Commons talk:License review

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

I was going to review File:'The Overland' train in 1949 (27318298350).jpg but this is clearly a photo of a photo - is there a standard operating procedure? Can we also stop future commons users from uploading this particular photo? The Flickr user has 22,000 photos and 99% are fine; most hobby photographers see no issue with uploading such content. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 15:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers: I tagged it with {{subst:dw-nsd}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is this a common enough occurrence that it ought to be mentioned at the project page? I see it quite frequently. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 00:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers: Yes.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would like a clarification on reviewers cannot review their own uploads. I found File:Silvercloudship.jpg on the English Wikipedia and verified the licensing was legitimate, and transferred the file to Commons. Am I allowed to add a passed license review to this file? In other words, is this considered my own upload? -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, your "own upload" is defined as you uploading a file that doesn't exist on Wikimedia Commons or any local Wikipedia. In this case, it isn't considered to be an "own upload" as you've imported the file. The upload log of the file will be imported together with the action. (See commons log, en.wp log. TLDR, imports shouldn't be considered to be your own upload unless the initial upload was done by you. And since the mentioned file is from Flickr, a bot will do the license checking so any action from a human is not needed. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. As for leaving it to a bot, I figured since I already reviewed the image on enwiki before the file transfer, I might as well mark it as reviewed. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just info: I made a post at Commons:Village_pump#Almost_400k_files_need_license_review about the high number of files marked for license review and the risk of files that can't be reviewed because the link die. MGA73 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am surprised that no minimum number of edits for license reviewers is mentioned on our policy. I think we need something to avoid people making inappropriate LR right requests (i.e. this one by a user with only 291 edits). For Autopatrollers, 500 useful non-botlike edits are expected. This only wastes time for everybody. I suggested at least 2,500 edits. Yann (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely support a guideline of at least a 1000 non-botlike edits since the level of experience needed is definitely higher than autopatroller. I'm not sure how I feel about 2,500 edits. Abzeronow (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not totally convnced that a large number of edits is always suitable criteria unless the number is high. It is my view that anybody who has passed an exam in a legal subject has a much better understanding of what is needed that somebody who has made 2500 edits. Martinvl (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]