Wikimuseum

It aims to dispose all content that can be arranged in a museum and that has enough notability for such, separated in small projects, like Museum of Art, Museum of Fossils etc. It is different from Wikipedia, because the criteria of notability are different, it is not necessary that each object be covered by sources, for example, it is enough that it has “museum interest” (to be better defined the criteria). It is also different from Wikipedia by the provision of information (the image becomes the center), by the multilingual style, as in Wikidata, among others.

It differs from Commons because it not only stores images and catalogs them, but explains them, relates them, and does so in all possible languages, for public, like ina Museum. Will use Commons as archive.

It differs from the Wikidata because its information is not only objects but also contains a text.

I suggest that each page has a museum object, with a main photo and other photos (other angles, etc.) a larger text, and links as in wikidata for artist, place where it is found etc.

This is a proposal for a new Wikimedia sister project.

Wikimuseum
Status of the proposal
Status	under discussion
Details of the proposal
Project description	It aims to dispose all content that can be arranged in a museum and that has enough notability for such, separated in small projects, like Museum of Art, Museum of Fossils etc. It is different from Wikipedia, because the criteria of notability are different, it is not necessary that each object be covered by sources, for example, it is enough that it has “museum interest” (to be better defined the criteria). It is also different from Wikipedia by the provision of information (the image becomes the center), by the multilingual style, as in Wikidata, among others. It differs from Commons because it not only stores images and catalogs them, but explains them, relates them, and does so in all possible languages, for public, like ina Museum. Will use Commons as archive. It differs from the Wikidata because its information is not only objects but also contains a text. I suggest that each page has a museum object, with a main photo and other photos (other angles, etc.) a larger text, and links as in wikidata for artist, place where it is found etc.
Is it a multilingual wiki?	It would be a multilingual project, where the user decides which language to access. Kind of like it's done today at the Wikidata
Potential number of languages	It would be a multilingual project, where the user decides which language to access. Kind of like it's done today at the Wikidata
Proposed tagline	Does your project have a tagline? (optional)
Proposed URL	museum.wikimedia.org
Technical requirements
New features to require	Same extension of commons.
Development wiki	no
Interested participants
Felipe da Fonseca, --Los Vegas (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed by

Felipe da Fonseca

Alternative names

WikiSciences

Related projects/proposals

Mineralwiki, Wikispecies

Domain names

museum.wikimedia.org

People interested

--Los Vegas (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

— Dino Bronto Rex (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• i like your great achieve project. i would love to contribute SamadheeDsilva (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• I would be interested in this project, keep me posted. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• If carried out, this project would interest me. Miguu (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• I would love to participate if this project goes well! -- Jay Jay Marcus Keize13 (talk)
• Pretty interesting. I was thinking of something like this too. We have tons of old machins from the industrial age in Thiers, some still in use. It could even be filmed with people using it. -- Thibdx (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Support ArepTicous ^talk_contribs 14:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm interested. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Strong support. It sounds as culture. And can include all the items in a Museum / Archaeological Site. 23:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs</span》) 10:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

But why multilingual? --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 09:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Support JackFromReedsburg (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Strong support MONUMENTA (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Strong support Inphonekrie (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Netgo123 (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Commons is badly designed for showcasing. Structured data and the such hasn't been widely used. Curation is important --Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Very strong support If Wikispecies and Mineralwiki and a bunch of other stuff from Commons was combined, it would probably (eventually) become one of the most visited Wikimedia projects, only below Wikipedia. Eshaan011 (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support I came here to pitch a Wiki for folk songs, folklores, inscriptions, manuscripts etc. But I think that can be a part of WikiMuseum now that I have read about this proposal. IKHazarika (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Las inscripciones, canciones populares, folklore, manuscritos e inscripciones se pueden poner en Wikisource de su respectivo idioma. En caso de no tener un respectivo idioma, existe Wikisource multilingüe. Jackie SMG (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  (English ver.) For texts that do not have a written version, you can compile the stories and publish them under an open license with the help of a local authority. I understand that municipalities and ministries of culture assist with these kinds of projects. Jackie SMG (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Para textos que no cuenten con versión escrita, puedes hacer una recopilación de relatos y publicarlo bajo una licencia libre con la ayuda de alguna autoridad local. Tengo entendido que la municipalidades y los ministerios de cultura ayudan en estas labores. Jackie SMG (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  (English ver.) Inscriptions, folk songs, folklore, and manuscripts can be posted to the Wikisource edition for the respective language. If a specific language edition does not exist, there is a multilingual Wikisource. Jackie SMG (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

•  Support Need a wiki virtual museum Vis M (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support To do--doramiso-meta (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support seems like a nice way to centralize and arrange historical topics from all the wikis at a museum Crainsaw (talk) 22:12, 18th June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --V0lkanic (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Strong support good plan. Is it... going ahead at all, or has this died out a bit? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've sketched out this: as a possible, vague idea for a project logo. There's also an alternate version at File:Museum2.png. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've tried drafting a sample page and run into problems. Commons has lots of high-quality pictures, but for many archaeological objects, not much is known besides what's on the museum's own web page about the object. Instead of creating pages about individual objects, in which case we're mostly copying from museum websites, I suggest we have curated many exhibits with short blurbs about each object. Object pages can be transcluded from a different namespace onto the exihibit pages, and can then be easily cycled. We'll need policies about the scope of exhibit pages, what can be included on one, and how often they should be cycled.

I'll try to make some mockups of this at Wikispore; I'm keen to actually get this project off the ground.

The museum won't of course be restricted to archaeology, and having biology or geology exhibitions is a bit easier. I suggest we stay away from modern art, as that would make things more complicated than they have to be. Cremastra (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

At Wikispore I've thrown together a partial main page draft (which imho looks really good) and an example of an object page to be transcluded onto an exhibit/gallery page. That does not have structured data in it, because I'm not very techy, but should give an idea of the general look of the thing.

Pinging editors who have previously expressed interest, as I'd like to see this get off the ground: @V0lkanic, Crainsaw, Vis M, Brunnaiz, 沈澄心, Faendalimas, Los Vegas, Dino Bronto Rex, Rubbish computer, Paloi Sciurala, JackFromReedsburg, MONUMENTA, IKHazarika, Eshaan011, Ignacio Rodríguez, Arepticous, Netgo123, PastelKos, Miguu, Thibdx, SamadheeDsilva, Jay Jay Marcus Keize13, and ドラみそ: what do you think? Cremastra (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

How could we help to carry along this project. It have been proposed for a long time now and the support seems to be strong. @Cremastra is there particular tasks to advance in the project? Miguu (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support --dringsim 12:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Seems like a plausible project which would spark interest from many editors and readers. I do wonder, though, how the multilingual aspect would be enhanced, because as a speaker of a minoritized language this is an important factor for me. Nonetheless, I wish we could start it off soon. --Brunnaiz (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support It seems like a plausible project. I think it will be a strong way of popularizing cultural pieces currently only known at a local level. Miguu (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support Excellent. If it works well, it will help protect a lot of meaningful things. Even just images and text are very meaningful, since everyone will eventually pass away, and what remains are descriptions and photos. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

People opposed

1.  Oppose. Not dissociated enough from Wikispecies and Wikidata. --Hérisson grognon (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

   Wikispecies? JrawX (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

   We could simply merge WikiSpecies into Wikimuseum. And Wikidata is wildly different. Even Mineralwiki can be merged into this. Eshaan011 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

   I'm the idea behind Mineralwiki. It might actually be a good idea to merge this into the Wikimuseum. If these wikis were merged into one, there would be more editors and more visitors. There are over 5,000 minerals and rocks, and new ones are being discovered all the time. And I would really like to have the wiki as soon as possible, because I would really like to edit it. Thanks. Lois131 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

   Um I second the ??? on Wikispecies. At Wikispecies we are an informative and curated list of names of biological organisms. Including all the metadata associated with that. We are not a list of museums or the registered objects they contain, not all types are even in museums. I am happy to support a project development around museums per se, but what you seem to be doing is a list of registered museum objects. In any species page on Wikispecies only one datapoint, the type specimen, can (and is not always) a museum object. As currently being defined here though I am leaning to agree with oppose. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 04:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

2.  Oppose I tend to oppose because this can already be implemented via Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata as is. It differs from Commons because it not only stores images and catalogs them, but explains them, relates them, and does so in all possible languages, for public, like ina Museum. Will use Commons as archive. This can also be done on Wikidata and Commons: via galleries and Wikidata lists. See for example, c:Music genres and c:Cats and d:Wikidata:List of science fiction genres. Most Commons galleries are very low-quality, outdated, rarely viewed, and built by just few users – so rather than having a new separate superniche unknown project you could just use what is there already. A metapage like "c:Wikimuseums" could be created on Commons that e.g. indexes all of these (maybe using the categories). --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Unnecessary project that will eventually fall into disuse. Improve the Wikidata entries, perhaps create a Project to improve the information available there. --PastelKos (talk) 12:21, 07 June 2025 (UTC)
4.  Strong oppose Razones detalladas a continuación .Jackie SMG (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Jackie SMG opposition (es ver.)

1.  Oppose Hola, espero que todos estén bien. No sé si lo que estoy haciendo ahora se considera COI, puesto que tengo una propuesta similar Wikimuseum y tampoco considero que sea constructivo el hecho de argumentar en contra de ideas de otras personas para fortalecer las propias, de hecho, me parece de poca ética. El tema es que no estoy en contra por tener una propuesta del mismo nombre, sino por la propuesta en sí. • La propuesta lleva desde 2018 aproximadamente y los criterios siguen por definir, lo cual considero que es un atraso considerable y, honestamente, no creo que sean definidos en el corto o mediano plazo. Además, afirma que será multilingüe, pero tendrá un texto más extenso siendo una idea bastante rara, ya que los contenidos que dependen del idioma en las wikis multilingües (tal como Wikidata) son muy difíciles de manejar y navegar. Las políticas no quedan claras, la independencia tampoco y el prototipo en Wikispore no lo veo fácil de navegar, aunque quizás sea porque utilizo la versión móvil así que doy beneficio de la duda. Ciertos usuarios quieren incorporar este proyecto con Wikispecies, pero a Wikipecies no me lo tocan; es el único proyecto de Wikimedia (junto con Wikijournal, aunque no esté aprobado) que es un espacio para la comunidad científica y es histórico porque es el catálogo unificado de la vida, ya que normalmente la vida se suele clasificar en distintos catálogos dependiendo del tipo de. Jackie SMG (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

   Quiero agregar que muchos objetos, principalmente arqueológicos, solo se les conocen datos como dónde fueron ubicados, dónde se ubican actualmente y la ficha del museo. Más allá de eso, no se sabe nada más pudiendo saberse quizás en algunos casos la cultura o la época mediante datación de carbono-14. Con tan poca información, me preocupa sinceramente la posibilidad de que muchas páginas sean simplemente plagios o parafraseos de las fichas de museos, las cuales no están todas bajo una licencia libre. Jackie SMG (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   También me preocupa el hecho de que se solicitan múltiples fotos desde distintos ángulos. No todos los museos tienen fotos y no todos los que las tienen las pusieron bajo alguna licencia libre. Ahora, hay museos como el Museo Ferroviario Pablo Neruda donde no dejan tomar fotos en ciertas instalaciones, ahora díganme: ¿cómo vamos a ilustrar esas páginas si no existen fotos bajo una licencia libre publicada por los propios museos? La pregunta no es retórica. Jackie SMG (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   También se menciona que se busca la misma extensión que Wikimedia Commons. ¿Qué extensión?, con una búsqueda rápida en Google me aparece que Wikimedia Commons tiene las extensiones Move Files to Commons, MassMessage, MassAction y un larguísimo etc., entonces de cuál extensión me están hablando. No soy programador, entonces no sé si realmente se tienen esas extracciones en Wikimedia Commons, pero no creo que haya solo una. Ni siquiera WikiBase, extensión de Wikidata, es una extensión única, son varias para distintos usos y fines. Jackie SMG (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   Tras todo lo anterior, cambio mi  Oppose a  Strong oppose. Jackie SMG (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   Sé que parece que me estoy tomando personal esto, pero acabo de revisar la página del proyecto y ni siquiera hay texto real. Es «Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.» junto a una ficha técnica con 3 datos (origen, material y tamaño), 1 foto y el texto «Held in the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, United States. Not on view.» cuya referencia es este link. El contenido no es sustancial, la página del museo tiene más cosas. Jackie SMG (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   Fe de erratas: No es la página del proyecto, es la única página de un objeto. Jackie SMG (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   En caso de que no me crean, dejo captura de pantalla de la página.

   

   Atte: Jackie SMG (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   La página principal tampoco es que esté mucho mejor.

   

   Atte: Jackie SMG (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Quiero decir que tener una sección de 'misceláneos' es muy dudoso. Está representado por , que resulta ser un motor. Honestamente, se me hace una falta de respeto gigante que objetos de producción industrial estén en una categoría miscelánea. No es que considere que la industria deba tener su propio espacio porque las grandes corporaciones me están pagando. De ser así, no podría decir lo siguiente ahora: «Paren la industria, el planeta se está muriendo». Considero que estos objetos merecen tener su propio espacio porque la Revolución industrial marcó un salto tecnológico para la humanidad y tenerlo en una categoría miscelánea, se me hace una falta de respeto a las personas que trabajan con estos objetos, a las personas que inventaron estos objetos y a las personas que fabrican estos objetos en la actualidad. Jackie SMG (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

   Encontré otra página y tampoco parece ser muy esperanzadora.

   

   La página apenas tiene una descripción y, aunque dice tener más de 168 000 artículos, se refieren a todos los artículos de Meta-Wiki.

   

   Atte: Jackie SMG (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Considero que inflar las estadísticas mediante la plantilla {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} (resultado: 168,651) no es algo limpio, pero no voy a detallar porque considero que es un error de formato que le puede pasar a cualquiera. Jackie SMG (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

   En la página de discusión, se menciona «one page maximal» (una página como máximo). Como en internet la palabra 'página' se utiliza para describir una entrada (y una entrada por objeto es una obviedad a priori), además de que se refiere a la cantidad de texto, supongo que se refiere a páginas físicas de papel. El tema es que no todas las páginas de papel son iguales, depende de la tipografía, el tamaño de la página, el tamaño de la letra, el interlineado, etc. Espero que esto puedo ser aclarado. Jackie SMG (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Me gustaría añadir que el texto se puede incluir en Wikidata en la sección en la parte de «description» y para indicar el nombre se hace en «label». Para añadir la imagen, se utiliza P18. Jackie SMG (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Así se tienen los datos estructurados, el texto y las imágenes en un mismo lugar. Además, aunque no se cumpla con el «1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons.», se cumple con el «2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references.». En caso de que no existan referencias serias, directamente se pone en duda qué calidad tendría la entrada resultante en este proyecto. Jackie SMG (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Volviendo a lo de Wikispecies. Una especie no es algo que tú puedas tener es un museo, ya que son un taxón biológico que requiere de genes, células y toda esa marabunta de cosas para existir, pero lo más importante un hábitat, lo cual difícilmente puede estar en un museo en especies más grandes. También, hay que diferenciar entre lo que es un taxón y lo que es el espécimen tipo. El taxón es la especie, el género, la familia o cualquier división de la vida. El espécimen tipo (a veces especie tipo para hablar de géneros, género tipo para hablar de familias, etc) es un individuo que se utiliza para definir las características y genes de una especie. Un espécimen tipo se puede tener en un museo, pero una especie no puede estar en un museo y, por eso, Wikispecies no es introducible en Wikimuseum. Jackie SMG (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Intentar meter Wikispecies en Wikimuseum sería como intentar meter Wikcionary en Wikimuseum, ya que los idiomas son cultura y tienen 'interés museístico'. Mejor no hubiera dado este ejemplo, ya que prefiero no darles ideas. Jackie SMG (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Espero cerrar con esto (yo creo que no porque cada vez se me ocurren más argumentos en contra y cada vez aparecen cosas peores) y me hago cargo de mis palabras. El problema es en que esta propuesta mucha gente metió mano. Un proyecto wiki tiene 3 partes:

   1. Contenidos: Es el contenido de la wiki y la información en general.
   2. Marco Normativo: Son las reglas y el marco normativo que se utiliza en la wiki para evitar que se transforme en un libertinaje.
   3. Espíritu: El espíritu y propósito del proyecto.

   El problema aquí es que todo el mundo intentó meter mano en el espíritu, nadie en el marco normativo y un poquito de gente en los contenidos, los cuales son muy deficientes. En una wiki normal, muchas personas hacen los contenidos, muchas personas (pero menos que el escalafón anterior) hacen el marco normativo y un grupo muy reducido hacen el espíritu. Jackie SMG (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Pregunta: ¿Dónde se fue el multilingüismo si todas las páginas están en inglés? Yo no me lo robé, a lo mejor se fue de vacaciones a Angola o a Kiribati. está en Papúa Nueva Guinea Jackie SMG (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

   Por si acaso, el texto plantilla no cuenta como latín. Jackie SMG (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

   Algo que es muy preocupante es «It is different from Wikipedia, because the criteria of notability are different, it is not necessary that each object be covered by sources». ¿Cómo que no se requieren fuentes?, ni siquiera que no se requieran fuentes fiables, directamente no se requieren fuentes, incluso no fiables. ¿Cómo voy a poder verificar yo que lo que tú me estás diciendo es cierto?, ¿cómo voy a saber que ese objeto existe y no se inventaron ayer por la noche?, las preguntas no son retóricas. Jackie SMG (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

   Hay artículos en Wikipedia que carecen totalmente de fuentes a pesar de que tienen información totalmente básica y de sentido común siendo totalmente esbozos. Esos artículos me generan una sensación muy extraña; es un zumbido (/dzuːmːːː/) que solo escucho en mi cabeza y me genera una especie de vértigo en mis ojos. Ahora sí en Wikipedia, lugar donde se quitan contenidos con referencias solo porque no son las adecuadas, pasa eso, no me quiero ni imaginar lo que va a pasar en este proyecto si se aprueba. Jackie SMG (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

   Por si acaso, ese zumbido de verdad lo siento y no me lo estoy inventando. No es una analogía para ilustrar. Jackie SMG (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

   Fe de Erratas: La propuesta lleva desde el 8 de diciembre de 2017, no desde 2018. Eso no mejora en nada este análisis, es más, lo empeora. Jackie SMG (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

   Quiero aclarar que no estoy haciendo flooding, puesto que esto lo estoy haciendo en un lapso de varios días y lo estoy poniendo al final de la propuesta justamente para permitir que los usuarios se lean toda la propuesta y, luego, vean mi argumento. Jackie SMG (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Jackie SMG opposition (en ver.)

1. (English ver.)  Oppose Hello, I hope everyone is doing well. I don't know if what I'm doing now counts as a conflict of interest, given that I have a similar proposal called Wikimuseum; nor do I consider it constructive to argue against other people's ideas just to bolster one's own—in fact, I find that unethical. The issue isn't that I oppose it because I have a proposal with the same name, but rather my objections to the proposal itself. • The proposal has been around since roughly 2018, yet the criteria remain undefined—a significant delay, and honestly, I don't think they will be defined in the short or medium term. Furthermore, it claims it will be multilingual yet feature extensive text; this strikes me as a rather odd concept, given that language-dependent content on multilingual wikis (like Wikidata) is very difficult to manage and navigate. The policies are unclear, as is the question of independence, and I find the Wikispore prototype difficult to navigate—though perhaps that is just because I use the mobile version, so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. Some users want to merge this project with Wikispecies, but Wikispecies is off-limits; it is the only Wikimedia project (alongside Wikijournal, though that hasn't been approved) that serves as a space for the scientific community. It is historic because it acts as a unified catalog of life—whereas, normally, life is classified across various catalogs depending on the type of... Jackie SMG (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   I would like to add that for many objects—primarily archaeological ones—the only known details are their original find spot, their current location, and the museum record. Beyond that, nothing else is known, save perhaps for the culture or time period in certain cases, determined via carbon-14 dating. Given such limited information, I am genuinely concerned that many pages might simply be instances of plagiarism or paraphrasing of museum records, not all of which are released under a free license. Jackie SMG (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   I am also concerned about the requirement for multiple photos from different angles. Not all museums have photos, and not all of those that do have released them under a free license. There are museums—such as the Pablo Neruda Railway Museum—where photography is prohibited in certain areas; so tell me: how are we supposed to illustrate those pages if there are no photos available under a free license published by the museums themselves? That is not a rhetorical question. Jackie SMG (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   It is also mentioned that the aim is to have the same extension as Wikimedia Commons. Which extension? A quick Google search shows that Wikimedia Commons uses extensions like Move Files to Commons, MassMessage, MassAction, and a very long list of others—so which one are they talking about? I’m not a programmer, so I don’t know if those specific extensions are actually used on Wikimedia Commons, but I doubt there is just one. Even WikiBase—the Wikidata extension—isn't a single extension; it consists of several for different uses and purposes. Jackie SMG (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   In light of all the above, I am changing my  Oppose to  Strong oppose. Jackie SMG (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   I know it seems like I'm taking this personally, but I just checked the project page and there isn't even any real text. It's just "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." alongside a data sheet with three details (origin, material, and size), one photo, and the text "Held in the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, United States. Not on view," which references this link. The content isn't substantial; the museum's own page has more information. Jackie SMG (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Correction: It is not the project page; it is the single page for an object. Jackie SMG (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   In case you don't believe me, here is a screenshot of the page.

   

   Atte: Jackie SMG (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   The main page isn't much better, either.

   

   Atte: Jackie SMG (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   I have to say that having a "miscellaneous" section is highly questionable. It is represented by , which turns out to be an engine. Honestly, I find it deeply disrespectful for mass-produced industrial objects to be relegated to a miscellaneous category. It is not that I believe industry deserves its own space because I am on the payroll of major corporations; if that were the case, I certainly wouldn't be able to say: "Stop the industry; the planet is dying." I believe these objects deserve their own space because the Industrial Revolution marked a technological leap for humanity, and lumping them into a miscellaneous category feels like an affront to the people who work with these objects, those who invented them, and those who manufacture them today. Jackie SMG (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

   I found another page, and it doesn't look very promising either.

   

   The page barely has a description, and although it claims to have over 168,000 articles, those refer to all the articles on Meta-Wiki.

   

   Regards, Jackie SMG (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   I consider inflating statistics using the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} template (result: 168,651) to be improper, but I won't go into detail because I view it as a formatting error that could happen to anyone. Jackie SMG (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

   The discussion page mentions "one page maximal" (a maximum of one page). Since the word "page" is used on the internet to describe an entry—and having one entry per object is a given—and the term also refers to the amount of text, I assume it refers to physical paper pages. The issue is that not all paper pages are the same; it depends on the typeface, page size, font size, line spacing, etc. I hope this can be clarified. Jackie SMG (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   I would like to add that the text can be included in Wikidata in the "description" section, while the name is specified in the "label" field. To add the image, P18 is used. Jackie SMG (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   This way, structured data, text, and images are all in one place. Furthermore, even if criterion 1—"It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons"—is not met, criterion 2 is satisfied: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." If serious references do not exist, the quality of the resulting entry in this project is immediately called into question. Jackie SMG (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Returning to the subject of Wikispecies: a species is not something that can be housed in a museum, as it is a biological taxon requiring genes, cells, and a whole host of other elements to exist—most importantly, a habitat, which is difficult to replicate in a museum setting, especially for larger species. It is also necessary to distinguish between a taxon and a type specimen. A taxon is the species, genus, family, or any other division of life. A type specimen (or type species when referring to genera, type genus for families, etc.) is an individual used to define the characteristics and genes of a species. While a type specimen can be kept in a museum, a species itself cannot; therefore, Wikispecies cannot be incorporated into Wikimuseum. Jackie SMG (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Trying to fit Wikispecies into Wikimuseum would be like trying to fit Wiktionary into Wikimuseum, since languages are part of culture and hold "museum interest." I probably shouldn't have given that example, though—I'd rather not give them any ideas. Jackie SMG (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   I hope to wrap things up with this (though I doubt I will, as I keep coming up with more arguments against it and worse issues keep surfacing), and I stand by my words. The problem is that a lot of people had a hand in this proposal. A wiki project consists of three parts:

   1. Content: The wiki's actual content and general information.
   2. Regulatory Framework: The rules and guidelines used to prevent the wiki from descending into anarchy.
   3. Spirit: The project's spirit and purpose.

   The issue here is that everyone tried to meddle with the spirit, no one touched the regulatory framework, and only a handful of people worked on the content—which is very poor. In a typical wiki, many people create the content, many people (though fewer than in the previous category) shape the regulatory framework, and a very small group defines the spirit. Jackie SMG (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

   Question: Where did the multilingualism go if all the pages are in English? I didn't steal it; maybe it went on vacation to Angola or Kiribati. It's in Papua New Guinea. Jackie SMG (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

   Just in case, the template text does not count as Latin. Jackie SMG (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

   Something very concerning is the statement: "It is different from Wikipedia, because the criteria of notability are different; it is not necessary that each object be covered by sources." What do you mean sources aren't required? Not just that *reliable* sources aren't required—sources aren't required at all, not even unreliable ones. How am I supposed to verify that what you're telling me is true? How am I supposed to know that the object actually exists and wasn't just made up last night? These are not rhetorical questions. Jackie SMG (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

   There are Wikipedia articles that completely lack sources—despite containing only basic, common-sense information and being mere stubs. Those articles give me a very strange sensation; it’s a buzzing sound (/dzuːmːːː/) that I hear only in my head, and it triggers a sort of vertigo in my eyes. If that sort of thing happens on Wikipedia—a place where referenced content gets removed simply because the sources aren't deemed adequate—I shudder to think what will happen with this project if it gets approved. Jackie SMG (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

   Just so you know, I really do hear that buzzing sound—I’m not making it up. It’s not an analogy for the sake of illustration. Jackie SMG (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

   Correction: The proposal has been in place since December 8, 2017, not 2018. That does nothing to improve this analysis; in fact, it makes it worse. Jackie SMG (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

   I want to clarify that I am not flooding, as I am doing this over the course of several days and placing it at the end of the proposal precisely to allow users to read the entire proposal before seeing my argument. Jackie SMG (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)