Template talk:YouTubeReview

Pending-review version needed

special:permalink/381890221 unreviewed files are being categorised into Category:License reviewed by YouTubeReviewBot.--Roy17 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

We should harmonize/merge all these templates.. I'll just make a quick fix for now. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Files from external sources with reviewed licenses

Hi @Tacsipacsi: , could you please add {{#if:{{{reviewer|}}}|[[Category:Files from external sources with reviewed licenses|{{PAGENAME}}]]|}} somewhere, so we can keep a track of files rechecked by real-humans. Modify the PF if it's not efficient/ has errors. -- Eatcha (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eatcha: I added it within the {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:6}} so that it only shows up on file pages. If you think it should appear in all namespaces, feel free to move it out of the #ifeq, the only important thing is that it should be within the {{{category|}}}’s default value, as Commons’ standard way to disable categorization is to add an empty |category= parameter in the template call. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Tacsipacsi. The template is used by humans to review files from humans. Should I add an additional parameter (|bot=YouTubeReviewBot) to all files reviews by my bot to avoid mixing up images with videos and false marking of human reviews in the category Category:License reviewed by YouTubeReviewBot ? and change {{{category|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:6}}|[[Category:License reviewed by YouTubeReviewBot|{{PAGENAME}}]] to {{{category|{{#if:{{{bot|}}}|YouTubeReviewBot|[[Category:License reviewed by YouTubeReviewBot|{{PAGENAME}}]]. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Eatcha: It depends on whether you want to keep track of files reviewed by both humans and your bot. If not (human review is a “higher level”, so it may not be relevant that it was previously reviewed by the bot as well), you can simply use {{{category|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:6}}|{{#if:{{{reviewer|}}}|[[Category:Files from external sources with reviewed licenses|{{PAGENAME}}]]|[[Category:License reviewed by YouTubeReviewBot|{{PAGENAME}}]]}} }} }}}, so that everything not reviewed by a human is implicitly thought to be reviewed by the bot, and manually reviewed files get out of the category. (This change is backward compatible: you don’t have to touch already tagged images; and also you don’t have to modify the bot code.) If you want to keep the two categorization methods separate (so that a file may be in none of the categories, either of the categories, or both of the categories), a new parameter seems the best way to go, and the above code is good, except that you have to use ifeq instead of if (otherwise it would add the category if the parameter is not present, and show garbage output if it is present). Please not that this second version is not backward compatible: in addition to modifying the bot code, you need to have your bot go through all already reviewed images, and add the new parameter to them. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Manual review

@Eatcha: It's the first time I license reviewed a file using this quite new template (thanks for creating it!). The file was nominated for deletion and I kept it per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Indian wedding celebration in Punjab (Part-9).webm. At the time the bot looked at it, apparently there was no CC-BY license at Youtube, but now it's there. So I filled out the template manually: {{YouTubeReview |id=svVetMZ7Meo |title=Indian wedding celebration in Punjab (Part-9) |date=2020-03-04 |reviewer=Gestumblindi}} - but now it says "was reviewed on 4 March 2020 by the automatic software YouTubeReviewBot, which confirmed that this video was available there under the stated Creative Commons license on that date" which isn't quite true. The bot reviewed it on February 16, it wasn't available under CC then, and I manually reviewed it now. How to fix it? Replace with generic {{LicenseReview}}? Or maybe you could change your template in a way that fits such cases? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Gestumblindi. You should use the {{LicenseReview}} till this template is supported by the Lr script which is maintained by User:Majora (I wast told that Majora is busy right now) and I don't have any experience with i18n + template combined. The translated pages are locked , a translation admin can fix it AFAIK. // Eatcha (talk · contribs) 03:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I changed it to LicenseReview. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eatcha: this problem persists, because it's a design flaw. File:Dapcanh3.png was never reviewed by bot, but after a human does it, the wording shows it had been reviewed by bot then reviewed by humans, which is false.--RZuo (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Assumption of CC License - PD Works

I came across this video which, as a production of the US Federal Government, is definitely PD and the Template:PD-CIA that is currently applied seems perfectly appropriate (or another related US Federal Government PD template).

That said, the effects of YouTubeReview on this file raise some questions:

• The CC logo appears to be displayed regardless of the actual license status: I looked through the documentation and Template:YouTubeReview/layout and couldn't find any way to set the license type. Actually, the CC logo is hard coded into the layout...

• In this case, the appropriate logo to display would seemingly be File:PD-icon.svg or a related variant. The presence of the CC logo is, in this case, wrong and contradicts the PD logo displayed as part of the PD template.

• I suppose, more generally, this would go for any license: CC isn't always the license type -- always using File:CC-logo.svg could create confusion about the actual license. I recognize that modifying the template to more intelligently display the correct image would add complexity, but my concern is that the the template, as of now, is displaying potentially conflicting information. (No CC image would be preferable to incorrectly displaying it.) Ideally, there ought to be a way to set the license type as a template parameter - it could then display the correct icon from Creative_Commons_icons or wherever.

Thoughts and guidance would be certainly appreciated here :)

-- Jewell D D (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

How to indicate id and time of screenshot in review

Hi! I made a post at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-LicenseReview.js#Problem_with_youtube_review about license review. There is a problem with the script. But there is also the question how to make the review template understand time of screenshot. --MGA73 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)