Template talk:LicenseReview

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Review wanted[edit]

It has been suggested here Commons talk:License review that {{LicenseReview}} can be used as a "Review wanted" if no parameters is used. That way users can request a review of files that is not from Flickr, Panoramio, Picasa etc. (or reviewers can change to Flickrreview etc. if a wrong template is used). --MGA73 (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets implement it now:

  • {{LicenseReview}} -> Something like {{Flickrreview}} "This image, which was originally posted on the Internet, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid. See Category:License review needed for further instructions." + add the file to Category:License review needed.
  • {{LicenseReview|(one or two parameters)}} -> Use excisting "failed-text" "No external site specified! This template takes three arguments: first ..."
  • When all three parameters is used then use excisting "passed-text" "This image, which was originally posted to..."

--MGA73 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing… –Krinkletalk 13:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ✓ Done, not widely tested yet. –Krinkletalk 13:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extend coverage to other templates[edit]

I think it may be interesting if we rebuild/redirect other review-templates to this one, ie. {{Flickrreview}} would contain {{LicenseReview|site=Flickr|user={{{1|}}}|date={{{2|}}}..., but LicenseReview would require a few extra things:

  • Support for an extra parameter that is like Flickrreview's 3rd parameter (the unfree license)
  • Support for a 'changed' -parameter
  • Support for categorizing for some of the major sources (ie. if site is Flickr, Panoramio etc.: Categorize in those, otherwise in the general categories)
  • Show the site in the "reviewme-text"-message if available ("This image, originall from (site), has not been reviewed yet")

–Krinkletalk 14:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very pleased when at least the "changed" parameter would be supported in this template. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

linked in Commons:License_review[edit]

Just a note: Since this template was only linked in the Category it sorts into I have linked it now from here: Commons:License_review#Unspecific_template_.28for_all_websites_not_listed_above.29. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra parameter[edit]

An extra parameter on this would be handy. With File:Alexey Kozlov.jpg I have reviewed the livejournal page, and have created a snapshot of this page at webcitation.org, and have placed this as the actual site. It would however be useful to add the extra (and recommended) parameter of adding a field for a snapshot link so that if the site in future is taken offline or whatever, there will always be an archived copy available (of course, depending on whether that site doesn't go offline). What do others think on this? russavia (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. we shouldn't duplicate the whole information template. ;) What would be also relevant is the page where you can find the actual licensing info (sometimes hidden on some kind of /about page and not directly on each image) and which license and which specific text was there. I hesitate a bit to use webcitation as this smells a bit like copyvio. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the idea is not bad. If we have a webcitation/archive.org archived page, why not providing the extra verification possibility to the user? mabdul 10:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

I think it might be worth renaming this "license confirmation" instead of "review" in light of its usage and Commons:License review. License review makes it seem as if someone has verified the copyright status of the image when (1) that may not be the case, and (2) the main intent was to verify/confirm the external license at the source. (For example, a reviewer/confirmer may have verified that the image was posted to Flickr under the stated license, but apart from a cursory check for egregious violations, cannot definitively confirm whether the photographer was indeed the copyright holder.) czar 16:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protected request 2019-01-16[edit]

Please change the template so that the categories are sorted by REVISIONTIMESTAMP, just like {{Copyvio}}. This was @Roy17's idea in Special:Diff/334968853.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

malformation due to template:![edit]

 Not done
{{Editrequest}} If the site parameter contains {{!}}, the template will be malformed.--Roy17 (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: Do you have an example page where this is happening?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
special:permalink/337315606 special:permalink/336727198--Roy17 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hopefully it is fixable or the documentation can warn License Reviewers and Admins.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. and Roy17: I mean this should not be fixed per template and I also guess it is not simple or rational fixable here. The {{!}} is a syntax keyword and should only be used as such and not for simple text, we can use <nowiki>|</nowiki> instead. -- User: Perhelion 00:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion and Roy17: Thanks, I fixed the documentation.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tell it straight[edit]

{{Editprotected}} In English, the template says "...was reviewed on <date> by the administrator or reviewer <user> ...". That gives a lubberly impression!
IMHO such a template should check the <user> and say clearly either "administrator" or "reviewer" – a precise information, and not something like "Look yourself, I don't know".
BTW, the reviewer has always to type his name? Is it expecting too much from such a template that the name should be inserted automatically, like the date?
When the user rights are checked dynamically, all occurrences of the template can get the current state of the user rights, it seems not necessary to check the state of the review date. When the rights have been removed in the meantime, it is still possible to use the above "or" phrase. -- sarang♥사랑 07:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarang: I don't think we have an easy way for a template to figure out whether or not a user is an Admin, but you can use MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins.js.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarang: Would you settle for "by advanced user <user>"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the OR phrase. Advanced user is even more vague than admin or reviewer. Either change it to simply reviewer (since every admin is an implicit reviewer), or keep the current phrase. The inclusion of username is necessary, making it easier to see who's responsible.--Roy17 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not expect that it is difficult to get the user rights; I thought that it's no problem to tell exactly the state of the user. But I can live with the current "or". -- sarang♥사랑 11:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for removal of "administrator or"
✓ Done For few main languages. -- User: Perhelion 21:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion: I think in English the definite article the would be redundant? by reviewer XYZ sounds more natural?--Roy17 (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for removal of "the" from before "reviewer" (thanks to Roy17)
@Jeff G.: That ping (even with "renewed" signature) didn't work btw. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Roy17.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done -- User: Perhelion 08:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archived links to further verify license reviews[edit]

Is there any way for license reviewers to create an archived versions of the links they verify so that they can also be added to this template? Recently, I've come across two cases (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lars Norén 2012-10-24.jpg and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/08#Image) in which the copyright of an image appears to have been subsequently changed to something different at the source after the file was uploaded to Commons. Perhaps such a thing isn't a big deal, but it would seeming make any attempt to get a image subsequently deleted by its copyright holder (or anyone for that matter) a moot point if it can been clearly shown through an archived link that a file was originally licensed acceptably for Commons. Please understand I'm not claiming license reviewers are not properly verifying file licenses; I'm only suggesting that there be an additional way of verifying a file's license for cases in which the copyright holder apparently changes their mind and decides to relicense their work for whatever reason. Even though COM:LRV can be applied to cases like this, it seems hard to demonstrate that a file like this was ever licensed acceptably for Commons in cases where someone claiming to be the copyright holder makes a request like Commons:Help desk/Archive/2022/04#Re. photo of Lars Noren. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Licence Reviewers may already use the "custom_text" parameter to replace "it was available there under the stated license on that date" (for example with "it was available there under the stated license on that date, as archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20220916155105/http://example.com/"), which has no numeric or space-containing equivalent at present. However, I have yet to see that done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:LicenseReview&oldid=708158760"