Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers/discussion archive 3

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

Backlog forming[edit]

A rather large backlog seems to be forming at Category:Flickr images needing human review which is going to need a lot of effort to clear. All help available would be appreciated. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The backlog has now cleared. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


Major problem with flickrreview script[edit]

I've been checking through all the flickr pics I've uploaded, and noticed a serious problem with this script, sometimes when used, it inadvertently deletes the license tag, leaving the file apparently unlicensed, e.g. here, here. The problem is happening with review edits by several reviewers, so I deduce it is the script software, not the individual reviewer's fault. With my own pics (for which my gallery page shows up "unlicensed" files with a red tag) I'm restoring the licenses (e.g. here), but I've no idea how many more files may be affected. Can someone with knowledge of the script look into this, please? - MPF (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed this problem, the JavaScript strips the entire line (everything after flickr revew template). The bot that recently tagged a bunch of derivative flickr works for review put the flickr review template right before the license template on the same line, so using the flickr pass button deleted the license template! I had to fix each one manually to put the license template back. Apparently not everyone noticed it was doing this. There is obviously a problem with the script for that then... — raeky (talk | edits) 18:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Pace of flickr reviewer request[edit]

I´ve openned a flickr revier request on 3 of November as can be seen here and was closed less than 24 hours after i´ve openned it, but i´am having doubts as to if i passed the request (that had 5 votes in favor and nill against), as as stated on this page "1. Requests stay for a minimum of two days", i asking if this request wasnt this request closed one day sooner than it should be, and the request wanst closed as others with a approval or repproval. So i ask in what pace is this request? If it is already closed, as aproved, or if it as to be reopened? Tm (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Flickr review isn't really a big deal, so while a few days is preferable, I don't think it's necessary to have a strict deadline. In your case, it was extremely probable that you would have passed after two days, so I think it's fine. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Can we please leave up requests for two days before archiving? This isn't a user right that one admin gives to a user, it is something that the community (in actuality, maybe just a few participate but the community is invited nonetheless) has to decide upon. The last request that was archived was only up for 23 hours before Blurpeace (talk · contribs) archived it. My goal isn't to create drama or set up a rigid rule system for this. I just feel like requests should be up for a certain amount of time to allow the community to participate, rather than just a few select users who log onto Commons every hour. The current guideline for this page says requests should remain open for "stay for a minimum of two days", but that hasn't been happening, and I wanted to bring this up. Killiondude (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I echo Killiondude. I was just going to consult Blurpeace about this. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Though I can't see the necessity for a set amount of time, nor a proper consensus for a two day minimum, there is no need to rush closures. Consensus has always been to wait, and as stated by Kanonkas, legitimate concerns may not be brought up. I will keep this in mind when judging requests in the future. –blurpeace (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Personally I can't see why we can't just set up flickr reviewer requests similar to rollback or autoreviewed. Just leave it to an admin to decide, and if they abuse the tool, it can be revoked just as easily. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


I think the flicker reviewer status is something that should be trusted. It takes some time to get an idea if a user has a clue about the difficult area of international copyright. I think it is never a burning issue to grant this status. But it helps a lot if there is enough time to take a look about the capabilities of users with regards to their judgement on pictures of the past. The reasoning that the right can be revoked easily does not count much, since I want to trust flickr reviewers and do not want to have to control their activities. A good look before can save us all some time. Two days should be really the minimum. --Neozoon (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

We got a problem. Apparently User:Yarnalgo doesn't appear to understand copyright issues. So far he has approved [1][2][3][4] (which are licensed as BY-NC-SA) and approved an image[5] that the link is definitely wrong (not to mention that the link showing wrong image says "all rights reserved") I don't have time to flip through the rest but I feel that there is concern. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have a problem. Yarnalgo's explanation and evidence presented is satisfactory. The Flickr user has simply ceased distributing the file with the licensing they had when they were transferred here, which is precisely why we have the Flickr review system. The incorrect source link was introduced by an anonymous vandal after the review, as you would have found if you had checked the history. LX (talk, contribs) 09:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Where have the Flickr tabs gone in Beta?[edit]

I'm a Flickr reviewer, and recently switched to Beta. However, the Flickr approve/reject tabs have disappeared. Is there any way to use them in Beta, or do I have to switch back to the original interface for the time being? — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, figured out I have to create the page "vector.js" and add the importscript line mentioned on the project page to it. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose new problem tag to be implemented[edit]

Some users use {{npd}} while others use the old fashion speedy delete template. Personally I don't like neither of these tags for the following reasons:

  • {{npd}} suggests that the uploader emails an OTRS ticket. OTRS disregards these emails, asking the sender to contact the Flickr user and ask them to change the license.
  • Speedy delete, well, the image gets deleted without giving the uploader a breath.

I would like to propose a new tag named {{Unfree Flickr file}}, which would be substituted with a date using {{subst:uffd}}. It is similar to the no permissions template, but advices the uploader to contact the Flickr user: {{Unfree Flickr file/en}} The category system for Flickr files is confusing, so we should consider simplifying it. The tag does not necessarily have to categorise Flickr files by date, but it's probably more convenient for admins. The uploader's notice tag {not created yet) would suggest something like [taken from OTRS message template]:

Choose a compatible license on Flickr: Ask the Flickr user to place his/her image under one of the two licenses that Wikimedia Commons accepts, that is to say Creative Commons Attribution and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike.

To edit a license, the owner of the image should sign in and go to the image in question, then under Additional Information, the first line will read "All rights reserved" or "some rights reserved". The owner will see a link (edit) next to this, and should click the link and choose the "Attribution Creative Commons" or "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" option, then click Save.

As seen in the proposed tag, the note would be placed on the talk page as {{subst:unfreeflickrnote|File:Flickr files/reviewers}} ~~~~.

Flickrreview script II (or the original script if preferred) can be used to tag this. Any comments are welcomed. ZooFari 20:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, although I'd change the wording a bit (e.g. "one of the two licenses that Wikimedia Commons accepts (that is to say Creative Commons Attribution and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike)"). Blurpeace 23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, "no permission" already has huge backlogs and is not descriptive at all for Flickr files. --Justass (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the wording a bit, suggestions are appreciated. ZooFari 22:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think link to Commons:Licensing should be replaced to COM:Flickr, anyway there are only 2 compatible licenses and Flickr page is more simple --Justass (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Also - "Unless the Flickr user is asked to change.." user has to be not only be asked but actually change license to compatible one. I think "Unless the Flickr user change the license on..." would be better --Justass (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images should continue to be speedy deleted, not left to linger seven days ("...speedy deleted seven days..." is an oxymoron). When and if the Flickr user changes the license, the file may be re-uploaded or an undeletion request opened. I don't see that any need to give the "uploader a breath" has been articulated. The Flickr upload form is quite clear as to what is and is not acceptable. Эlcobbola talk 22:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have retweaked, feel free to edit it. Elcobbola, I think something needs to be established one way or the other, whether it is a speedy deletion system or a 7-day linger tag. Reviewers seem to use any tag of their choice, using the npd, db {{Flickrreview|Reviewer|2010|NC}}, or a combination of these. Administrators also have the freedom to choose speedy deletion or abide the tag that was used (which is also an issue, we are using user-notice templates with procedures that would not be undertaken). Let's not try to keep that an option. It is too confusing and categorizes them in too many places. Let's decide as a community what we are going to use. ZooFari 23:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

License reviewer script[edit]

Since it is no longer just Flickr images, I have made a script capable of reviewing images from Panoramio and Picasa as well. It is slightly different from the Flickrreview script; See documentation for changes and features. Suggestions and bug reports can be discussed there too. One thing that might be controversial is how the copyvio tagging works (see section above). ZooFari 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

A proposal for Commons:License review has been made here. ZooFari 04:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)