Talk:Hip-hop

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2025

Add to Category:Romani music per Romani music. Very popular genre among Romani people in Europe. 66.179.190.46 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Unclear this is appropriate. meamemg (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"Kkaydes" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kkaydes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 13 § Kkaydes until a consensus is reached. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

August 11, 1973

I just edited the article to be a little less credulous about August 11, 1973. The party was a ready-made 50th anniversary marker and generated a ton of "Birth of Hip-Hop" coverage in 2023, which is great for the genre but bad for historical accuracy. It's worth keeping an eye out for the language creeping back into the article and guarding against Kool Herc's contributions being described inaccurately.Trumpetrep (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2025

Ninja Jim a rapper who is also a rabbit is one of the greatest rappers of all time and the hip hop duo with him and Red Hot are the most underrated group ever Ninja jim 3000 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Contribution Removed

Hi, Just wondering why this was removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_in_hip-hop&diff=1277193052&oldid=1277064668&variant=en Thanks Wakawka (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Because that album release is not a notable event in 2025 hip-hop. Alyo (chat·edits) 12:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

2025 Overhaul

As User:Nikkimaria pointed out, the article is very long. In my view, it's too long to be helpful. Just as there are separate articles about the Old School, New School, and Golden Age of hip-hop, there is clearly a need for one about the Birth of Hip-Hop.

When I started editing this article, it was 240,916 bytes with 318 footnotes. It is now 119,194 bytes with 262 footnotes. A good deal of that bloat was excised by simply converting template citations. In an article this long, the roughly 300 bytes you conserve by writing a citation as plain text accretes to quite a savings. If all of them were converted to text, there is easily another 10,000 bytes that could be trimmed, which speeds up load times and makes everything easier. The other big issue with the templates is that people don't fill them out completely. It was commonplace for a template citation to not have an author or a correct date.

Most of the removed bloat came from trimming duplicative citations and content. The text kept looping back on itself with identical material appearing in multiple places for no reason. "Rapper's Delight" was peppered all throughout the page, for instance. There was a massive paragraph marked off as a subsection about female rappers towards the end of the article. However, it was mainly discussing performers that were previously mentioned much earlier in the text.

That kind of lumpy prose was all over the article. It's a byproduct of group editing, and it will surely crop up again.Trumpetrep (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I just converted the remainder of the 53 citation templates to plain text. Total savings −7,255 bytes. Those things are so bloated. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:Article size or are you saying there was too many templates on the page?. These will most likely be returned to template format by an individual or by a bot. Moxy🍁 01:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why I need to review Article Size. This article is too big, as nikkimaria pointed out.

Citation templates create needless bloat. Here's an example:

Template Version

"Gangsta Rap – What Is Gangsta Rap". Rap.about.com. October 31, 2009. Archived from the original on May 14, 2011. Retrieved April 23, 2010.

Text Version

Adaso, Henry. "Gangsta Rap", About.com. October 31, 2009. Archived May 14, 2011.

For starters, citing a defunct website in the middle of such a massive article is unhelpful. The actual reference is also comically superficial.

Moreover, these are just the displayed versions of the citations. The actual code behind the Template citation requires 362 characters to generate 139. That surplus of 223 characters really adds up over the course of a 7,359-word, 258-footnote article. In the text version of this citation, there are 79 characters with a meager surplus of 4.

To add to its inutility, the Template Citation gives us 1) the wrong title, 2) the wrong website, 3) no author information, 4) the verbiage "Archived from the original on", and worst of all 5) the date the user retrieved the archived version.

Why does anyone need to know when a Wikipedia editor grabbed an archive of a forgettable and obsolete About.com article? Yet, while the editor ensured readers knew when they accessed the archive and when that archive was made, they forgot to include correct bibliographic information about the author, title, and publication of the actual source they were citing. In the rendered template citation, there are 2 separate URLs that a reader can click on and 3 different dates. (Dickens' Circumlocution Office comes to mind.)

That is counterproductive, and those kinds of problems were legion. When I started overhauling the article, what I found were two immediate problems. The text was jumbled and repetitive, and the citations were a mess. That's before you get to the issue of the article being far too long.

So, trimming a template citation by an average of 300 bytes by converting it to plain text was just one way to wrangle the article. In my view, a lot more of the text should go, but the reason for this note was to let people know I'd done my bit.

I've no opposition to citation templates in general, but when they are as sclerotic as they were in this article, they jeopardize the site's function.

Does the "deny=Citation bot" code you added prevent bots from editing the citations?Trumpetrep (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

When referring to size editors generally are referring to word count that at the time of tagging was 15386 words (WP:SIZERULE). Template limit is 2,048,000 bytes so was lots of room for the standard ref format pls read over WP:CITEVAR. Moxy🍁 06:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Trumpetrep As Moxy says, citation templates are not considered "bloat", nor do they add to the length of the article for the purposes of {{toolong}}. As far as the actual information, I'll disagree with you about the uselessness of archive information--that's all incredibly helpful and necessary for maintaining deadlinks over longer stretches of time. Putting the citation in template form allows bots to do a ton of the maintenance, and adds those citations to maintenance categories where they can be tracked and watched. I'm all for fixing the bad/missing information, but I strongly suggest going back to the templates. Again, there's no pro to removing them, and a lot of downsides. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Archive information is far from useless, but the example I used demonstrated how it can be unhelpful. We were told the date of the article, the date it was archived, and the date the archive was retrieved, but we were not told who wrote it. One of these pieces of information is vastly more important than the others. ;)

Criticism of templates is not opposition to them. They do have some serious flaws, but that's a separate discussion.Trumpetrep (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Better to add information then, no? Alyo (chat·edits) 14:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

There was no established citation style in the article, Moxy. I guess that wasn't clear from my comments. One citation would use a template, the next one wouldn't. One might be in APA, the other MLA. Some had no discernible format and were verging on spam.

This is an example of the garbled citations that were all over the article:

Adasco, Henry (March 8, 2019). Jon%2C%20Ying%20Yang%20Twins%20and%20Three%206%20Mafia "Crunk Music". liveabout.com. Retrieved September 27, 2021 {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): Check |url= value (help)

The casserole of citation styles is precisely the kind of problem that the "Variation in citation methods" guidance is intended to fix. That section of Wikipedia:Citing sources specifically says that it is "Genrally considered helpful" to impose "one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles". The Hip-hop article was the poster child for inconsistent citation styles.

For instance, the Vibe History of Hip-Hop was cited twice in the article with fairly clear but inconsistent footnotes in the "References" section:

Kenner, Rob. "Dancehall", in The Vibe History of Hip-hop, ed. Alan Light, 350-7. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999.

Greenberg, Steve; Light, Alan [ed.] (1999). The VIBE History of Hip Hop. Three Rivers Press. p. 28. ISBN 0-609-80503-7

However, the book was listed again in a separate "Sources" section at the end of the article:

Light, Alan (ed). (1999). The VIBE History of Hip-Hop. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0-609-80503-7

In an article that was far too long, one book was listed three different times in three different ways by three different methods. Consolidating those references not only reduced the word count, it made things clearer for the reader. They are our target audience, after all.Trumpetrep (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think either Moxy or I have an issue with consolidating references, of course. Always do that. But all things being equal, when an article has inconsistent style, the default is generally using the family of {{cite}} templates with inline <ref> tags, as compared to say, list-defined refs. There's a reason that format is the baseline on policy and guidance pages. And again, if the only reason not to use templates is because of bloat, then that doesn't apply here. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Cite Book is only used on 3% of pages, cite journal 2%, cite magazine 1%, and cite web is only used on 8% of Wikipedia. Those numbers are a very long way from the "default". Is there a page in the Manual of Style that instructs editors to employ citation templates?Trumpetrep (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Ahh no, when {{Cite web}} says 8%, that means all wikipages on Wikipedia, not articles. That template is transcluded onto ~4.7 million articles, or two-thirds of our 7 million articles. Beyond that, if you look at Help:Referencing for beginners or similar "getting started" pages, citation templates are taught as the basic/default. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I should make clear that you're consolidation of the article has been exceptional...... the only problem to arise is the reference format change..... that may cause problems or conflict down the road when editors who are dedicated to formatting references come by the article. The reason this hasn't been reverted is that in the long run I only care about what readers see..... any reference format change hasn't changed anything for our readers. My main concern is conflict down the road when all this is converted back to normal format and to inform that this is against our protocols. Moxy🍁 18:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I understood your perspective was about the back end, Moxy, and I am glad to get feedback from you and Alyo. I'm always learning from other editors. As I mentioned, what I encountered in this article's code was a complete mix of citation formats and styles. Nothing was used consistently.

The citation templates are neither "protocols" nor "taught as the basic/default", per Alyo. Here is the actual language from the page Alyo is referencing:

"Manually adding references can be a slow and tricky process. Fortunately, there is a tool called 'RefToolbar' built into the Wikipedia edit window, which makes it much easier."

As with nearly everything on Wikipedia, there are many different ways to do things. Templates are simply one way to create a reference. There is no requirement that they should be used. If if were a requirement, Wikipedia would say so.

Since you both are template enthusiasts, perhaps you can steer them towards creating less bloated and more accurate code. As they grow more automated, this problem may grow less acute. Currently, what appears to happen is that people randomly fill in fields that are not necessarily required for a reference, leave essential information blank, and consider the citation finished. If bots could clean all the incomplete and inaccurate template citations up, they wouldn't have been there when I stumbled on them in this article.

In the editing interface, how does one add a missing field? An editor has to 1) consult the template's information page, 2) find the appropriate syntax for the missing fields, 3) add it back into the citation, 4) consult the cited source, and finally 5) fill in the missing fields. Or an editor could take 90 seconds to just add a clean citation in plain text and skip the template altogether.Trumpetrep (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the version of this page right before you started editing, there are 260+ uses of a {{cite}} on the page. Even accounting for duplicates, that's a majority of the 318 footnotes on the page at the time. That more than suffices as "used consistently" by Wikipedia standards. As I said above, 4.7 million articles, or 67% of all articles, use {{citeweb}}. You're right, there's no requirement that citation templates be used. But it's clearly the most common practice, and you would be hard pressed to find a Featured Article (i.e., articles that have gone through peer review and been judged against the MOS and current practices) that doesn't use them. For better or worse, nearly every 'big' article (whether in size, topic, or edit history) will use them. Unless you are actively reverting other editors, at some point other editors will come across the page and begin converting these cites. I just want you to understand that you're standing outside WP norms on this one specific issue. There may be issues with the way people filled in the templates on this page, but over the years the community has evidently decided that the benefits of citation templates outweigh the negatives. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Surely you understand I did not look at 318 footnotes and decide to change them wholesale. It wasn't even on my mind. In order to link to the April 25th version of this article, you had to scroll through hundreds of intervening edits.

A typical paragraph would be a mix of citations, some with templates, some without. I didn't realize what a problem the template citations were until I had progressed quite a way into the article.

To fix an incomplete template citation, one can either manually enter the missing fields by hand or paste a clean reference in from a reference site. One method is laborious, one is efficient.

Is there any actual data that supports your assertion that template citations are the "common practice" on Wikipedia? A 67% appearance rate for one template does not prove that. By that false causality, Wikipedia is the most common word on the site because it appears on every page.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for templates. I reiterate my hope that you can channel that passion towards improving them.Trumpetrep (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to make a big deal of this. I attribute no bad faith to you or your actions. I'm just telling you something based on my experience as an editor. I feel pretty comfortable predicting that if you invited other opinions, the consensus would be that on the date you started editing, this page "used citation templates consistently" (in the sense contemplated by the rule that says not to "remov[e] citation templates from an article that uses them consistently"). I don't expect you to have looked at all the footnotes, but it took me about 30 seconds to see that nearly 80% of the FNs on this page used a cite template before you changed that number to 0. I appreciate that there were places where there may have been some plaintext cites sprinkled in...but c'mon lol...80%. The rewrite you did here is fantastic. But if you go to other general interest topics and remove ~300 citation templates, you will get pushback. I'd like to save you that time and energy so you can continue to do the great work you're doing in the rest of your edits, at the cost of a learning curve that you can clearly manage.

As to you finding the 67% figure unpersuasive, I quoted that to correct you saying it was 8%. The MOS will never require templates, because the barrier to entry for brand new users is too high: I would rather have every anon add a bare URL with their content and let me worry about formatting it later. However, you are not a brand new user. By the metric of editors who write the most high quality content, ~none of them are putting their citations in plain text. You are welcome to argue that your method is more efficient--that's partially correct. It's more efficient for you. It is not more efficient for other editors, and you are losing out on a lot of functionality that you may not even realize exists (e.g., there were previously ~40 ISBNs on this page that linked to a special page with additional info about each book, and those are all gone). Regardless, I think you're moving the goalposts here a little bit, so I'm going to drop the topic. If you don't find "common practice" persuasive from the large majority of pages using {{cite}}, the fact that {{cite}} is preferred by the highest quality articles on Wikipedia, the fact that we have a bunch of bots that go around converting references to citation templates, the fact that we teach citation templates at new user forums, and the preference for {{cite}} in the very UI itself, I don't think anything will convince you. All I can say is that there are a number of other reasons in other circumstances or editor situations why citation templates are helpful, and will remain the default practice on Wikipedia.

Finally, if you have issues with {{cite}}, not just with the behavior of editors using them, please bring up your ideas here! A ton of people watch that page. I personally don't have any issues with {{cite}} itself, or have any idea what you think would be an improvement. :) Alyo (chat·edits) 20:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again for this feedback. It's very informative.

This revision is a good example of how I proceeded. The paragraph had 2 citations: 1 template, 1 text.

I had zero concern about the tool used to enter the citation. I was concerned about the fact that one reference was just an idiotic URL to a PDF with absolutely no context. So, I dug up the source, found the page number, and added a proper citation that is actually useful for readers.

Imagine that process x a few hundred edits, and hopefully, you can understand why the method of entering the citation was not my top concern.

From your description, it sounds like Wikipedia should change the policy to requiring templates. I'm agnostic, aside from the issue I have with the ungainliness of templates. They're far too bulky and are magnets for useless information.

A good example is the ISBN number for books. While an ISBN is a useful tool, and Wikipedia's internal portal for ISBN information is somewhat helpful, an ISBN is not part of a citation. If we're using MLA or Chicago or whatever, then we're not listing ISBNs. If Wikipedia wants to require ISBNs in book citations, it should say so.

So much of what comes out of templates is like that. The generated reference often includes bizarre information that is not only unnecessary, it's distracting.

Thank you for the link to the Help: Citation Style 1 page. I'll definitely share my gripes there. (UPDATE: Oooh, turns out I already did!) I appreciate your input, as I trust you appreciate mine.Trumpetrep (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hi @Edward Myer, this article just underwent a massive rewrite, so I've undone your edit pending further discussion. We can/should probably add in some content to the body, but I don't think Mario needs to be the one and only person mentioned in the lead. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

in that passage it clearly states the Hip Hop culture emerged in block parties. What I added about Mario being one of the early pioneers to do that was clearly sourced, and fit the streamline of the article. I feel it should not have been undone. If any other pioneers besides him should be noted in the lead they can be added by yourself or Trumpetrep or another editor. ~~~~ Edward Myer (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

No, per MOS:LEADREL, they should not be noted in the lead unless they are discussed so significantly throughout the article that they are one of the most important people in the article as a whole. This clearly isn't true. As far as the content in the body, please rewrite it so that it does not have grammatical errors. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I recapped the Overhaul as a way of signaling I was done. Thanks for looking out, Alyo. Edward's edit is basically solid.

Although the "historians contend" language is part of what I just weeded out. There's no need to hedge on basic facts like the Kool Herc party being part of an ongoing, vibrant tradition. Historians don't contend that the Campbells were not inventing anything by hosting a party. I don't think even the Campbells contend that! ;) Trumpetrep (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Great, re-added some of the content, broken out into its own paragraph. I still don't think that Mario needs to be in the lead, but hopefully Edward understands that. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the information about Mario, User:Edward Myer. That's exactly the kind of material that should preface discussion of the Kool Herc party. Since you placed it after the party, I moved it in front to keep things in chronological order. I also tightened up more of the language and citations.

We don't need to fix bad history with bad history. See my previous note about August 11, 1973. The article was far too credulous about that date, which is understandable because it was an easy "50th Anniversary" marker that generated a metric ton of coverage. The best way to fix that error is by adding precisely the kind of information you did about Mario's parties. So thanks again for adding it to the article!Trumpetrep (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Trumpetrep thank you for the feed back, and your philosophy behind the articles structure. It is truly appreciated ~~~~ Edward Myer (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! It's important to rid the world of clichéd myths and campfire stories.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo is upset that I rolled back his revisions on the article Disco king Mario He changed what I update in the article, and I rolled his revisions back, as what I had was properly sourced, and accurrate. He did not like that so suddenly The image I had for Disco King Mario is nominated for deletion and deleted by @Taivo. In turn some one else suddenly nominates all the images I upload to commons for deletion,(that are active in live articles on wikipedia) even though they are properly license and sourced and given attribution Just like the image I had for The Disco King Mario article. All the images I have upload fall under Creative Commons CC by 3.O Attribution-ShareAlike, and should not be up for deletion, as the are properly licensed, attribution has been given, and They violate no copyright laws on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. My image for Disco King Mario should be restored as-well Thank you.... Just putting this out in the Universe @Trumpetrep Disco king Mario Revision History

• curprev 10:19, 11 June 2025 Filedelinkerbot talk contribs  7,741 bytes −20   Bot: Removing c:File:Disco King Mario.jpg, deleted by Taivo (Copyright violation; see Commons:Commons:Licensing (F1): Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disco King Mario.jpg). undothank
• curprev 00:51, 11 June 2025 Edward Myer talk contribs  7,761 bytes +1,947   Undid revision 1294730416 by Alyo(talk) undo Tags: Undo Disambiguation links added

==== 9 June 2025 ====

• curprev 13:18, 9 June 2025 Alyo talk contribs m  5,814 bytes −1,947   please don't blanket undo my edits unless you know why I made them. undothank Tags: Rollback Reverted
• curprev 05:28, 9 June 2025 Edward Myer talk contribs  7,761 bytes +1,947   Undid revision 1294585606 by Alyo (talk)undo Tags: Undo Reverted Disambiguation links added

Edward Myer (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Edward Myer just because you upload them under CC 3.0 doesn't mean they are properly licensed. You have to be the owner of the photo. In other words, for you to upload under CC 3.0 you would need to have taken the photo of Mario. Since that isn't true, the picture does violate copyright laws on Wikipedia Commons. You might be able to upload the photo here on Wikipedia because of something called "fair use", but that photo was correctly deleted from Commons. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The picture was a snap shot taking from a video that was uploaded on YouTube. The person that uploaded the video on youtube upload the video under the Creative Commons license Attribution license (re use allowed) They also left this statement 🔺🔺🔺 FAIR USE STATEMENT 🚫 Tʜɪꜱ ᴠɪᴅᴇᴏ ɪꜱ ғᴀɪʀ ᴜꜱᴇ ᴜɴᴅᴇʀ U.S. ᴄᴏᴘʏʀɪɢʜᴛ ʟᴀᴡ ʙᴇᴄᴀᴜꜱᴇ ɪᴛ ɪꜱ ɴᴏɴ-ᴄᴏᴍᴍᴇʀᴄɪᴀʟ,ᴛʀᴀɴꜱғᴏʀᴍᴀᴛɪᴠᴇ ɪɴ ɴᴀᴛᴜʀᴇ, ᴜꜱᴇꜱ ɴᴏ ᴍᴏʀᴇ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ ᴏʀɪɢɪɴᴀʟ ᴡᴏʀᴋ ᴛʜᴀɴ ɴᴇᴄᴇꜱꜱᴀʀʏ ғᴏʀ ᴛʜᴇ ᴠɪᴅᴇᴏ'ꜱ ᴘᴜʀᴘᴏꜱᴇ, ɪꜱ ɴᴏᴛ monetised ᴀɴᴅ ᴅᴏᴇꜱ ɴᴏᴛ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴇᴛᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ ᴛʜᴇ ᴏʀɪɢɪɴᴀʟ ᴡᴏʀᴋ ᴀɴᴅ ᴄᴏᴜʟᴅ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ɴᴏ ɴᴇɢᴀᴛɪᴠᴇ ᴀғғᴇᴄᴛ ᴏɴ ɪᴛꜱ ᴍᴀʀᴋᴇᴛ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhUuXbtCz1w.

The license used on the image on Wikimedia commons also stated the video hosting company's (Youtube's) policy in detail.

This video, screenshot or audio excerpt was originally uploaded on YouTube under a CC BY license.

Their website states: "YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license."

To the uploader: You must provide a link (URL) to the original file and the authorship information if available.

I don't think it's our Job as editors to look beyond what's presented to us when the outlined bar and criteria has been met, with assumptions of doubt. Assumption like," I don't feel this is the copyright owner" on your whim should not be. When The Creative Commons license guideline has been full filled by the uploader. There are literally hundreds of thousand of images on Wiki media commons that are up there in the same exact format I used. Should they all come down. The criteria was clearly met. In this image and all my images. Cheery picking an images validity when it has met the criteria could be considered bias, perhaps based on the image itself or who uploaded it. One of my images was removed because I did not make sure the video I used for the snap shoot off YouTube was marked with the Creative Commons CC License. I made sure not to make that mistake again. And since then I have had no issues, and those guys don't mess around. Edward Myer (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Edward Myer, I'm sorry, but this isn't an assumption. For those of us who have worked in and around copyright on Wikipedia, this is very clearly a copyright violation. This is a youtube channel that reuploads documentary footage. For one thing, as noted here, there's an ABC News watermark on the footage. Second, if they owned the documentary, they would not have included a Fair Use statement. Fair Use only applies when you are not the original owner.

Copyright is one of those things that Wikipedia absolutely cannot play around with, because the entire site could be brought down. If there is any doubt, we default to excluding the material. But again, as I said above, that image could still be uploaded here on Wikipedia as fair use--you just can't host it on Commons. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Try not to take it personally, Edward. You're right that there are loads of images in the Commons that have the same provenance as the one you uploaded of Mario. But Alyo is also right that they shouldn't be.

It can be frustrating when our edits are overridden, but that is the nature of group editing. When I'm in your position, which I have been often, I sometimes learn things.

For example, I did not know there was a difference between hosting images on Wikipedia and the Commons, as Alyo suggested. I'm not clear on how that works, since every time I upload something here, it ends up on the Commons.

Regardless, it's always best to assume people are acting in good faith here, which they usually are.Trumpetrep (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Trumpetrep so it's totally fine to upload copyrighted images locally on en.wp, as long as they fall under the criteria for wp:fair use! (and there are other rules about things like size and image resolution, but you get the point.) That's why, for example, File:Supermanflying.png is here on WP (so we can have a representative image of Superman, even though it's owned by DC Comics), but if you search "superman" on Commons, you won't find any images from the comics. Commons only hosts free images. I only see these two images from you, but yes, since they aren't copyrighted, they could be transferred to Commons. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Disco King Mario.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)