Template talk:LicenseReview

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)


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)