non-free images, and the PD-Canada designation that one asserts has not thus far been adequately supported. In the absence of clear evidence that the images are free or freely licensed, we are obligated to assume they are non-free, and act accordingly - using lower-quality versions hosted locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such obligation at all. You claim they are disputed, but only by you and you will not take this through proper channels. You admitted yourself what our true motivation is. Furthermore, I have spoken with several Commons admins, and they find it extremely disturbing your belief that you have the right to side-step the trust between Wikipedia and Commons regarding licensing and unilaterally decide if an image is rightfully licensed and prevent it's use on Wikipedia. Fry1989 eh? 16:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is such an obligation, both here and on Commons. See for example c:Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence. Typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified,[1] along with the original source where the file is a derivative work... If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence... In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed". That burden of proof has not been met here. See also WP:COMPLIC: "If in doubt, assume you cannot use it". My "true motivation" is to ensure that images used on this article are appropriately licensed, and this is an appropriate place to discuss that. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your motivation is irrelevant when you refuse to go through proper process. Those I have spoken with agree with me that in our many many years of involvement with Wikimedia (7 years alone just for me), we have NEVER seen your behaviour before and that it is wholly inappropriate for one user to take on the role you have chosen. You got away with it the first time I brought this up only because you were an admin and were able to pull the "admins stick together" narrative and whine that I was harassing you and threatening me with a block. You don't have that excuse this time around. YOU have decided all by yourself that you think Commons was wrong and that you will refuse to let Wikipedia use the files in question. That's inappropriate on many levels, and honestly I think it is you who should be blocked since you refuse to do things the right way, when as a former admin you should know better. Fry1989 eh? 18:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For the information of others looking on, Fry is referring here to a thread he began at ANI in June 2014. As can be seen from that thread, Fry's description of events is not correct (I did not participate in the ANI at all). Indeed,  and others responding agreed that the licensing of these images was problematic. Fry, you ostensibly posted this RfC to resolve the question of whether or not this article should use these images; you could best achieve your desired outcome by providing evidence to demonstrate that they are appropriately licensed, rather than continuing down the path you are now pursuing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My recall  of the events are absolutely correct. I was not harassing you, I raised a very important question: Do Wikipedia users have the right to circumvent the trust between Commons and Wikipedia and decide by themselves that a Commons image can't be used on Wikipedia. This isn't about copyright and it never was. If it were about copyright, you would get some pep in your step and go through the right methods, including going to Commons and nominating the image for a second deletion review, which you refuse to do even though I have asked you to more than once. What this is about is the relationship between Commons and Wikipedia. Commons handles it's copyright affairs and Wikipedia is supposed to trust that. What you are doing erodes that trust, and if you can decide all by yourself that Commons is wrong and block the use of an image locally on Wikipedia, then what is to stop any or all users from taking the same course of action? That is harmful, I see it as such, I know several Commons admins who see it as such and I'm sure Jimbo would see it as such were it brought to his attention. The question I raised last year was never properly answered, instead I got the "admins stick together" response, was told that I was harassing you and to let it go or else be blocked. Whether you personally cried "he's harassing me!" or your colleagues did so on your behalf does not matter, it is the response I received and it deliberately ignored the very important question at hand. Fry1989 eh? 20:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I didn't say I was taking this to Jimbo nor do I have any such intention. What I said (and I would enjoy you reading my statements for what they actually say and not what you think they say in the future) is that I, several Commons admins, and no doubt would so Jimbo were he aware, are disturbed at the erosion of the trust this action causes between the two sister projects. Commons purpose is as a image repository for all Wikimedia projects, to serve as a single place for all images wherever possible. Yes there are images that can't be on Commons for copyright reasons and they have to be hosted locally under NFCC, but that is the last resort and undesirable. As I queried, if Nikkimaria can self-appoint to decide that a Commons image is wrongly licensed and therefore personally interfere in it's usage on a local project (in this case the English version of Wikipedia), what is to say other users can't also do so? Can I also decide I think Commons is wrong about one of it's images, and by myself force it's exclusion from an article here on Wikipedia? Can anyone? The relationship between the two projects demands that not be possible and that if there is a concern that a Commons image is wrongly licensed, it be dealt with there. Nikkimaria doesn't want to, and while they most certainly are not being forced to, if they choose not to they shouldn't then take this course of action. Fry1989 eh? 03:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, pardon, you didn't argue that you would take it to Jimbo but just that he simply wouldn't like it. Argumentum ad Jimbonem none the less. What I've said is that you haven't linked to any English Wikipedia policy or guideline.  You have been hostile, casting aspersions, and most of your comments read like a conspiracy theory. Now you follow your appeal to authority (that of the commons admins and really again Jimbo) with this appeal to emotion. If Nikkimaria can unilaterally do this then so can anyone else? Well except she didn't do this unilaterally. She did this based on a policy interpretation and in order to maintain this articles FA status. You have responded by ignoring her policy basis and you haven't actually offered any policy basis yourself. If it should be dealt with there, then provide a policy basis. You do not speak things into being. Right now, Upholding this FA seems a whole hell of alot more important than upholding your sense of "tradition". -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Jimbo is frequently scathingly critical of Commons, stating that he would be upset by criticism of it is rather ill-informed... Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Critical he may be, but I still believe that he as well as most users would be disturbed by the undermining of the intended relationship between Commons and the other projects. Serialjoepsycho accuses me of drawing on "emotion" and "tradition" in replacement of policy, but the fact is that Commons is supposed to handle it's copyright affairs and in order for Commons to serve as an image repository for the other Wikimedia projects the trust in Commons ability to do so is paramount. I ask the question I have always asked regarding this matter in earnest: If Nikkimaria can decide that Commons was wrong and block Wikipedia's usage of one of the images hosted there, what stops any and all other users from the same course of action? I don't see that as an emotional argument, I see it as a very serious issue. If Nikkimaria is concerned about the copyright of this image, they can visit Commons and re-nominate it for a second review. Considering the unified login and the two being sister sites, it's not like Wikipedia is Facebook and Commons is Tumblr, a completely different website. I'm not asking them to do something very difficult and it would only take maybe 2 or 3 clicks of the mouse at most. But it is imperative that the question of the image's status be dealt with there, not here blocked by one user who disagrees with Commons' decision. I have tried to explain this pandora's box in the most simple of ways, surely you can understand my concern when the proper channels are not being observed. Fry1989 eh? 01:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I have made quite clear what my argument is and I won't entertain your goading demand that I quote some policy when I have never claimed such. There is a clear intent for Commons to serve as a unified image repository for all projects and the only way that is possible is if Commons is trusted in it's competency to handle its own affairs and when an image's status is in question that it be handled there. If you are incapable of answering (as you seem to make it clear you are) for me what I see as a very serious question and undermining of that intended relationship, don't then skip around demanding I quote some policy you imagine I've claimed. Answer my question, or don't, but don't pretend I've said things I have not. It is not a difficult thing to go nominate the image for deletion which is the proper way of dealing with this if you believe Commons is wrong about the status of one of it's images, and as much as you demand I quote some policy Nikkimaria's action is not rooted in policy either. There is no policy for one user to block Wikipedia's usage of an image hosted on Commons in this manner and it is unacceptable. Don't waste my time with further spurious demands. Fry1989 eh? 17:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not goading you. The Commons should be trusted to handle its competency but not at the cost of the English Wikipedia's competency. WP:IUP is Wikipedia policy. Before uploading a image as public domain make sure that you can prove that an image is public domain. There is no, "but it's on the commons" exception that I can see. Either you can show this image is public domain or you can not. Don't ask for trust if you can't provide verification. That is simply blind faith. You want us to ignore WP:IUP, and we can with a consensus, but a consensus is not a vote. I'm asking you for policy to provide some swaying factor for your position. You could open up a deletion discussion over there and then provide evidence that these images are public domain. You could skip that step and simply show here that these images are public domain. The facts that these images are improperly licensed has already been shown. The facts that there is no evidence that these images are public domain has been shown. Going back to 2014 in June, WP:IUP was used as a basis and more clarity was provided that these images were improperly licensed. This was explained to you at the ANI opened. This has been explained here. It has also been mention that this article is a featured article. WP:FA mentions that there are 4,485 Featured articles. FA's are the best quality work that we have here at the English Wikipedia. There are no better. Your pictures would do not meet the standard set for Featured articles WP:FA?. This would require to meet the FA status. Both following wikipedia policy and maintaining a featured article hold more sway to your feelings about how things should be. WP:CONEXCEPT makes the position that we are co-equal to the commons, the position you present is that we are subordinate to the commons. The images they host are not up for consensus here and the images we use from there right here are not up for consensus from there. Your position might as well simply be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You keep talking and providing irrelevant details. Though you may have saw in your Crystalball what Jimbo might think, unless he comments here we simply can't know what his position would be. The commons moderators positions are irrelevant. You have mentioned that this you had already undergone a DR process and asked to show where they had, yet you ignored this. A DR that we can't review isn't relevant. Provide something. Some swaying factor. As far as your question, it was already answered.  Nikkimaria had a policy based reason to remove these pictures. Any Wikipedia editor can make a similar change to an article to make it conform to policy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You want policy, WP:NFCC#1 clearly applies. So long as there is a free equivalent, a NFCC file can not be used. The fact remains that as long as those files remain on Commons under a free license they remain considered a free equivalent and Nikkimaria's NFCC upload can not be hosted by Wikipedia. There is only one proper way to dispute their free status, and simply deciding all by yourself that you think it isn't free and blocking it's use on Wikipedia in this manner doesn't cut it. I have explained well enough the only proper way of dealing with this and that is somebody, whether it's you, Nikkimaria, Nick-D or whoever else that thinks it isn't free, getting off their behind and going to Commons and nominating it for a new review. You can't have it both ways,  you can't say it's not free and host an NFCC file on Wikipedia, but let the file remain on Commons under a free license. Fry1989 eh? 20:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Without evidence that the images are free, they cannot be considered free equivalents. Opening this discussion in yet another forum (Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_March_22#File:Flag_of_Winnipeg.png) doesn't change that. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have stated, you can not have this both ways. The policy demands (under the section regarding enforcement) the deletion of your images, UNLESS you will do what is required and I have explained what that is. Fry1989 eh? 21:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for using the images from Commons

message: *As I indicated in the discussion on my talk page, the burden of proof as presented above is not correct: we need to be able to prove that the images are free or freely licensed, and absent such proof we must assume they are non-free. The images are both sourced to other files that have since been deleted as being non-free. The source given to support the crest being in the public domain fails to do so: although it mentions an earlier version of the Coat of Arms - which was the basis used in the DR to claim that the current version is a derivative of an older, now-PD work - it does not clearly indicate to what extent the current crest differs from the original nor what the creation date of the original was, and so cannot justify the use of the  tag. Nor can the crest be solely derived from the textual blazon given in that description - it relies instead on the now-deleted previous image. I would love to see someone present evidence to demonstrate conclusively that the images are PD, but unless someone does so, we can't use them - issues with Commons aside. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is not used in any manner to assert the copyright status of the image. It simply provides confirmation of the image's existence, as all Commons images have sourcing requirements. Secondly, there are proper channels to go through when you believe an image is not compatible with the licensing requirements of either Commons or Wikipedia, but you refuse to go through either and instead feel it appropriate for you to be sole judge of these images' status and whether they can or can not be used. That is an abrogation of the proper way of doing things. Fry1989 eh? 21:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If, contrary to what you indicated in the DR, the source's sole purpose is to demonstrate that the image exists, then do we have any evidence at all that the given copyright tags are correct? Without that, we can't use them here, regardless of what Commons chooses to do with them. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I haven't read through the above (and won't, given that it appears to rehash the ANI discussion from last year in which there was a consensus that the images aren't usable). This is a no-brainer: both images are clearly improperly licenced on Commons (the PD-Self claims made by the uploaders are patently false) and so should not be used here. Moreover, if they are used in this article, then it would be in clear breach of FA criterion 3, and hence consideration would have to be given to delisting the article. The first three points in Fry's statement above indicates a misunderstanding of the relationship between En-Wiki and Commons: all the various Wikimedia projects are independent of each other, and we are not bound by the results of Commons' generally very poor quality deletion processes: I'd suggest that we have much higher standards, especially in regards to the content of FACs - and this was the consensus of the ANI discussion. I have no idea why this is being rehashed a year later, complete with entirely unjustified attacks on Nikki, who really does know what she's talking about and really isn't going to be motivated by some kind of ulterior motive. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NFCC#1  clearly disagrees. You can not have a free equivalent on Commons and an NFCC file on Wikipedia simultaneously. Fry1989 eh? 20:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: NFCC doesn't make a case against anyone. It actually stands more to hurt your case.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for a policy, I gave you one. I don't have to prove the Commons files are free, that has already been decided and a rag-tag team of users on Wikipedia don't get to just ignore that without properly asking for a new review. Either nominate them, or the NFCC files have to be deleted. You can't have it both ways. Fry1989 eh? 14:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I in fact did ask for policy. I am still waiting for policy. NFCC especially #1, does not back you. NFCC #1 says that we should use free content in place of non-free when it's available. It does not say that we should use commons photo's in place of non-free. The photo's have to be free. The images that you suggest be used on the commons are (and this point has been extensively covered) not properly licensed. There is no (again let's repeat this) evidence that the images on the commons are free and to be more specific, there is no evidence that the these images are in the public domain. With WP:NFCCE the burden of proof has long been met. It was met a year ago. This burden of proof is now yours. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition to using the images from Commons

message: I recall that featured articles should not have subsections that are blank, or simply a link to another page as we do here for "notable people". Either way it does not look very appropriate, I wonder if we can either write a short paragraph with the key notable people, or relegate the link to the see also section. As is, I'm not sure it's appropriate for a featured article. Mattximus (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that "featured articles should not have subsections that are...simply a link" is accurate, but I've moved the link to See also nevertheless. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable People Section 

message: Per MOS:INFOBOX, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". Other, more local MOS guidelines suggest a more expansive approach, but in this particular case shorter is sweeter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikkimaria challenged it in a discussion started in September 2014. The consensus to that discussion was the status quo; i.e., using all three parameters.Dissatisfied, over a year later, Nikkimaria initiated a formal RfC asking "Should use of all of , , and  be required for all Canadian cities?" With the except of her, all commenters answered yes. The outcome of the RfC, closed a mere 4.5 months ago, was "There is consensus that the all of the perimeters [sic] should be used for all Canadian cities. The majority opinion is that it is best to be consistant [sic] and that the fields are useful."Now the belligerence about this has resurfaced once again despite the pre-existing consensus being twice upheld within the span of the last year and a half. When does this stop? Will it ever stop? Nikkimaria may not like it, but there should be no removal of usage of all three parameters due to the longstanding and and twice recently reinforced consensus on this matter. Hwy43 (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Except of course that compliance with CANSTYLE is not mandatory and is subject to common sense, especially when it comes into conflict with other guidelines with broader consensus than, what, four people? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While that may be your POV, unfortunately others have not come out with the same in favour of your desired outcome. Hwy43 (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately the "subject to common sense" allowance for exceptions is already included in CANSTYLE, just as the "parameter inclusion is decided on an article-by-article basis" provision is already part of MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

text: You mean the things listed under "optional entries"? We can restore the title display if you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a start, though I've observed that the application of coordinates is usually inclusion within both the title and infobox. Don't be surprised if a gnome surfaces at sometime to set it to display within the infobox as well. What do you intend to do with the now absent elevation of Winnipeg? It should at least be covered in the prose (with a reference), most appropriately within the Geography section. Hwy43 (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't intend to do anything with it, as I expect most of our readers won't care and it varies even within the city anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Hwy43 this should be included, not sure what the issue is really. Krazytea(talk) 23:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to remove the elevation from the infobox. Meters (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your reason to include it? It's a nonsense number - there is no single elevation for the whole city, different sources give different numbers and this one includes no source at all - and one most of our readers won't care about. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reasons why it is preferable to have the elevation made available. One such reason is when considering the climate numbers. For example, people sometimes wonder why Regina is a little colder on average in the winter than Saskatoon when it's almost 200 kilometres further south. This is partly because Regina is at a higher elevation. On average about 6.5°C is lost for every 1000m of elevation gain. For this same reason Denver, Colorado would have a very different climate if it sat at sea level instead of at 1,600m like it does. When people are looking into and wondering about Winnipeg, the elevation number is useful to know since it is the coldest major prairie city. Of course there will be variations of the elevation in different parts of town but the reference I just added is for the elevation at the climate station. Winnipeg doesn't have significant changes in elevation through its borders so I don't think further clarification of this point is needed in the article. Another reason why people might wonder about the elevation is for people who have just moved or are visiting Winnipeg. If you go to a new place that's at a significantly different elevation than what your body is used to the effects of exercise, such as going for a jog, can be very noticeable. Seeing that elevations can vary greatly in the middle parts of the continent, it's nice to know what it is where you are. Of course it won't be of interest to every page visitor, but neither is anything else in the article. Air.light (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

text: What percentage of Canadian city article infoboxes does not include the city's elevation? The reason to include it is that it is a longstanding convention that city articles in Canada include their elevations in their infoboxes. This has got to be one of the most lame and unnecessary edit wars I've encountered. Hwy43 (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Other articles do it" isn't a reason for any article to do it. Why do you consider this to be essential, given the problems it presents and its relative insignificance to the average reader? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus seems clear here that the elevation should remain in. It's useful to some people, it's now sourced, and despite the above claim I don't see any problems with using it. Meters (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting MOS guidance 

message: There has been a recent push by at least one user to convert all the pushpin maps to relief maps. I am not sure how I feel about this to be honest but I really do believe we should lean away from the alternative map and stick to the original. The relief map has its place, but in the infoboxes it becomes particularly busy and noisy. Most noticeably in a city infobox which is already filled with montages, seals, flags, etc. I think best to keep it simple but thought I would listen to others first. I also have the topic for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manitoba#Relief maps. Krazytea(talk) 00:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'd put it in the geography or history section. It's weird, because of how tall it is, and it adds clutter to the infobox. But it is nice to see where exactly Winnipeg is on a map. Psychotic Spartan   11:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relief maps 

message: Not sure listing sports team in the lead is good thing. Definitely not the norm especially in an FA article about a place to list every team.--Moxy (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Moxy, if you'd like to propose a different formulation for that paragraph feel free. The current one is quite similar to Hamilton, Ontario, also a FA, but if we can improve it we should. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I concur with Moxy. The lead could just as easily highlight business-oriented things such as headquarters of corporations, such as New Flyer, or that we have "CentrePort". Jimj wpg (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead list of teams

message: -they can welcome you in different languages like spanish, french there are many more  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.194.17.85 (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have added 3 links. The first indicates that CBC New acknowledges that Winnipeg is called #Murderpeg, that Winnipeg has the "label of Murderpeg" and a MacLean's article that Winnipeg is "nicknamed "Murderpeg"'. 
Winnipeg is routinely the most violent city in Canada and Brian Bowman is seeking Provincial and Federal aid to deal with this problem. 
https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/winnipeg/2019/11/7/1_4675720.html
Ignoring that Winnipeg is nicknamed "Murderpeg" will never help in resolving this (often fatal) issue.  
There is also a 4th New York times reference indicating that Winnipeg is called Murderpeg, but I removed it because a subscription is required to view the article, which seems against the spirit of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Winnie3737 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this here. I'm not convinced that this nickname warrants inclusion in the infobox here. We cannot list every one of Winnipeg's nicknames there - that is why we have List of city nicknames and slogans in Canada where I have added it with some of your reliable sources.. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

text: As per Vaselineeeeeeee, I think we want to avoid listing every nickname ever used for the city. As such, I've trimmed the listing back to just "Winterpeg", which seems to be the most broadly used (examples: ). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Well, "winterpeg" gets 85k Google hits while "murderpeg" gets 772 - of course that's not a perfect metric, but it seems a pretty strong indicator that the former is significantly more common than the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Murderpeg

message: Based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and collapsible content and the fact that the "[show]" button does not work on some browsers I removed the "|state=collapsed". This was reverted based on Talk:Winnipeg/Archive 5#Historic Population Table from 2014. I don't think that a seven year old discussion by three people is sufficient to override the MOS and hide material. Ping the three editors from that discussion ,  and . CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the uncollapsing of the table. Hwy43 (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncollapsing causes sandwiching which is also undesirable. Collapsing of supplementary data is permissible per COLLAPSE, or alternatively the table could be moved to a subarticle. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not support moving the table to a sub-article. To save from repeating, those interested in why can review my comments in the 2014 discussion linked above. Hwy43 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I would not support moving the table to a sub-article either. I do support having the default be uncollapsed. Mattximus (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

text: all three pinged editors have commented in the above. Consensus is to uncollapse. Hwy43 (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Should pick accessibility over anything Moxy- 21:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiding content 

message: Hello, I think that the image of the Esplanade Riel in the info box should be changed to an image of the exchange district. My reasoning for this is that I plan on taking pictures including the Esplanade Riel in another a picture once 300 main is complete. The image I had in mind instead of the Esplanade Riel image is titled  Exchange downtown.png 21pegedi89 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow your argument. You plan on taking another picture of the Esplanade in future, and you will want to include that? So why not wait until you have that before proposing a change? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change image of the Esplanade Riel to exchange district image 

message: The introductory image is currently a photo of the University of Winnipeg. This is not an image that best captures Winnipeg. It does not show Winnipeg’s unique skyline, or Portage and Main, or really anything that is a major physical facet of the city.
Frankly it’s strange and poor choice for the introductory image for the Wikipedia article for Winnipeg and I suggest that we pick something else. HALitosis 9K (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead currently uses a multi-image collage, including both Portage and Main and a skyline shot. Since both of your suggestions are already present, is there something else you believe should replace UWinnipeg within the multi-image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I think that this is a problem with the app, and ought to be addressed via a bug report. On both desktop and standard mobile view there is a multi-image displayed that includes both a skyline and an Esplanade image (with the skyline on top). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change introductory image? 

message: Please update this with the 2021 census data that was released on 10/26/2022. 209.104.249.26 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, don't be shy, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update this with the 2021 census data that was released on 10/26/2022. 

message: I wanted to learn something about the Template:Infobox_settlement as used on the article's page, so I copied the entire template invocation onto a sandbox page on my user pages, and in the map display it throws an error. So maybe it doesn't work on user pages, so I tried the sandbox in the main namespace, and it still throws an error. Let me demonstrate (ignore the missing footnotes):
As you can see, it won't show the map except on the main Winnipeg page, and nowhere else. I looked at that macro/template, and I don't find any reference to  , like this: . But since that reads "Winnipeg" it must also be referencing , like this: , or both together, e.g. :, like this: :.  I'm just trying to figure out how and/or why it does this. "Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."Thank you.Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Rfc1394, when it's being used on another page, you need to explicitly call the Wikidata item associated with the Winnipeg article - see example. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about <nowiki>{{Infobox settlement}}</nowiki>