Hi @kelseyee , thanks for the PR! Is "Wan2.2" really a new library or just an extension of a broader "Wan" library? (genuinely asking).

I have checked https://huggingface.co/models?other=wan2.2 and it doesn't seem to me that there is a common pattern to store files in these repos. I would prefer to see a bit more consistency on how the library deals with files before adding the download counter rule.

Hi @kelseyee , thanks for the PR! Is "Wan2.2" really a new library or just an extension of a broader "Wan" library? (genuinely asking).

I have checked https://huggingface.co/models?other=wan2.2 and it doesn't seem to me that there is a common pattern to store files in these repos. I would prefer to see a bit more consistency on how the library deals with files before adding the download counter rule.

"Wan2.2" is actually a new, standalone library, and the download counter rule is only being enabled specifically for Wan2.2. This is because Wan2.2 is a special MoE model — future versions of the Wan model may not be MoE-based, so we're treating it separately.

Also, I was wondering, since the config.json is the default query file, why doesn't it work when it's placed in a subfolder? Is there something in the current logic that expects it to be at the root level? Just trying to better understand how it works.

Is there something in the current logic that expects it to be at the root level?

Yes the default counting rule counts only the config.json file at root. So doing what you just did is correct.

I've added library_name: wan2.2 to the two 14B repos. The 5B repo doesn't need it since it's not an MoE model, and its download count is already correct. Thanks a lot!

Great! I'm merging it now. Should be online in a few days.

The 5B repo doesn't need it since it's not an MoE model, and its download count is already correct.

I still think it'd be good to tag it as wan2.2 since this is its main library to use it, right? The download count would still work the same. Tagging it is better for discoverability and to get a direct link to the Wan2.2 repo from this model page.

If the 5B repo is not to be run with Wan2.2 library, I think the naming of the repo should be updated (it's confusing otherwise).

This doesn't block merging this PR but would still be good to address it while you are at it.

I still think it'd be good to tag it as wan2.2 since this is its main library to use it, right? The download count would still work the same. Tagging it is better for discoverability and to get a direct link to the Wan2.2 repo from this model page.

Good point! I’ve gone ahead and added library_name: wan2.2 to the 5B repo too. Better for visibility and keeps everything aligned. Appreciate the feedback!