Template talk:FlickreviewR/pass/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image:Robot icon.svg

Why was this image added to the template without discussing it first? Is it really useful? There are many bots operating on Commons, but they don't leave any pictures of a robot after each edit. In my opinion, since checks done by FlickreviewR bot are more reliable than that of a human, the reason mentioned in the summary is not very accurate. --Kimsə (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Phonebook DNA.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The deletion request is not connected to this template. There are hundreds of similar requests, and they're dealt with appropriately according to a case-by-case system. Therefore, I don't see any use of adding this image to the template except the amusing part of it. --Kimsə (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This deletion request (or this other one : Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Web advertising consortium awards.jpg) shows that your opinion that "checks done by FlickreviewR bot are more reliable than that of a human" is inaccurate. The Flickr reviewer bot is unable to sort out pictures showing a 3-dimensional copyrighted artwork. Teofilo (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The robot icon is not only "amusing". It is first of all understandable by people who do not speak/read English. Teofilo (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But it is ugly! -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like the idea of making the template more easily understandable for people for whom English is not the first language. Can we change this image to a more suitable one though? I'm still uncomfortable with the smiling robot face, it makes this look too corny. --Kimsə (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ru

Please add Russian translation:
|ru=Это изображение изначально опубликованно на [[:ru:Fkickr|Fkickr]] участником проекта {{{1}}} по ссылке {{{2}}}. Оно было досмотрено {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} роботом [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]], который подтвердил, что изображение лицензировано в соответствии с условиями {{{4}}}.

• Thanks. --Art-top (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done but it seems to be only semi-protected. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

bn

{{Editprotected}} Please add bn translation:
|bn=এই চিত্রটি মূলত {{{1}}} কর্তৃক [[:bn:ফ্লিকার|ফ্লিকারে]] পোস্ট করা হয়েছিল ({{{2}}})। {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} তারিখে [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]] রোবট কর্তৃক এটি পর্যালোচনা করা হয় এবং {{{4}}} শর্তাবলীর অধীনে লাইসেন্স নিশ্চিত করা হয়। Thanks --Aftab1995 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thank you –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please update bn translation:
|bn=এই চিত্রটি প্রথম [[:bn:ফ্লিকার|ফ্লিকারে]] {{{1}}} কর্তৃক {{{2}}} -এ প্রকাশ করা হয়েছিল। [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]] রোবট কর্তৃক {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} তারিখে এটি পর্যালোচনা করা হয় এবং {{{4}}} শর্তাবলীর অধীনে লাইসেন্স নিশ্চিত করা হয়। --Aftab1995 (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done—레비Revi 04:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

ja

Please add Japanese translation:
|ja=この画像は当初、{{{1}}} によって [[:ja:Flickr|Flickr]] の {{{2}}} に投稿されたものです。{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}}、[[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]] ボットによってレビューされ、{{{4}}} のライセンスで提供されていることが確認されました。
Thanks.--Mugu-shisai (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

it

{{editprotected}}

Please add italian translation:

|it=Questa immagine è stata originariamente caricata su [[:it:Flickr|Flickr]] da {{{1}}} all'indirizzo {{{2}}}. È stata controllata in data {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} dal robot [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]] ed è stato confermato il suo rilascio sotto i termini della licenza {{{4}}}.

Thanks. --Simo82 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

ko

{{Sudo}} Please replace Korean translation:

|ko=이 이미지는 {{{2}}} 에서 {{{1}}}에 의하여 [[:ko:플리커|플리커]]에 처음 게시되었습니다. 이것을 [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]] 로봇이 검토하였고, {{{4}}}의 조건에 따른 라이선스임을 확인하였습니다.

Thank you, --레비Revi_D✉CM 10:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done −ebraminio^talk 21:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

pl version

{{Sudo}} Please add Polish translation:

|pl=Ten plik, opublikowany pierwotnie w serwisie [[:pl:Flickr|Flickr]] przez {{{1}}} pod adresem {{{2}}}, został zrewidowany {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} przez robota [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]], który potwierdził, że jest on tam dostępny na licencji {{{4}}}.

Electron ツ ➧☎ 15:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You should not forget template. (Added) --레비Revi_D✉CM 03:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point! -- Rillke^(q?) 22:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Rillke^(q?) 22:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Template:Flickrreview?

Would there be any opposition in merging this template with Template:Flickrreview. They seem to serve the same purpose. --Jarekt (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In principle, I don't have any objections. However, there are some practical complications. There wouldn't be any purpose in merging it if you didn't get the operator of the FlickreviewR bot to change the bot use {{Flickrreview}} instead of {{User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass}}. Have you talked to him/her about that? Complicating the issue is that the this template uses different parameters and operates somewhat differently (for example, this template always reports the Flickr license that was identified by the bot at the time of the review, while {{Flickrreview}} just says "under the stated license"). —RP88 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, do you intend to handle the many other variants of this template used by the bot? —RP88 15:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not look much into it, but merging might require changes to Template:Flickrreview as well. I was not planning to change the files (yet or ever - not sure) so the User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass would still be around but it would become a redirect or it would call Template:Flickrreview. As for different parameters I do prefer to state the license instead of "under the stated license". Several times I run into flickr files without licenses where original could not be found and review bot did not recorded which one of valid licenses it used. Very annoying. This proposal is a result of this discussion about cases when this template does not work correctly. As with any maintenance tasks, the easiest solution is not to maintain dozen of versions of the same code but merge templates that do the same into one. --Jarekt (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Better not touch this unless you get someone actually maintaining the Bot or someone operating an improved clone. --Denniss (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Error: Invalid time

Copied from COM:VP
Why is there no maintenance category for such errors? See File:Adam Dutckiewicz-masfield.jpg for an example. --Leyo 23:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why there is no maintenance category for this, but it was fixed by this edit. Lupo 09:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, this google search yields 2330 pages with that problem. Lupo 09:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Strange: [1]. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 09:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That is odd and there seem to be many causes:

• some were directly added to the files like with this edit by user:Mattbuck
• File:U4-539.jpg has it because of use of unmaintained home-brewed infobox templates like User:Torben/Info, written and maintained by user not longer active for last 4 years. We have a lot of those, see for example User:Biopics/info.
• File:Cagiva 500cc GP racer.jpg has it because of issues with another undocumented user namespace template User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass

--Jarekt (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

We should really rewrite User:Torben/Info to use standard templates and merge User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass with Template:Flickrreview. --Jarekt (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In contrast to the other user template, User:Torben/Info is not used so many times. Hence, replacing them with {{Information}} might be an alternative.

@Lupo: Thanks, but I was aware of the cause and the solution. I think that creating a maintenance category is essential. --Leyo 17:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Any other opinions or suggestions? --Leyo 19:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jarekt and Lupo: What about now, two years later? See e.g. Special:PermaLink/114509505 to confirm that there is still no maintenance category. --Leyo 15:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Leyo, I added support for Category:Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR: wrong date. --Jarekt (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The category is about to get populated. --Leyo 23:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Estonian translation

{{editprotected}} |et={{{1}}} postitas selle pildi algselt saidile [{{{2}}} Flickr]. Robot [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]] vaatas selle pildi üle ja kinnitas, et see oli saadaval litsentsi {{{4}}} all. <small>Vaadatud: {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}}</small>

Thanks in advance! 193.40.10.181 13:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Ebraminio --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

uk

{{editprotected}} |uk=Це зображення початково було завантажене користувачем {{{1}}} на [[:uk:Flickr|Flickr]] за посиланням {{{2}}}. {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} його переглянув робот [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]] і підтвердив, що зображення ліцензоване згідно з умовами {{{4}}}.

Thanks -- Ата ^(talk) 18:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 17:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

hr

{{Editprotected}}

|hr=Ovu je sliku na [[:en:Flickr|Flickr]]u izvorno postavio {{{1}}} {{{2}}}. [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]] robot ju je pregledao {{ISOdate|{{#time:d-m-Y|{{{3}}}}}}} i potvrdio da da je bila licencirana pod licencijom {{{4}}}.

Thanks.--Ma▀▄Ga 18:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Awesome! Thank you! Steinsplitter (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

be-tarask

{{Edit request}}

 |be-tarask=Гэтая выява першапачаткова была зьмешчаная на {{w|Flickr||be-tarask}} карыстальнікам {{{1}}} а {{{2}}}. Яна была прагледжаня {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} робатам карыстальніка [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]] і пацьверджаная на ўмовах ліцэнзіі {{{4}}}.

Thanks in advance, Renessaince (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! — regards, Revi 09:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

{{Edit request}}

There was a typo :(

Could you please replace "прагледжаня" with "прагледжаная". Thanks in advance, --Renessaince (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Renessaince:  Done —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

de

{{Edit request}} Please add the following German translation:

|de=Diese Bilddatei wurde ursprünglich auf [[:de:Flickr|Flickr]] durch {{{1}}} in {{{2}}} hochgeladen. Sie wurde am {{ISOdate|{{#time:d-m-Y|{{{3}}}}}}} durch den [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]]-Bot geprüft und die Lizenzierung der Datei unter den Bedingungen von {{{4}}} wurde bestätigt.

Thanks in advance. --Furfur (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Date

@Jarekt: Somehing went wrong with this edit. A date is now showign up below the template. See File:Fungus Weevil Ischnocerus impressicollis (Anthribidae) (14364594420).jpg#Licensing. Josve05a (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Josve05a, Thanks for alerting me. It is fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

nl

{{Edit request}} Please change the Dutch translation:

|nl=Deze afbeelding is oorspronkelijk op Flickr geplaatst door {{{1}}} op {{{2}}}. Dit is op {{ISOdate|{{#time:d-m-Y|{{{3}}}}}}} door de [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]]-Bot beoordeeld en de licensie onder de voorwaarden van {{{4}}} is bevestigd. 

However, fix the time-template first, I am not familiar with this. Thanks! Tekstman (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

es

I suggest that the Spanish translation has the phrase "y confirmó tener licencia" changed to "y este confirmó que tiene licencia". The current phrase is actually incorrect. Thank you. --Jorge (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

A warning

{{Editprotected}} The template needs a warning against license laundering. "Please note that this licence is only valid if the Flickr user had the rights to release the image; for further details, read the Wikipedia article on license laundering" or words to that effect.

Yes, it's necessary. DS (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this would confuse users. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

How would it confuse them? Perhaps it could be worded better, but why would the basic concept be confusing? DS (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it should say something like this: "This image and its license information has been copied from Flickr. Your right to re-use this image may depend upon whether the Flickr user had any rights to the image. Before re-using the content, you should satisfy yourself that the Flickr user has not misrepresented the license or engaged in license laundering. If you determine that the listed license is unlikely to be valid, please report it for deletion as a copyright violation." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 06:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose i see no need. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

On several occasions I've found license-laundered images being reused on WMF projects. And the more we use them without a warning, the more they spread. Yes, they'll spread anyway, but at least this way we'll slow it down and neither actively nor passively mislead people. DS (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support - I think we could definitely check this out, its bad enough flickr2commons has been abused multiple times without any check in place (i.e users uploading images en masses from feeds that may have released images on a free licence but may not necessarily own rights to those images), we should start somewhere, why not run a check on these bots first..--Stemoc 00:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support I think some kind of notice, with whatever text, makes sense. It's not like we don't know that using Flickr for license laundering is a problem. It's only fair to warn re-users, I think. - Revent^talk 15:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support I support the inclusion of some sort of notice seeing as how common flickrwashing is. I've definitely seen reuse of flickrwashed images since the reusers assumed that a "check" meant it was definitely ok when all that really means is that the license listed is the same on the source page. I also agree with the wording supplied by WhatamIdoing. --Majora (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment It's troubling that esteemed Steinsplitter pooh-poohs the problem. I am all for maximally lucid wording, but yes, this advising needs doing. --Mareklug ^talk 14:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support It is prudent to warn users that the licence at Flickr may not be correct, yes, it's an issue with Flickr washing to try and 'remove' copyright and that is where we must make more of an effort, but it's also an issue with out of copyright work, US Federal Government works etc being released under the CC licence which may restrict re-users when it shouldn't. If users can agree upon wording to be added to the template, I'll undertake the edit request. Nick (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support I don't see any problem with including a small notice indicating that there might be a risk of license laundering. _→AzaToth 20:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support Yeah, I feel this is needed, and see no harm with it's inclusion. My only comment is the proposed text, although comprehensive, is a bit verbose. Not saying I have a great solution, but I like a good tl;dr opener.. "Make sure this license is legitimate" not the best, but you kinda get the idea. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose (asked and pointed to this discussion by the proposer): A warning that the stated license may not be correct being displayed only on files from Flickr to some degree implies that we assert that the licensing of all other files is correct. That being said, the current wording of the template is not just misleading, but quite incorrect, given that the review bot obviously can neither confirm nor disconfirm the actual copyright status of a work. I'd suggest we simply append "according to the uploader on Flickr" to the last sentence.    FDMS  4    00:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• {{notdone}} No consensus after 6 months. I also oppose the edit. That would be a fundamental declaration which should not the purpose of this template. As FDMS4 says, it is rather common sense (we not need everywhere superfluous warnings). That would be like, we say: all from TV is maybe wrong, the church says maybe god don't exists, maybe all politicians lie. -- User: Perhelion 12:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Nine in favor, one agreeing that it's a problem but disagreeing on how to approach it, and one disagreeing that it's a problem, is "no consensus"? DS (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhelion I've reverted your super-vote closure, this was clearly inappropriate, please do not make such closures ever again. Nick (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

    @Nick: Can You please more clear what You mean, if You made such restriction to someone ? Otherwise I will do it again. PS: I really suppose that Wikipedia has the same definition of such "principles" than Commons: w:WP:What "no consensus" means. "A status quo approach is preferable", a vote is not a consensus, especially after half of a year without decision (as I already said). So I've "clearly" handled after policies. If I'm wrong and/or handled "to fast" I'm very sorry. -- User: Perhelion 07:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

    • Perhelion You state "I also oppose the edit" so you cannot be the person closing the discussion. The person closing the discussion should be impartial, ideally should not have an opinion either way and certainly shouldn't be stating what their opinion is - in particular this sort of close makes us administrators look like a bunch of dictators who don't give a toss about consensus or the broader opinions of the community, that we only care about getting our own way. The people closing discussions absolutely must not be going around closing discussions to suit their own stated position, either explicitly as was the case with your close, or implicitly based on a track record of voting, commenting or past closures. Nick (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

      Thank you, I admit to have been somewhat superficial and borderline. I will pay attention to this in future. -- User: Perhelion 08:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Agree that a note should be included, but I think the wording needs a bit of work. Jon Kolbert (talk)

•  Weak support I am a bit undecided here - we could have message like

This image was originally posted to Flickr by Gabuchan at https://www.flickr.com/photos/gabuchan/3391917/. It was reviewed on 3 December 2006 by FlickreviewR and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-sa-2.0. Please note that this license is only valid if the Flickr user had the rights to release the image; for further details, read about license laundering.

added to all the flickr files. But as User:FDMS4 and User:Perhelion pointed out: That is true for almost all files on Commons and we do not want to start adding warnings to all the other files. However if we find badly licensed files on Commons we can delete them, but badly licensed files on Flickr stay around for years. Just today I was looking at importing this file of John Bachar. The least we can do is to warn potential reusers that that is often a problem. --Jarekt (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done there does not seems like we have consensus for this change. --Jarekt (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

ml

{{Editprotected}} Please add:

 |ml=ഈ ചിത്രം യഥാർത്ഥത്തിൽ {{വി|ഫ്ലിക്കർ|ഫ്ലിക്കറിൽ}} {{{2}}}-നു {{{1}}} പോസ്റ്റ് ചെയ്തതാണ്. ഇത് {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}}-നു [[User:FlickreviewR|ഫ്ലിക്ക്റിവ്യൂവർ]] യന്ത്രം പരിശോധിക്കുകയും {{{4}}} ഉപയോഗാനുമതിപ്രകാരമുള്ളതാണെന്ന് സ്ഥിരീകരിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്.

Thank you--Praveen:talk 17:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

fi

{{Editprotected}} Please add:

 | fi = Tämän tiedoston julkaisi alunperin [[:fi:Flickr|Flickrissa]] käyttäjä {{{1}}}, ks. [{{{2}}} linkki alkuperäiseen tiedostoon]. Bottitunnus [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]] tarkasti sen {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} ja vahvisti, että se lisensoitiin lisenssin {{{4}}} ehtojen mukaisesti.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smaug the Golden (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC) (UTC)

 Done Thank you! -- User: Perhelion 17:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please change redirefct

{{Editprotected}} the flickr review template points to this bot, but should be pointed to the clone. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Both User:FlickreviewR and User:FlickreviewR 2 use {{FlickreviewR}}. What do you propose to change?--Jarekt (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

ml update

{{Editprotected}} I've mistakenly used {{{2}}} as a time, please update the translation to correct it as a URL:

 |ml=ഈ ചിത്രം യഥാർത്ഥത്തിൽ {{വി|ഫ്ലിക്കർ|ഫ്ലിക്കറിൽ}} {{{2}}} എന്നു {{{1}}} പോസ്റ്റ് ചെയ്തതാണ്. ഇത് {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}}-നു [[User:FlickreviewR|ഫ്ലിക്ക്റിവ്യൂവർ]] യന്ത്രം പരിശോധിക്കുകയും {{{4}}} ഉപയോഗാനുമതിപ്രകാരമുള്ളതാണെന്ന് സ്ഥിരീകരിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്.

Thank you in advance :-)--Praveen:talk 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. --Achim (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Achim55: {{{2}}} is inconsistently used as a time in English, yet the doc states it's supposed to be a URL.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Jeff, thanks for notifying. I think it's correct the way it is. Or I don't see it. The assignment of variables follows {{FlickreviewR}}, so the doc should be right. --Achim (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Achim55: Never mind, I was confused.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Dutch translation

{{Edit request}} In the Dutch translation (nl) the word "licensie" is not correct, it must be "licentie". (nl:Licentie) Behanzane (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Good eye! Thank you! Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

gl update

{{Edit request}} There are two mistakes in the Galician translation, see Template:FlickreviewR.

• publicada en Flickr -> publicada no Flickr
• licencia -> licenza

So,

 |gl=Esta imaxe foi publicada no '''[[:gl:Flickr|Flickr]]''' por {{{1}}} en {{{2}}}. A imaxe foi revisada o {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} polo robot '''{{{6}}}''' e confirmou ter licenza baixo os termos de {{{4}}}. 

One2 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@One2:  Done —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)