New F10 (n)

Hello. I see that some nudity pictures are speedied as F10 personal files. They may or not be F10, but that is not the point. I want to propose to create a subsection (subcategory or simply another category) within/besides Category:Personal files for speedy deletion. This may be named "Category:Personal files for speedy deletion (n)". Nudity files considered F10 may be requested to delete speedily with a new "F10 (n)" CSD command. In this case, people who do not want to see nudity images when looking at the Category:Personal files for speedy deletion will be able to avoid them, if they so wish. This will not affect anything else. Thanks. Antipene (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and you should change your username. Bedivere (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

man... if an admin dont wanna see inappropriate images then he should quit from adminship... this is unnecessary... also these kind of files shouldnt be deleted as f10, because they are Commons:NUDE. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 16:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

man, just ignore the troll Bedivere (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. OP indeffed and this feels like a bait post--Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Expanding Template:Official Doctor Who YouTube channel and Template:Official Star Wars Flickr stream

I would like {{Official Doctor Who YouTube channel}} and {{Official Star Wars Flickr stream}} to be expanded to allow the tagging of content from other official Flickr accounts and YouTube channels. Examples of official YouTube channels which could be added include Bravo, Cartoon Network India, FOX Sports, Harry Potter, HBO, MTV Shores, MTV UK, MSNBC, NBC News, NickRewind, Nicktoons, Prime Video AU & NZ, Rooster Teeth Animation, Warner Bros. Games and Warner Music New Zealand. Aside from the aforementioned Star Wars account, I am unable to think of any official Flickr accounts that even seldom publish their uploads under a free license (please let me know of any that do). Thoughts? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Media from YouTube, Template:From YouTube, Template:YouTube CC-BY

Hello, currently both Template:From YouTube and Template:YouTube CC-BY categorize files into Category:Media from YouTube which contains over 200,000 files and user @Trade did ask to diffuse the category. By using #switch function we can change the templates to categorize by file type into Category:Videos from YouTube or Category:Screenshots of YouTube videos where possible.

Here are the modified templatesː User:999real/From YouTube and User:999real/YouTube CC. And an example usage at File:Lil Zane 2024.jpg. Currently Template:YouTube CC-BY is protected for editing to template editors and admins so I can't edit it.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Support --Trade (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Expanding an explanation on the De-adminship policy

Upgrade Commons:Overwriting existing files to be a policy

Consent query

In theory, photographs licensed on Commons are expected to have the informed consent of the people depicted in the photo: Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people (2011)

In practice, this is rarely even asserted, let alone documented or enforced. There are less than 20,000 files with consent assertions: Consent tracking

I propose that this might be improved by adding {{consent|query}} to photos that meet some set of criteria. Perhaps those where:

1. An individual is the prominent focus of the photo
2. An individual is not posing or making eye contact
3. An individual is in a state of undress ("Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots")

If nothing else, adding the consent query tag will increase awareness that informed consent is an expectation. And I'm assuming that this one of the reasons the consent query template was established.

What is a responsible and productive way to go about this? Jerimee (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that any one of these criteria triggers a need for consent, or only the combination of all three?

Even if the latter, I can immediately think of photos I've taken that fall under all three of the criteria you have mentioned and which certainly does not require more explicit consent (examples are necessarily NSFW because of criterion 3):

• File:2017 Fremont Solstice Parade - cyclists prepare 020.jpg, File:Fremont Solstice Parade 2010 - 92.jpg, File:2017 Fremont Solstice Parade - cyclists prepare 057.jpg. The people who are the prominent focus of these are all naked or nearly so, are not making eye contact, and there is no doubt in the U.S. that if they are doing this in the completely public situation of being in a parade, no further overt consent is needed. Indeed, it would be seen as very odd to ask for more formal consent, to the point where they would probably be very suspicious of the motivation of anyone who asked for that consent (especially because, presuming the photographer was clothed, it would be very awkward for that photographer to expect the people in the parade to pay attention to them). - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly; I appreciate input. I understand why photos of that activity may not require (additional) consent. I appreciate that example.

I expect the criteria will need to refined based on response and what is learned by doing more of this. For my part, I know I will often get it wrong and apply the tag where it isnt much needed, especially at first. I will need to learn and improve.

One thing that I find confusing/tricky is "What constitutes public space?" I feel like this is highly circumstantial and varies considerably from culture to culture etc.

I feel strongly that people who take photos in the context of cultures they do not belong to... I feel like that is more problematic than people taking photos of cultures they belong to or are culturally fluent in. (I've phrased this poorly!) Jerimee (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

As reference: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kochendes Paar in einer Küche 2017-01-15.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Little-girl-570864 1280.jpg, which both touch on your very subject. I support your notion of processing and documenting consent, though. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but those look to me like photos where the subjects are clearly posing/posed, especially the first one. This seems visibly apparent to me; I don't exactly know why... They seem professional, deliberate, staged/not candid, purposefully arranged, and studio lit. So excellent examples of what we are not trying to flag. Jerimee (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t like the overt focus on perceived nudity. Nudists or Himba women probably do not care that they are being photographed in what western society considers a “state of undress”, and even in fairly conservative western nations most people would not consider photographing someone in a swimsuit a violation of privacy on a public beach. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, nudity is great. Lack of consent is not, especially when the unconsented media is globally licensed such that the depicted person has no control over how their likeness is used.

Nudists and Himba women do not need you to speak for them. Unless of course you are a Himba woman in which case your comment is entirely appropriate and appreciated. Unsourced hypothetical assertions about groups of people made by people who do not belong to those groups aren't especially helpful.

Who goes to a beach and intentionally photographs strangers without their consent? Nudists, since you mentioned them, explicitly do not do this. 1 2 3 4

This discussion is not meant to be a forum for criticizing our existing consensus guidelines. When you say you don't like the overt focus, was that meant to suggest that consent queries be focused elsewhere? If so, where would that be? How can we improve our work together? Jerimee (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

There are many files like this one - File:Pyrotechnic show at the 2013 Ostrov rock festival.jpg - where the depicted persons are clearly performing, but where it also seems unlikely they gave consent to have their likeness licensed for anyone in the world to do whatever they want with. Performers make a living by selling their likeness; there is no (implicit or other) agreement to allow strangers to give it away for free without reservation. These photos are often released requiring the person photographer to be attributed, but with little thought given to the rights of the person photographed. Jerimee (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the Russian laws on that and whether doing a performance like that is implicit consent to be photographed (it would be in the U.S.). Normally the way we handle that for U.S. photographs it to add {{Personality rights}}, indicating that there are likely to be many potential uses for which you would need the subject's consent. - Jmabel ! talk 16:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

There are moral as well as legal considerations. That said, perhaps my idea that the photos are actually licensed with the licenses attributed to them is overly literal. If that is the case, it would be nice to have that made more explicit in the licenses themselves. Jerimee (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

A photographer (or other copyright-holder) can only license the rights that they own. Any picture of a living human has some limitations on how it can be used, and some of those rights either cannot be waived, or someone would be out of their mind to waive them. For example, virtually no picture of a living human that we have on Commons could legitimately be used in the U.S. in a context where it implied that they endorse a particular product, politician, etc., and we would not expect anyone ever to waive a right like that. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I may be confused on what our licenses are/do. I am assuming "use for commercial purposes" permits usage in commercials, among other things. Jerimee (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jerimee: in the case of a picture of a living human being absolutely not, and yes that word "commercial" is confusing because in the U.S. that is the common word for a radio or television advertisement (in the UK, they are generally "adverts"). What "commercial use" means in the CC licenses is that you can (for example) use it in a book or newspaper (or even a post card or calendar) which is "commercial" in the sense that is is sold for money. This is still limited by personality rights. In theory, you could slap {{Personality rights}} on any picture of a living person (and some uploaders do that). In practice, I think most of us use it only where we think something might be more than routinely sensitive or where the personality rights issues might be more than usually extensive.

Reuse of any image is always subject to the laws of the country where you are using it. - Jmabel ! talk 14:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The personality rights tpl says this: Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose.

I'm not sure your claim denying images "... could legitimately be used in the U.S. in a context where it implied that they endorse a particular product, politician, etc...." is as strong as I first took it to be.

I appreciate your input; thank you for your replies. Jerimee (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

That is a non-copyright restriction. Nowhere does it say "are not subject to personality rights restrictions" or "are not subject to trademarks". - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Purple people eater (50350528136).jpg I share this example because

1. it is ambiguous if this person knew they were being photographed (my read of "candid shot" is "creep shot")
2. highly unlikely they gave informed consent
3. they aren't easily identifiable, but certainly possible

What do you think? Jerimee (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I certainly would not have uploaded that. It is certainly legal in the U.S. (no expectation of privacy on a public beach), but it seems out of scope, of only prurient interest, and potentially embarrassing to its (probably unknowing) subject. If you wish to nominate it for deletion, I would certainly vote to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I don’t really view it as prurient or even OOS, but it’s a rather unflattering image of an unaware subject as well as a very common topic illustrated poorly. I would not really feel grotesquely violated if this was me and it was just hanging around commons among countless other images, but it wouldn’t necessarily want it broadcast to the world on a high traffic page. Dronebogus (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you think about tagging photos with the consent-query template, as an interim step toward, or perhaps in place of, a delete request?

I picked this one as an example because I (incorrectly, as it turns out) thought this particular image was not eligible for personality rights.

I appreciate you mentioning the personality rights template. I prefer the consent query template because, in my mind at least, it better addresses our code of conduct re moral rights (Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). I agree that the pr tpl is more ubiquitous and serves a similar purpose, but the focus on the legal aspect does little to enforce or inform about the equally necessary moral requirement for consent. Jerimee (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jerimee: how would any image of a living or recently living person in the U.S. be "not eligible for personality rights"?

Consent, in a legal sense, is present. Again: no legal expectation of privacy at a public beach in the U.S., consent is implicit.Still, it's an unflattering picture, and I see no educational value in it. Since I take it you do not plan to nominate this for deletion I will. - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

OK. I mean, I don't mind doing it, but it sounds like you are. I thought photos had to have at least half of the face visible; my mistake. Jerimee (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Commons:Personality rights
• Commons:Choosing a license
• Commons:License revocation

Jerimee (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jerimee (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Possibly easier way to contact local oversighters via Wikimail

Hello,

I had recently the need to contact our Commons oversighters. I knew from my home wiki, DE-WP, that an option to contact the German oversighting team through Wikimail, using de:User:Oversight-Email, is offered. I was a bit disappointed by that Commons is a notable exception of projects where such an easy-access way is not implemented (it may be the largest project where this is not given, according to the description on de:Benutzer:TenWhile6/OSRequester). Could a Wikimail way of oversight contact be enacted, parallel to the existing way of the mailing list? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support Major issue with commons oversight. That and adding a T&S role account for wikimail. I think they attached the emergency account, but I'm unsure. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not think that it is needed to implement this now as we will soon (I think before the end of 2025) have the new meta:Incident Reporting System made exactly to solve this problem. GPSLeo (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

"Soon" and "Before the end of 2025" is somewhat contradictory! Worst case, that's more than 9 months in the future. Can somebody knowledgeable please inform me and whoever is interested on the amount of work needed to setup such a "contact user account"? The lesser the effort, the sooner it should come, even if it is only for a limited amount of use time. It's kinda the same reasoning as a military who refurbishes a warship, only to put it into reserve status a few months later (like it was done on the carrier USS Franklin (CV-13) or several other US Navy ships after V-J day). The use case is clearly shown, the potential replacement functionality has no clear ETA given yet, so waiting for it is non sensible. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The problem with an account for this is the question who has access to the account. It would need to be all oversighters that they are able to check each other but everyone who is able to access the account would also be able to change to password and exclude everyone else. Additionally the account should definitely use 2FA what makes it hard to be accessible for all oversighters. The worst scenario would be that someone with access to the account changes the email address unnoticed to fish reports. We could decide on one oversighter who owns this account but in the case of problems (loss of rights and not handing over the account or lost contact/dead) we would need to figure out a solution to regain access through the WMF MediaWiki operations team. Because of the potential serious trouble I think we can keep it as we did for more than one decade or one more year until we have a much better solution. GPSLeo (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

"Potential serious trouble"? Do you hint to that people who sign a confidentiality agreement and identify themselves in front of the site operator would regularly go postal and make nasty trouble, breaching privacy for whatever reason? What's the base for the whole adminship, checkusership and trust in licensing, then? Pinging user:Ra'ike and user:Raymond, the first as OS on DE-WP and the second as local OS: do you have any insight on how the German contact user is set up and if a similar thing is also suitable here and now? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

They don't need account access, they just need the email access, someone from the WMF can have the password. this account only needs to forward all emails sent to it from commons to the oversighter's mailing list. En-wiki can do it for 4 different role accounts, we can do 1. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not possible to have different mail addresses for wikimail and password reset. Therefore the only thing that could be handled by the WMF could be the second factor. But then setting up the account and logging in would be very complicated. GPSLeo (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc Some thought from me as Commons OS. Not discussed with the OS colleagues. First I do not see a big advantage of such a Wikimail: One click to open the Wikimail form and one click on the current e-mail-address to open the mail program. Anyway. Technically it is easy: Creation of the OS user account on Commons with the current mailing list email-adress in the preference. All mail will be forwarded to our mailinglist (not moderated!) and can be handled as usually. One caveat: we do not have a safe place to storing the password. Any of us can have it, of course, but when oversighters change, there is no guarantee that the password will be passed on.

I will ask my OS colleagues today. Raymond (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't the foundation have the password? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 23:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The password doesn't matter much because anyone with access to the mailing list can reset it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The IRS does not currently support oversight requests, if you select the option for "doxxing" it tells you to report it on a public page like it does everything other than threats of harm. The future plans for the tool are unclear, and I have no further information at this point. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support unless this is somehow tremendously more difficult than I can imagine it to be. - Jmabel ! talk 19:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Support --Adamant1 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc @Adamant1@Jmabel @GPSLeo @AntiCompositeNumber @Alachuckthebuck After discussion in the OS team I have created User:Oversight Commons . I have fully proteted the user and user talk page to prevent abuse. Raymond (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Raymond, Thank you so much, shouldn't the account be blocked to prevent abuse? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Why should the account be blocked to prevent abuse? If an oversighter would want to abuse the account they could just unblock the account. GPSLeo (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

And if it's compromised we have bigger problems. None of the other role accounts are, there is no reason for this one to be. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I emailed oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org on April 7th, and I didn't get any answer. Yann (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Yann At least I did not got an email from you on April 7th. Only your mail from today. Raymond (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, emails to legal-reports[@]wikimedia take months to get a response, if I get a response, which is only half the time. Commons is relatively quick and much more reliable. JayCubby (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Add an outcome of LicenseReview

Add an outcome "indeterminable / review impossible" for Template:LicenseReview.

Reason:

for example, File:Jordan protest in front of police2.PNG claims to be made by VOA, but because the youtube video is gone it's impossible to verify. nonetheless, the claim appears trustworthy, so it doesnt seem appropriate to either pass or fail it. a sensible thing to do would be to simply remove the Template:LicenseReview.

But, simply removing it will not prevent certain users slapping the template on it again.

As such, add an outcome, termed "indeterminable" or "review impossible", to signify that users have tried to review the file but could not succeed because source is gone, but there is no significant doubt about the authenticity of the claim, so the file is tolerated. RoyZuo (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support per Commons:Village_pump#Category:License_review_needed and the links mentioned there. --MGA73 (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Yann (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Grand-Duc (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support only if there is some sufficient method to reduce cases of this being set mistakenly. People should not set it if a youtube video is down and they can't check it anymore. They should only set it if they also checked the Wayback Machine properly to see whether it has it archived. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support 1989 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support good idea. and also... if another LR finds another source about image, he should change it to passed. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 02:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support - --Ooligan (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Support: But can this please be extended to former (now deleted) US Government flickr images too? For example, I managed to find non-flickr archive sources for these US-NIST images here: File:National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence MOU Signing.jpg and File:Brain Sensor.jpg but there is no NIST archive for File:Storage tanks that comprise the NZERTF’s domestic hot water system.jpg Do we delete the last image than? Secondly, I worked hard to find archive sources for these old US-NIOSH flickr images here: File:Black lung screening.jpg, here: File:Chilean Miners.jpg and here: File:Deepwater Horizon oil spill beach cleanup.jpg but cannot any archive for this image which was uploaded by the same uploader from the now deleted Niosh flickr account for File:Fleet Fisheries Processing Center.jpg This second last image is used...and I wonder if it is at risk of deletion too. I can pass the now deleted US-Government flickr image if it says NIOSH or CDC in the metadata but if it says nothing, I Cannot do anything at all. Any views Yann or Jmabel ? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  This applies to anything that cannot be passed, but for which users do not have significant doubt about the copyright claim for now. RoyZuo (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Yann: I don't see why presumed U.S. government images would be any different from anything else that we can no longer verify. If it looks like the uploader was generally doing what they should, and there is no serious reason to doubt that, we should keep it.

  Question, though: I thought as of about a year ago we stopped doing any systematic review of PD images such as U.S. government images. Do I misunderstand what was going on here and here? - Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: No you are correct Jmabel I did not know of this development. But since I had time, I decided to check for non-flickr US Government Department sourced images...and succeeded in finding quite a few still fortunately. With Trump II now in power, I wonder if the USAID flickr site will exist soon as he has fired so many US Government Department employees now. VOA's website may soon be gone too sadly. The NIST and NZERT flickr accounts closed a few years ago. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support MGeog2022 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Your example of File:Jordan protest in front of police2.PNG is actually one on which I, as a reviewer myself, found a roundabout way to pass the review. Fortunately, VOA maintains a directory of contributors, including the editor named as author in the example file. Google made me find the listing of contributions of Elizabeth Arrott on the VOA page, where this is listed: https://www.voanews.com/a/jordanian-protests-call-for-revolution-toppling-of-king/1547601.html . The date and general appearance of the images there fit our upload, hence I passed the review. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Question I wonder if it should be a simple "indeterminable" or if there should be a field where reviewer could explain why the file could be kept even if it could not be reviewed. I imagine that if reveiwer think the file should be deleted then the review would be failed instead. --MGA73 (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  it's not "kept". it's merely tolerated. anyone could send it to DR if they have a significant doubt of the claimed licence. RoyZuo (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah but then the question is if reviewer should (be able to) add a reason why they tolerate the file. --MGA73 (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's hard to explain the "lack of significant doubt". RoyZuo (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  Any of the following would be "significant doubt":

  1. can be found by reverse image search, and some results might suggest the image has been published elsewhere by different claimants of copyright predating commons upload.
  2. uploader has rampant copyvio history.
  3. the claimed source doesnt seem to exist.
  4. unlikely claim (e.g. claims to be ccbysa from disney but disney most probably doesnt publish ccbysa; photo of north korean soldier in north korean tank but claims to be us-army photo and pd; claimed source website has weird domain that's more typical of content farm / spam...)

  ...

  if the reviewer cannot find a way to critique it, that will be the lack of significant doubt. RoyZuo (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that it may be easier to explay why something looks fishy than why not. So I guess your plan is that reviewer just add an "indeterminable" and then the template would add a suitable text. I can live with that. Next question is what such a text should be. Perhaps something like "A reviewer have reviewed this file but it was not possible to confirm the license because the file is not available on the provided source. However, reviewer did not find significant doubt about the validity of the license claim. If you disagree you may start a deletion request and explain why you think there is significant doubt as of why the license claim is valid."? --MGA73 (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yes something along those lines will work. RoyZuo (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  An optional "reason" parameter is helpful too.

  For example #c-Grand-Duc-20250228132500-Add_an_outcome_of_LicenseReview is commendable, but still that's just circumstantial evidence because the exact image or the video was not found at the VOA website. So if I were to decide, instead of "passing" it, I would let it be "indeterminable", with reason=Grand-Duc's analysis. (Because there's a mini concern: VOA sometimes reuses other news agencies' works, sometimes even mixing external and their own together in one article.) RoyZuo (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  Please visit COM:Questionable YouTube videos if you would like to view (and maybe add) YouTube channels who have used phony/suspicious CC BY licenses. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I think we need someone to make a suggestion. I tried at Template_talk:LicenseReview#Outcome but it did not work as expected. --MGA73 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not mean a proposal but a solution :) --MGA73 (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)