Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
(P856). {{Get license|Q=Q28651505}} → CC BY-SA 2.5 {{Get et al}} {{Get review}} The above documentation is transcluded from Template:Get license/doc. (edit...
Click to read more »else its SPDX license ID (P2479) and link out to its official website (P856). {{Get license|Q=Q28651505}} → CC BY-SA 2.5 {{Get et al}} {{Get review}}...
Click to read more »available here) {{GetMerge|Q=Q28651505}} → 2014-10-13 {{GetMerge|Q=Q76846397|df=y}} → 2019 {{GetEtAl}} {{GetLicense}} {{GetReview}} {{GetSubmission}} The...
Click to read more »available here) {{GetMerge|Q=Q28651505}} → 2014-10-13 {{GetMerge|Q=Q76846397|df=y}} → 2019 {{GetEtAl}} {{GetLicense}} {{GetReview}} {{GetSubmission}}...
Click to read more »WP:W2J publications. {{Get et al|Q=Q76846397}} → 1 {{Get et al|Q=Q28651505}} → 4 {{Cite Q et al}} {{Get review}} {{Get license}} The above documentation...
Click to read more »listed here) {{Get submission|Q=Q28651505}} → 2012 {{Get submission|Q=Q76846397|df=dmy}} → 6 February 2019 {{Get et al}} {{Get license}} {{Get review}} The...
Click to read more »http://www.example.com {{Get et al}} {{Get license}} {{Get submission}} The above documentation is transcluded from Template:Get review/doc. (edit | history)...
Click to read more »listed here) {{Get submission|Q=Q28651505}} → 2012 {{Get submission|Q=Q76846397|df=dmy}} → 6 February 2019 {{Get et al}} {{Get license}} {{Get review}}...
Click to read more »wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dengue_fever/Archive_1#Formal_peer_review_by_Open_Medicine http://www.example.com {{Get et al}} {{Get license}} {{Get submission}}...
Click to read more »authors. Useful for WP:W2J publications. {{Get et al|Q=Q76846397}} → 1 {{Get et al|Q=Q28651505}} → 4 {{Cite Q et al}} {{Get review}} {{Get license}}...
Click to read more »Marriage License? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/111775070/marriage-license/ ALT1: ... that Thomas Buechner considers Marriage License to be one...
Click to read more »include an 'et al' author. Useful for WP:W2J publications. {{Get et al}} {{Get review}} {{Get license}} The above documentation is transcluded from Template:Cite...
Click to read more »permits reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, but not under the GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed. Template...
Click to read more »templates such as {{pp-protected}} when shown on an image page. type=license – License templates such as {{CC BY-SA 4.0}}. type=featured – Featured image...
Click to read more »of a significant event (P793) is "Wikipedia" to include an 'et al' author. Useful for WP:W2J publications. {{Get et al}} {{Get review}} {{Get license}}...
Click to read more »domain, as most other common licenses require a link to the file description page for attribution and notice of license (see MOS:BLANKALT). rootlink -...
Click to read more »page, which is required for attribution and/or notice of license by many common image licenses. Images with CC0 or in the public domain are safe. |shutoff=link...
Click to read more »copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website...
Click to read more »{{{source}}}, a source licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License which was imported into Wikipedia before November 2008 and is therefore...
Click to read more »Low resolution = | Purpose = | Replaceability = | Other information = | Licensing = <!--Choose: On / Off --> }} For other specific rationale templates,...
Click to read more »Points; 2) Goal difference; 3) Goals scored; 4) Wins (C) Champions; (P) Promoted; (R) Relegated Notes: Promoted after getting a license for K League 2....
Click to read more »the Moderate Party's Gunnar Axén react by getting rid of his television to stop paying the television license? Reviewed Elliott Fitch Shepard Created by...
Click to read more »include an 'et al' author. Useful for WP:W2J publications. {{Get et al}} {{Get review}} {{Get license}} The above documentation is transcluded from Template:Cite...
Click to read more »to get an administrator to edit the correct subpage for you. Portal images must be either in the public domain or available under a free license that...
Click to read more »tool(s) versioning: Versioning policy/ access to historical files license: license for the data. frequency: Data release frequency curation: Curation...
Click to read more »in a video comment. You may include information such as your driver's license number, national identification number, or passport number. You can then...
Click to read more »to get an administrator to edit the correct subpage for you. Portal images must be either in the public domain or available under a free license that...
Click to read more »anticipation of getting a final tick. Here is the discussion on licensing that took place at WT:DYK#2b2t: As I am completely unfamiliar with image licensing, I'd...
Click to read more »written material unless it is released under a suitably free copyright license (or into the public domain). The proposed edit must comply with Neutral...
Click to read more »to get a "tick" now? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC) OK now to me. Can someone more familiar with Flickr's licensing policy...
Click to read more »reproduced from here under Creative Commons License CC-By 2.5 [1], which is Wikipedia compatible WP:Compatible license. However, PLOS Computational Biology article...
Click to read more »rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template. Template documentationviewedithistorypurge This template is to...
Click to read more »articles that use verbatim text from OrthodoxWiki in order to explain the licensing situation. Please use {{OrthodoxWiki}} in the article itself, in order...
Click to read more »domain, as most other common licenses require a link to the file description page for attribution and notice of license (see MOS:BLANKALT). rootlink -...
Click to read more »though. Please be chill, and make sure to have fun. Licensing Go to the Talk page and agree to license your content under CC-BY 3.0 if you want to be proper...
Click to read more »Play-off winners; (P) Promoted; (R) Relegated Notes: Promoted after getting a license for K League 2. Template documentation Editors can experiment in this...
Click to read more »domain, as most other common licenses require a link to the file description page for attribution and notice of license (see MOS:BLANKALT). rootlink -...
Click to read more »tool(s) versioning: Versioning policy/ access to historical files license: license for the data. frequency: Data release frequency curation: Curation...
Click to read more »questions about technical image issues, see the Help desk. To get help with image license and copyright issues, see the Media copyright help desk. Questions...
Click to read more »can supply the correct license. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC) I found and added a Dutch freedom of panorama license template. I think it...
Click to read more »page, which is required for attribution and/or notice of license by many common image licenses. Images with CC0 or in the public domain are safe. |shutoff=link...
Click to read more »page, which is required for attribution and/or notice of license by many common image licenses. Images with CC0 or in the public domain are safe. |slap=template...
Click to read more »copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website...
Click to read more »page, which will provide more detailed information to editors on the licensing situation. {{OrthodoxWiki| name= | oldid= }} name: The name of the OrthodoxWiki...
Click to read more »under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution...
Click to read more »Chain Gang", recording sessions were delayed because Selena did not get a license for the song? Created/expanded by AJona1992 (talk). Self nom at 23:56...
Click to read more »templates such as {{pp-protected}} when shown on an image page. type=license – License templates such as {{CC BY-SA 4.0}}. type=featured – Featured image...
Click to read more »use#Images, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However...
Click to read more »SOURCE|revision=WIKIPEDIA REVISION|author(s)=NAME OF AUTHOR OR AUTHORS}} If the license is confirmed by notice on the website, please consider also using Template:Text...
Click to read more »--> | publisher = | country = | history = | frequency = | openaccess = | license = | impact = | impact-year = | bluebook = | mathscinet = | nlm = | ISSN...
Click to read more »page, which is required for attribution and/or notice of license by many common image licenses. Images with CC0 or in the public domain are safe. |shutoff=link...
Click to read more »like so: Merchant projects have won licenses with negative bids (meaning the companies pay the government for licenses) and are expected to come online in...
Click to read more »substantial JPEG artifacts. If we're able to resolve the licensing issues, it'd be good to get it from a higher-quality source. Hooks are generally cited...
Click to read more »released a Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 3.0 international license on Wikipedia (Permitted). The reports were written by Rashedur Rahman (also...
Click to read more »in the article. Importantly, the tag lets readers know they may not be getting the full story due to the exclusion of that piece of information. On the...
Click to read more »permits reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, but not under the GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed. Template...
Click to read more »templates such as {{pp-protected}} when shown on an image page. type=license – License templates such as {{CC BY-SA 4.0}}. type=featured – Featured image...
Click to read more »license; hook passes as well. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC) - (PS) I'd recommend beefing up the Pucará article as it will likely get...
Click to read more »25 February 2024 (UTC) The link you have provided shows that her getting a license is not intriguing in the slightest—it might as well say "her parents...
Click to read more »the SUA to clarify the matter. The photographer could then confirm the license or (if it wasn't his upload) maybe agree to release it freely anyway. Or...
Click to read more »hope, correct licenses, and new ref added to the hook. Mramoeba (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC) @Mramoeba: My apologies for not getting back to this...
Click to read more »August 2013 (UTC). . Length, date and hook reference are all order. No copy vio. Img holds free license. Good to go.--Nvvchar. 14:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)...
Click to read more »2012 with first Pong ad.jpg |piccy-credits = Digital Game Museum |piccy-license = cc-by-2.0 |piccy-scaling = 700 |piccy-xoffset = 150 |piccy-yoffset =...
Click to read more »originally meant for it to be a sequel to Wasteland, but were unable to get the licensing rights from EA? Source:[6] ALT2:... that Fallout developer Tim Cain...
Click to read more »uploader. Should I see if I can get an OTRS request? If that doesn't work, could it be uploaded under a non-free license on WP?--GouramiWatcher(?) 15:07...
Click to read more »Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy. You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License. You can create and edit of Munich-related...
Click to read more »Girls Get Ferry Pilots Wings Flew P-38s and P-47s ALT1:... that Gwendolyne Cowart – "the youngest girl in the south" to get a commercial pilot's license –...
Click to read more »Hook fact is cited and verified in online reference. For the image, the license template says, that a United States public domain tag (which is missing)...
Click to read more »page, which is required for attribution and/or notice of license by many common image licenses. Images with CC0 or in the public domain are safe. |slap=template...
Click to read more »{{Di-no license-notice}} for no license {{Di-no source-notice}} for no source {{Di-no source no license-notice}} for no source and no license The above...
Click to read more »tool(s) versioning: Versioning policy/ access to historical files license: license for the data. frequency: Data release frequency curation: Curation...
Click to read more »(UTC) But is there a way to get the term near the beginning of the sentence? Also, it's may be worth tweaking it to get it as short as possible. Short...
Click to read more »verified, no plagiarism, interesting article, license for the image seems to be OK. I hope the AfD gets resolved positively soon. I shouldn't weigh in...
Click to read more »article are well sourced from reliable sources. The image offered has a free license although there is another available which is also free and you might consider...
Click to read more »stunning and will hopefully make license and being chosen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC) The image license has been approved - looks like...
Click to read more »can be seem from my eagerness to review them). QPQ is done, and image licensing looks fine. Good to go. Girth Summit (blether) 17:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)...
Click to read more »that William E. Woods took three same-sex couples to fill out marriage licenses in 1990, beginning a series of events that would lead to the legalization...
Click to read more »non-commercial license, and thus cannot be uploaded to commons. MeegsC (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC) I wasn't aware of the licenses on the canto website...
Click to read more »noticing WT:DYK lately, they're getting quite picky about everything. So it's better to clear the air on the licensing here, rather than taking a chance...
Click to read more »number of sites that would have photos that users might be willing to license? Here are two, for instance; can't hurt to send a couple emails seeking...
Click to read more »page, which is required for attribution and/or notice of license by many common image licenses. Images with CC0 or in the public domain are safe. |slap=template...
Click to read more »August 2012 (UTC) Need experienced DYK editor or admin to weigh in on the license of the image of this living person. It's a frame capture from a NASA video...
Click to read more »at the moment trying to get a picture or video or her invention and it may take time for her to understand about our licenses etc etc. Fine to for March...
Click to read more »the Creative Commons license.--Launchballer 17:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC) @Bluerasberry: So can we hold this until we know if a license is possible? It would...
Click to read more »There's a little creative licensing in how I've linked the article, but I thought that explaining the Letterman connection would get too complicated for a...
Click to read more »(right), although uploaded to Commons with the CC Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, prominently feature a copyrighted logo.[1] This as a serious problem....
Click to read more »if describing it to someone blind), and image licenses get checked thoroughly, - if a license is doubtful, better remove. For DYK, I check only the one...
Click to read more »maximum; interesting and cited in the article. I'm confused about the licensing on the photo. It says it was taken in 1882 by Atelier Nadar. Can't really...
Click to read more »image source to determine whether it contains the appropriate copyright license, I recommend going without the image and I can just approve your ALT1 hook...
Click to read more »November 2013 (UTC). Article is good to go, and the images have acceptable licenses (they lacked the tags for freedom of panorama, but I have fixed that myself)...
Click to read more »is great and will sell the hook, so hope the license is enough. I have a hard time with image licenses. Let's assume this comes with an image, I believe...
Click to read more »have a license or fix the image license? Either or will work to get it passed. --LauraHale (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC) How do I fix the license? Lol...
Click to read more »enough and new enough. The first image, of the mountain peaks, has a licensing problem--I cannot ascertain whether that is problematic or not, and at...
Click to read more »footnote for the cast list (please add it). Hook source checks out. Image license looks OK. I suggest one last scrub for possible close paraphrasing and...
Click to read more »2012 with first Pong ad.jpg |piccy-credits = Digital Game Museum |piccy-license = cc-by-2.0 |piccy-scaling = 700 |piccy-xoffset = 150 |piccy-yoffset =...
Click to read more »articles that use verbatim text from OrthodoxWiki in order to explain the licensing situation. Please use {{OrthodoxWiki}} in the article itself, in order...
Click to read more »which is the offline source I can get a good preview of; and I certainly found it interesting. QPQ done; image license is CC-SA-3.0, so not a problem. Everything...
Click to read more »NO to the image because it does not appear in the article (otherwise license is good). No close paraphrasing found when I looked at archived news reports...
Click to read more »reason to challenge all four getting credit. Binksternet's photo is supported by an appropriate Creative Commons license, and I doubt the owner would...
Click to read more »released a Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 3.0 international license on Wikipedia (Permitted). The reports were written by Rashedur Rahman (also...
Click to read more »and cited appropriately. QPQ is done. Image is available under a free license and shows up well at 100x100. Well done Michael Barera; I'm glad to see...
Click to read more »comply with Wikipedia Policy. You can get free British crime-related images under GNU Free Documentation License. You can create and edit of British crime-related...
Click to read more »(PD-OLD for instance, or it had previously been released under a free license). Whatever, it cannot stand as it is and pass DYK. SpinningSpark 11:48...
Click to read more »Add {{c-uploaded}} along with a copy of the author attribution and the license tag from Commons. Edit this page. DO NOT ADD UNPROTECTED IMAGES. Ever....
Click to read more »page, which will provide more detailed information to editors on the licensing situation. {{OrthodoxWiki| name= | oldid= }} name: The name of the OrthodoxWiki...
Click to read more »featured on the front page, but I'm not 100% sure as I'm not an expert on licensing for images. Freikorp (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC) There needs to...
Click to read more »June 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry about the image! I would know how to update the license if we could find the book from which it was taken, but the site given as...
Click to read more »13 March 2016 (UTC) . Good to Go. Hook verified. Picture under a free license. Articles within policy and well-sourced. Thank you very much Cwmhiraeth...
Click to read more »image licensing is problematic, as the attribution "courtesy of Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Serbia" does not constitute a free license, and...
Click to read more »article. For license see license from repo; for rest, see Bolding, Jonathan (December 5, 2020). "The factory-building tower defense of Mindustry gets a huge...
Click to read more »history ) ... that Célia Posser issued the first private radio broadcast licenses in São Tomé and Príncipe? Célia Posser adiantou que a reestruturação da...
Click to read more »though, verified against reference. Image on Commons with appropriate license. QPQ done. Good to go with ALT hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2016...
Click to read more »identity is unknown. This image from another one of my articles with the same license appeared on the main page earlier this month, and the reviewer agreed that...
Click to read more »Hotel relocated the hotel's main entrance to get a liquor license? Source: "$3,000,000 Hotel Without a License Yet: the Eighteen Story St. Regis is So Close...
Click to read more »Wikipedia main page. Only images from Commons with proper licenses, or with similar licenses but not yet on Commons, may be used in DYK submissions. BlueMoonset...
Click to read more »citation in the article, which checks out. The image has a slightly unusual license, but appears to be OK. Mikenorton (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)...
Click to read more »asked for the license to be changed to a free one, and offered to blur the face of the person; the photographer changed the license as requested but...
Click to read more »well over 5X, well cited, spot checked for copyvio, spotcheck for image licensing. I didn't make this change myself for fear of infuriating Aussies and...
Click to read more »must have either a copyright license involving the author or a claim of freedom of panorama, just the photographer license is not enough. I'm admin in...
Click to read more »public domain and I've never seen one get passed that requires immediate attribution (taken by Bob with an XYZ license) in the front-page caption, which seems...
Click to read more »Church, Semarang reviewed by a nominator. Image: Some concerns here: Image license states that "I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into...
Click to read more »Commons under a free license in order to appear on the main page (external links are never allowed), and I see no evidence of such licensing on the YouTube...
Click to read more »Flick: Yes, you have to get a Flickr account (free) = then use Flickr mail. I have discovered that about 70% lower their license accordingly IF you say...
Click to read more »2017 (UTC) I am not familiar with image licensing , but this doesn't look right, to put a Creative Commons license on an 1804 image. @The Rambling Man: could...
Click to read more »changed recently, the point of DYK has always been to take some artistic license to make some aspect of the article interesting (hook-y) to pique a general...
Click to read more »can't access the page of the original source but happy to AGF that the licensing is correct (it seems reasonable); a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good...
Click to read more »2012 with first Pong ad.jpg |piccy-credits = Digital Game Museum |piccy-license = cc-by-2.0 |piccy-scaling = 700 |piccy-xoffset = 150 |piccy-yoffset =...
Click to read more »not sure about the Free license of the image: It is attributed to Alexander Schmidt, yet was uploaded by Kevmin under a CC-License for which there is no...
Click to read more »has an appropriate license but could only accompany the original hook because it is from a time when the winner actually did get a silver, not a gold...
Click to read more »article and is a Flikr image on Commons with the Attribution 2.0 Generic license Tools Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows no concerns from external sourcing...
Click to read more »promotion to GA (nice one Gerda!), no issues with content, copyvio, image licensing etc. Hook is interesting and within length requirements, but the fact...
Click to read more »2011 (UTC) Good work, Sarah! Any chance you could convince KW to freely license an image or two, preferably in time for the DYK appearance? One should...
Click to read more »1500 minimum (DYKcheck returns 1451 characters readable prose). Image licensing seems OK. I note that the intro is only a line long, so slightly increasing...
Click to read more »Kupicki (talk). Self nom at 20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Date, size, picture license okay, article is sufficiently referenced. No plagiarism from the available...
Click to read more »and use lists the license as "copyrighted" under each picture. The media kit and website, however, don't mention any type of license, so it's safe to assume...
Click to read more »photo here. Might not get a response, but can't hurt to drop the user a line and see if they'd release the image with a CC license. --Usernameunique (talk)...
Click to read more »{{di-no source}} {{di-no license}} {{di-no source no license}} {{di-dw no source}} {{di-dw no license}} {{di-dw no source no license}} F5 {{db-f5}} {{di-orphaned...
Click to read more »no violation. QPQ completed. Photo is good quality and has appropriate license. The hook is short enough and interesting. But ... the hook says the kiln...
Click to read more »not reveal any problems. Picture on Commons, license says PD in Austria and EU, but seems to miss US license. Oceanh (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC) I...
Click to read more »concerns about the image licensing, which is a formal publicity photograph. Swmmg, did you take the photograph yourself, or did you get it from the web? Thanks...
Click to read more »any new facts. Agree that the image is better, and it has an appropriate license. In terms of interest, "aerial torpedo-carrying missiles" is pretty catchy...
Click to read more »construction? Source: p45 ALT1:... that the license for KILO allowed the University of North Dakota to get out of the commercial broadcasting business...
Click to read more »verified and interesting. The image is appropriate and available under a free license. If the issues with the sourcing can be addressed I think we're good to...
Click to read more »she did not translate it literally? It is quite common to take artistic license, especially with poetry, but would be very unusual not to translate from...
Click to read more »of Star Trek", because I think that version makes more sense. Picture license is valid. APerson (talk!) 02:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC) The plane crashes...
Click to read more »content#Images, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However...
Click to read more »review; that's excellent. I'm still trying to talk someone into changing the license of their Coatsville Mansion phoot so that I can add it here. I'll add it...
Click to read more »second clause to mean the terms of the licenses supersede the social media exemption. Additionally, the license states Feel free to use my photos, but...
Click to read more »2012 (UTC) Long enough, new enough, hook fact checks out as OK. Image license is OK. The sources are not online, but the image pretty well supports the...
Click to read more »pilot license? Source: These 5 eVTOLs Let You Take to the Skies Without a Pilot’s License and legal to fly the Jetson ONE in the US without a license or...
Click to read more »itself, it would be absurd to claim some kind of ownership. The cited license says near the bottom, "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation...
Click to read more »copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website...
Click to read more »copyright or would qualify for the 'Non-free historic image' fair use licensing. Look for some additional articles that could link to this one, such as...
Click to read more »case at the Court of Appeal, both she and Norah Wilmot received their licenses on the same day, 3rd August 1966, and the article actually states that...
Click to read more »copyright violations of close paraphrasing. Both pictures have appropriate licensing to feature on the front page. Good to go. Freikorp (talk) 10:34, 25 January...
Click to read more »hopefully. As for the translation, I’m not at all comfortable with the license taken, but if someone else feels comfortable enough with it to green-light...
Click to read more »directly related information was behind a pay wall). Image has appropriate licensing. Didn't find any copyvios, although I reworded a few phrases that seemed...
Click to read more »public domain, it is Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA), also, the article in question was only first published a month...
Click to read more »no luck yet. I'd requested the author to release an image, which I found in Flickr under a free license. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)...
Click to read more »want to attach a free license to one or more of their images so we can add a relevant image to the article (it might help them get the word out too if it's...
Click to read more »3.1 Reviewed: Comment: The article mentions the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit, which is part of the Singapore Police Force. Source: https://www...
Click to read more »Length, date and references all check out fine, but I don't see a valid license for the image: in fact, it appears to be copyrighted. Harrias talk 10:42...
Click to read more »behalf of a nonexistent Arab businessman seeking help in obtaining a casino license. The New York Daily News Feb. 5 quoted Mr. Maressa as saying, "the Arabian...
Click to read more »uses same source. ALT2... that journalist Bill Fitsell did not get a driver's license until he was 40 years old because he was afraid of driving due to...
Click to read more »reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, but not under the GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed. Template...
Click to read more »(talk) 21:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC) @Dumelow and Whispyhistory: the image licensing doesn't look quite right to me... is this public-domain-threshold-of-originality...
Click to read more »ultimately sourced to this Flickr image which is compatibly licensed. License of the Flickr is accurately reproduced and no evidence of misrepresentation...
Click to read more »reviewed plenty of DYKs, I can't figure out how to check QPQ. Image use and license is fine. Also, could you clarify what HAU2 is? A second location of HAU...
Click to read more »checks out. The image, which comes from Flickr, is listed under a CC-BY-2.0 license. Overall: . Substantial work needs to be done in order to improve the neutrality...
Click to read more »SOURCE|revision=WIKIPEDIA REVISION|authors(s)=NAME OF AUTHOR OR AUTHORS}} If the license is confirmed by notice on the website, please consider also using Template:Text...
Click to read more »article development that should have used the draft space. There are file licensing concerns, for example File:Major rivers in himachal.png, although they...
Click to read more »to provide evidence that they are being provided under a suitable free license, which will also need word from the photographer. Looking good, though...
Click to read more »Brown was the first African American woman to earn a United States pilot's license? Source: [1] ALT1:... that Willa Brown's efforts to train African American...
Click to read more »Finally I was gonna say add the pic, but I see now it's not possible on the license, shame. Mujinga (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC) @Mujinga: We could...
Click to read more »control in two years led the Federal Communications Commission to deny the license renewal of radio station KARW in Longview, Texas? Source Reviewed: The...
Click to read more »SOURCE|revision=WIKIPEDIA REVISION|author(s)=NAME OF AUTHOR OR AUTHORS}} If the license is confirmed by notice on the website, please consider also using Template:Text...
Click to read more »Crimea (the official website has a contact email) to see if we can get a free-license real-life photograph of Natalia. If we succeed, then I personally...
Click to read more »read c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team and work with that team to get the license of that photo verified. When done, say so here and then it can go back...
Click to read more »or expired license to allow its use on the main page, but I defer to the experts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Oh, I get it. Yes, it's...
Click to read more »sandbox on August 18,[1] hence date is fine. No apparent copyvios, and licensing of the image is OK. Hook seems fine to me - good to go.--Tomobe03 (talk)...
Click to read more »are lots of photos of the sect but I couldn't find one with a compatible license, Flickr did have one but it had a non commercial tag and therefore not...
Click to read more »address that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC). approving poetic license ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC) ps: I see a slight...
Click to read more »licensed. I reached out to Lozman in January and he agreed in principle to license some photos of it compatibly, but didn't reply to my most recent email...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Good stuff. Happy to AGF on the photo licensing - Dumelow (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Wonderful. Beautiful image!...
Click to read more »The hook is short enough, interesting, and accurately sourced. Photo license states it is PD. QPQ remains to be done. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 22 December...
Click to read more »No apparent close-paraphrasing. Img license is ok. QPQ not required. Thanks for noticing the snafu and getting this aerticle to the review page; better...
Click to read more »not written promotionally, and the hook is interesting. Image has a good license for the main page. Good to go. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:40, 12 November...
Click to read more »out, and the article follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Photo licensing seems to be in order. Good to go. — Hunter Kahn 04:36, 21 February 2020...
Click to read more »picture appears in the article, is suitable for DYK and under an appropriate license. The tone of the article is not promotional. There are far too many wikilinks...
Click to read more »is in accordance with DYK guidelines and on Commons as a Public Domain license Duplication Detector run, no copyvio found GOOD 2 GO, Maile66 (talk) 21:44...
Click to read more »September 2012 (UTC) Long enough, new enough, hook fact is verified, image license is OK, and my spot checks did not find evidence of close paraphrasing....
Click to read more »unresolved licensing issues with File:Tokugawa_Ieyasu.jpg. Before a DYK could proceed, the image should ether be removed or have its licensing status resolved...
Click to read more »covered by the photowalk, though flickr users have been requested to change licensing to allow use on the article ([1], [2]), they are yet to respond. Iv not...
Click to read more »and feedback! I'm hoping to get permission to use this photo since I had asked the photographer to adjust the licensing on another one before and was...
Click to read more »nominated is the more suitable one as (a) there isn't an issue with its license, and (b) this photo would be much better given that it would be displayed...
Click to read more »Otherwise, you're going to get some mighty strange tables. # This script is NOT subject to the GNU Free Documentation # License, as it expressly prohibits...
Click to read more »to find Randy Potter's body in his parked truck despite recording all license plate numbers nightly? Source: "The company that operates the city-owned...
Click to read more »this case (although it's nice that you did one anyway), and the photo licensing looks okay. However, some additional work is needed with the referencing...
Click to read more »to go, but I am not sure about the image: it claims a Creative Commons license, and the photographer is named, but is it in the public domain, as the...
Click to read more »15:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Image is now in article, and has appropriate license on Wikimedia Commons. Rest of approval per review by Chamal above. BlueMoonset...
Click to read more »para-phrasing. QPQ done. No dup links. Photo of store has a creative commons license. However, the logo/image in the info-box is a fair use image. It was my...
Click to read more »rhinoceratus--Nvvchar. 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC) All images have acceptable licenses. Hook interest is OK, not brilliant, but it would be hard to pack them...
Click to read more »time I started with it, because it's a cute doggy. The image has a free license that I have no doubts over. Now to the article. The first thing I do there...
Click to read more »March 2012 (UTC) Of my own knowledge, such licenses are not issued too much - you would be very lucky to get one. Also, a lot of areas are officially designated...
Click to read more »com/article/lincoln-journal-star-union-radio-gets-a/129089948/ and https://www.newspapers.com/article/lincoln-journal-star-kucv-license-is-tra/129093481/ . 1916 date...
Click to read more »plagiarism, copyvio, or unduly close paraphrasing. The image has an appropriate license. QPQ is complete. Both hooks are short enough, neutral, cited and interesting...
Click to read more »accepted in good faith. The article is stable, and images have appropriate licenses or fair-use rationales. What hook will be approved will be up to the promoter...
Click to read more »(UTC) Fair use is not allowed for DYK images, though it is with a specific license for the article itself. I just took a look, and although the image is on...
Click to read more »struck it out. Harrias talk 09:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC) I have fixed the license issues. Proudbolsahye (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Disagree, on what...
Click to read more »SOURCE|revision=WIKIPEDIA REVISION|authors(s)=NAME OF AUTHOR OR AUTHORS}} If the license is confirmed by notice on the website, please consider also using Template:Text...
Click to read more »not technically illegal[3], they are operating in a very tricky area of licensing.[12]" is almost verbatim copied and pasted from the sources No. [3] and...
Click to read more »appears to be suitable and good to go. Only problem is possibly with image licensing, that that is not certain. Montanabw(talk) 08:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Image...
Click to read more »notice. {{Di-no license-notice}} for no license {{Di-no source-notice}} for no source {{Di-no source no license-notice}} for no source and no license...
Click to read more »in a video comment. You may include information such as your driver's license number, national identification number, or passport number. You can then...
Click to read more »interesting, and sourced. QPQ requirement satisfied. Photo has appropriately license and is quite nice. Putting a woman artist in the top photo slot would be...
Click to read more »the attribution section of the Creative Commons license is met). I'll try to find the tag myself and get it posted in talk. Also, I'll defer to Belle for...
Click to read more »might require that they get the photographer to send the email, or that they photocopy their contract, or their drivers' licenses, or do twenty push-ups...
Click to read more »or removed. The image shows up well at the size and has an appropriate license, though it is required to credit the source with the text "Courtesy of...
Click to read more »for US national teams). The badge is a money-maker for both FIFA (who license it to teams), but also the teams (who sell new jerseys (see here). Regarding...
Click to read more »problems. The image on Commons appears to be released under an acceptable license, Open Government Licence v1.0, and has been confirmed by the OTRS. Mary...
Click to read more »Higher-resolution photo added - the best one I could find with a creative commons license (good old geograph again). Don't mind which one you go for, choose whichever...
Click to read more »No QPQ requirement because it's your first nomination. Image has proper license. Regarding the hook, the source only says "largest theropod" and it's not...
Click to read more »interest, and at the event more than 100 women (and a few guys) showed up to get the tattoo in Minneapolis." USA Today Reviewed: Rogue Fitness Created by...
Click to read more »about your licensing question to WT:DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Given that the image gets MP exposure...
Click to read more »that I think they ought to be fixed for DYK. Unsure about the image: licensing okay, but doesn't show up too well at a small size, though I'll leave...
Click to read more »appropriately placed citations. Article is long enough with no copyright or image licensing issues. GA sailed through on 20 December. QPQ completed. Excellent work...
Click to read more »Hook image is freely licensed Not a self-nom, so QPQ not required Image licenses seems good Suggestions/Issues: the bridge spans 120 feet long - say it...
Click to read more »expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC) The license of the picture has been checked and its fine. If anyone cared to load the...
Click to read more »further back than that? Re the image, the rationale for the public domain license on Commons is not at all clear to me. How is the source for this image...
Click to read more »imagery and if there's any public domain imagery or something with proper licenses. – TheGridExe (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC) ALT1 ... that the Bradenton...
Click to read more »channel submitted its license application two months ago? Source: https://hvg.hu/kultura/20260423_jon-a-szivarvany-tv "a license application for a new...
Click to read more »paraphrasing or plagiarism noticed. QPQ done and the image appears to have no licensing issues. The article could do with some tweaks for clarity. I suggest that...
Click to read more »Article history ) ... that after repeatedly failing to secure a liquor license, the Gotham Hotel went bankrupt three years after it opened? Source: Gray...
Click to read more »painting. Added some links. The painting's in the public domain and has its license more or less in order. (It's dubious that this image was published in the...
Click to read more »plagiarism detected. Article has no images so no need to worry about licensing. QPQ provided. Both non-rejected hooks are interesting, but I prefer ALT0...
Click to read more »talk about how to get this on the front page. First, the image probably has to be scrapped, and I'd recommend changing the license to fair use instead...
Click to read more »find one although there are a few acropora pix on flickr with the right license. Thanks to all who have contributed to this series of articles .... especially...
Click to read more »care—but in this case it goes back to Geograph and the Creative Commons license from there is very clear. The image is also in the article, so it meets...
Click to read more »media: the logo in the infobox is uploaded without evidence of a valid license, and an image containing that logo prominently on the side of a building...
Click to read more »and clear at size, and I agree with Gadfium that it's more compelling. License looks okay but it's a brand-new uploader so let's hope there isn't a problem...
Click to read more »with the image licensing? Yoninah (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC) I am working on it. Been busy with personal matters but will get to it shortly....
Click to read more »hook above. As the work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). I have uploaded an image of a male paratype to Wikimedia with...
Click to read more »Lithuanian image, so it qualifies under the same license as PD-Poland (e.g. Polish photo with this license template), but I believe there is no equivalent...
Click to read more »overturning the comparative hearings process..." ALT1: ... that the first TV license lottery in the United States used a drum previously utilized by the Selective...
Click to read more »(UTC) Surprise! I found a picture for you. Just had to ask to change the license. czar ♔ 13:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC) I have just pinged the creator's talk...
Click to read more »high number and copied paragraphs for the patch.com source even with the license, but it is no longer a problem for that one source. BlueMoonset (talk)...
Click to read more »would need to be cropped - which is acceptable as it's under a CC-BY 4.0 license - to only show one of the hybrid animals. My understanding is QPQ not necessary...
Click to read more »happy, while the financial arrangements with his estate was a separate licensing deal never intended to involve the fans. And only one source mentions...
Click to read more »Quick update on this. I spoke to a Flickr user who agreed to change the license on one of their photos of Soken. Just walking them through the steps now...
Click to read more »through the article, check for newness, character count, copy vios, image license etc - pretty much all the stuff is straightforward. If you want to go for...
Click to read more »who approve the nomination (checking both the hook fact and the image licensing), the prep set builder who promotes it to a prep set (who may or may not...
Click to read more »2012 with first Pong ad.jpg |piccy-credits = Digital Game Museum |piccy-license = cc-by-2.0 |piccy-scaling = 700 |piccy-xoffset = 150 |piccy-yoffset =...
Click to read more »GRAPPLE X 15:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) I've asked about the KapanLagi.com license, but it's essentially "permission for use in Wikipedia", which is not allowed...
Click to read more »that the image was released by the copyright holder under an appropriate license (such as CC-BY-SA 3.0) in the form of an OTRS ticket. If the nominator...
Click to read more »reliably sourced with ample citations; image is available under a suitable license. However, the hook fact is not directly supported by the cited reference...
Click to read more »copyright of the image. I think it is OK, but do not usually get too involved with the licensing. Good job. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 08:24, 13 January...
Click to read more »I'm not so up on image licensing, I can't help much here. I know that User:Stefan2 is an active editor in non-free licensing; perhaps he can help here...
Click to read more »as well as the 'persondata' fields. I also took a look at the image's licensing and I think it's okay. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Seychelles News Agency has permission to license certain Seychelles Nation images under various Creative Commons Licenses. The Seychelles News Agency regularly...
Click to read more »2015 (UTC) Good to do, after some copyedits. Long enough new enough image license OK no plagiarism hook sourced paragraphs properly cited etc. Drmies (talk)...
Click to read more »nice article: Jwrosenzweig (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Absent a license showing that the photo is free—which, given that the photo has just been...
Click to read more »weeks ago when I learned about him. I'll try to figure out the current licensing rules at Commons and upload it, it's a beauty. Thank you both for your...
Click to read more »eleven years. The expansion was entirely by Smuconlaw. Also, the image license may not be valid in the U.S., so it may not be acceptable for DYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM...
Click to read more »but there are still some documentation issues to be resolved for the license on the image that Sillyfolkboy uploaded at Commons (although the image...
Click to read more »that image -- it's good in its own right and the source backs up the free license. Having said that, it'll need to be added to the article to be fully eligible...
Click to read more »your proudest professional achievement? My proudest achievement is getting a license to drive heavy trucks in nine days. When I was appointed as a director...
Click to read more »inline citations. Impeccable referencing! All images are ok with the right license. The editor have thoughtfully provided the DYK with a new version of the...
Click to read more »Commons! -- Trevj (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Image has appropriate license and looks suitable at target size. I have included the name of the subject...
Click to read more »independently copyrighted, and photographs cannot have a more permissive license than the underlying art. Some relevant exceptions are listed here, but...
Click to read more »"language" (perhaps "dialect" would be a better English equivalent?). Photo license looks fine. The information from the hook is accurately cited. I used Google...
Click to read more »either the article or the source, just that she was denied her full-time license. Please let me know if I'm missing something, but I'd recommend rephrasing...
Click to read more »15:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC) QPQ done. All images tagged with acceptable licenses for main page use. Image in hook found in article. "Article moved from...
Click to read more »removed. DTM (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC) I still have issues with its licensing and its presence in the article, but I'm taking that to Commons rather...
Click to read more »(upper right) and ALT7. Can any of you approve the second image of Flicr license? Mertbiol is looking for a another green tick to expedite this DYK. Thanks...
Click to read more »preliminary check, everything checks out (newness, length, sourcing, file licensing, plagiarism, QPQ, etc.). But I'm holding off approving this pending action...
Click to read more »image licensing tag needs clarification re: public domain (see red notice on photo mainpage). No copyvio otherwise. Should be good to go once image gets cleared...
Click to read more »09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC) The photographer should be credited but the license says 50 years if it is a photo. This I think is OK Victuallers (talk) 14:42...
Click to read more »based on simple rail distance the source is fine. Image looks good and license is in order. Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines)...
Click to read more »this file description and add the name of the article the file is used in. (get help with syntax) Portion used Newspaper page or article only. Low resolution...
Click to read more »(UTC) I think a QPQ still needs to be done for this nomination? The image license also looks as if it needs to be double checked as it has a 'possibly un-free'...
Click to read more »Interesting Good article, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is licenses but not specific in small size. So is the hook, not exciting, - anything...
Click to read more »can use the 1961 photo in this article, I am just trying to get them to confirm what license they are happy to release it under. Given I am now responsible...
Click to read more »to have the same error (saying Boccaccio is the image author) but the license is still correct. Kingsif (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC) The image...
Click to read more »Article tone good. Image was uploaded under a Attribution 3.0 Unported license. However image bears a copyright stamp so unwise to feature in the DYK...
Click to read more »of some gee-whiz startup, but prior to that I believe it had different licensing information (will try to find it for you). Would be an interesting quandary...
Click to read more »no copyvio; written neutrally. Image is available under an appropriate license. Article seems well sourced, and citations seem ok based on spot checks...
Click to read more »qualify for promotion, a club must hold a 100 Year Plan status, obtain J3 license (marked in bold in the table), and finish both in the top 4 of the JFL...
Click to read more »November 2017 (UTC). All the basics are here, new, length, cites and image license. However, I have concerns about WP:EVENT - isn't this article really about...
Click to read more »the article, but I added a very similar one that is, which has the same licensing. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC) @Morgan695: My opinion...
Click to read more »read the wrong figure, and 22 is indeed right. I'm not too good on image licensing, so sorry if I got that wrong. It wasn't too easy to think of a hook which...
Click to read more »2012 with first Pong ad.jpg |piccy-credits = Digital Game Museum |piccy-license = cc-by-2.0 |piccy-scaling = 700 |piccy-xoffset = 150 |piccy-yoffset =...
Click to read more »League 100 Year Plan clubs Promotion is conditional on holding a valid J3 license (marked in bold in the table), finishing the season in the top 4 of the...
Click to read more »clear at this resolution, and should be well out of copyright, but the license on the image's page at Commons should be clarified to explain why it can...
Click to read more »interesting and verified to the cited journal article. Licensing checks out for the photo. I hope this image gets picked, because the quality of this article deserves...
Click to read more »pleasantly surprised to see that the game is released under a public domain license. You should consider using a screenshot of part of the post as an illustration...
Click to read more »the other major article requirements (close paraphrasing, citing, image licensing, etc.) have been accomplished. As this is the nominator's first nomination...
Click to read more »also. All images are either in the public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. Earwig shows 0% copy vio' issue. QPQ satisfied. One comment — In the Personal...
Click to read more »whether this is an issue or not. The licensing is okay however. --Ykraps (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Thanks for getting to this, Ykraps. I've made some...
Click to read more »not covered here. The QPQ is done. The image is one that I cropped but license is good. I have added @Ireadbooks12: who created the stub to the credits...
Click to read more »and it seems to be okay now. I also moved the fair use rationale to the licensing. The file page could use a description of the image in the summary section...
Click to read more »Bilorv. Too bad we can't use an image; are the producers nerdy enough to license us one if we ask nicely? — LlywelynII 09:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks...
Click to read more »believe this should run as an image hook, as I'm not sold on the CC 4.0 licensing. Per Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart, assuming the photograph was never formally...
Click to read more »being a licenced engineer and it has been a requirement that obtaining a license requires an engineering degree. Also, being able to take some courses is...
Click to read more »are openly licensed (see here https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/copyright-and-licensing). Does that address your concern? DrThneed (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2026...
Click to read more »20 December 2013 (UTC) Article is long enough, creation time and image license verified, sufficiently referenced, including the hook. I have an issue...
Click to read more »Career section. As for the image itself, Flickr has it under a CC BY-NC 2.0 license, which makes this picture non-free. Therefore, it can't be used in DYk...
Click to read more »2016 (UTC). Expansion length and date fine. Image is under a suitible license and the citations, including one for the hook, are fine. However, I see...
Click to read more »picture of him, which they will release under any of the acceptable commons-licenses? Huldra (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC) @Huldra, I've already emailed...
Click to read more »rephrasing about "declining to prosecute" or sth. The pic has a Chinese license but apparently (?) needs a separate American one to be used freely, since...
Click to read more »the nominator's own work, and uploaded on Commons with the share-alike license Tools Earwig's Copyvio Detector showed no issues of concern Duplication...
Click to read more »copyvio. QPQ done. Image licensing is good – and I like the image a lot, it has a sense of place and purpose to it and I hope it gets used when the DYK goes...
Click to read more »jpeg has conflicting information. It seems to be non-free image, but in "Licensing" section it says— uploader owns copyright! In addition non free image...
Click to read more »for the image, it's catchy and its licensing might be acceptable, but because there is uncertainty about its licensing status, I personally would not choose...
Click to read more »pictures to be public domain = copyright free. It's marked that way under "license" and if there were any other intent then it would be so marked = perhaps...
Click to read more »super and I would like to see it run with the article. I am asking for a license check with another editor but it is now labeled as public domain. The QPQ...
Click to read more »enough and long enough. Hook is supported with inline references. Image license is ok. Only issue with the article is that the first paragraph of the "Racing...
Click to read more »that the individual uploading them actually has the ability to freely license them. Mifter (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Yes I did contact Eastman...
Click to read more »developed the skill in chemistry class? By the way the image has a suitable license, and is used. I have shrunk the image to make sure it looks OK at the required...
Click to read more »preference for ALT2 and ALT3. Image is of sufficient quality for DYK, free license. Copyvio tool spots only proper nouns... no close paraphrasing found. — Chris...
Click to read more »Article looks fine (expansion and other things seem to be good). Image license seems fine. The hook has more than 200 characters (if "(pictured)" and...
Click to read more »lede, where the Flickr user who uploaded it there hadn't changed the licensing at the time I made the nom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2012...
Click to read more »Victuallers or David Levy for help with images. It needs to be checked for free licensing before uploading. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Thanks!...
Click to read more »jpg hmm yes the license appears to be good, since the website it is taken from says on its copyright policy page that it either licenses its own pix as...
Click to read more »death sentence for the company; they literally cancelled the company's license to operate flights. But I'm open to better phrasing. Thanks for looking...
Click to read more »images used should be appropriate to the article, have captions and free licenses or valid fair use rationales." and "Illustrated, if possible, by media...
Click to read more »and without proof that it was first published prior to 1929, the claimed license is not valid. PD-old-assumed would be valid given that the image is >120...
Click to read more »images published through PeerJ papers are good for Wikipedia use, but licensing isn't my strongsuit. Paging IJReid to help clear things up. Lusotitan...
Click to read more »if you then released it to the public domain on uploading (or whatever license is allowable for DYK), that might work. The trick would be wording the...
Click to read more »obvious proof that the photo itself was released under the Open Government License. I'm not sure if the OGL includes or excludes photos of people. Furthermore...
Click to read more »not good available, without me emailing/begging for license release. If the article is ever to get to GA status, I may have to do just that... Gaff (talk)...
Click to read more »J.League 100 Year Plan clubs Promotion was conditional on holding a J3 license (marked in bold in the table), finishing in the top 4 of the JFL, and finishing...
Click to read more »the licensing very carefully. This just looks like a kid in a pool at someone's home. — Maile (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC) If the licensing is an...
Click to read more »that we aren't taking copyrighted text and republishing it under a new license as though we had written it. So, for example, I didn't mean to tell you...
Click to read more »and section headers, and added a bunch of images, all marked with free licenses. I tried to use performance images, and then added a few others where there...
Click to read more »@Launchballer: please also comment on neutrality, close paraphrasing, and image licensing in your reviews. Earwig's Copyvio Detector is a great tool. Yoninah (talk)...
Click to read more »DYK perspective, thought they should attribute the text in line with the license under which all contributions are made), or whether the text is WP is a...
Click to read more »article (Strange Children) - I hope to get more from the State Library of NSW, and will add one here if I get one of Barr herself. Created and moved to...
Click to read more »citations and neutrality. The hook is in-line sourced. Photo has appropriate license. QPQ is done. There are, however, two problems: (1) There is some significant...
Click to read more »image to include with this, but nothing that turns up has an appropriate license, and I don't think using this exhibition catalogue cover would work under...
Click to read more »2024 (UTC). Eligible, neutral, sourced inline, no copyvio, valid image licenses (including fair use rationale for the single cover), no QPQ required etc...
Click to read more »16:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Expansion amount and date verified, image license fine. I like the original hook better than ALT1; they both say the same...
Click to read more »about an incident when she and her fiancé went to take out a marriage license. With the two of them standing together at the registration desk, the registrar...
Click to read more »done that correctly, it was my understanding that Youtube videos under CC license can be used? OneUpOnUs (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC) ... How did I...
Click to read more »the prep builder decide. Not to accept a picture because of a missing license is a different story, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Commons licensing, and QPQ has already been completed. I would encourage those managing moving hooks and assembling sets to consider getting this in place...
Click to read more »should have), hook is short enough and interesting. Image is free (CC license release by uploader). Looks decent at 100px, though nothing stunning. ALT1...
Click to read more »rephrased. Image shown is uploaded by the photographer with appropriate license. QPQ was done. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC) I've...
Click to read more »note, the image is watermarked with the URL of the photog's website. Licensing appears to be clear but the watermark seems violative of the general guide...
Click to read more »wants to stick the picture in, that's fine with me--I have not checked its license. Note also that I removed the two redundant commas from the hook. Drmies...
Click to read more »suggest asking the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine to change the license of this photograph to either Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA...
Click to read more »everything checked, from size to neutrality to close paraphrasing, plus image licensing. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC) The article has serious...
Click to read more »and supported and interesting enough. The image proposed has a suitable license, is used in the article, and is clear enough at DYK resolution. The nominator...
Click to read more »limit. The image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. It is contained in both articles. QPQ was done. CeeGee 11:22, 26 September...
Click to read more »would recommend the Liluokalani image. My understanding on the Commons licensing is that the original black and white is Common Domain, but that you colorized...
Click to read more »properly sourced, and as there is no image, there are no problems with licensing/fair use. QPQ provided. However, I'm not exactly sure if being a deputy...
Click to read more »to get an administrator to edit the correct subpage for you. Portal images must be either in the public domain or available under a free license that...
Click to read more »picture of Amina Mama (removed because of the apparent ambiguity of its CC license) with a picture of an open house at the AGI. Citations in the various articles...
Click to read more »deadline with 2 hours to spare. Long enough. No image, no worries about license issues. Earwig's copyvio detector: violation unlikely. A neutral BLP, with...
Click to read more »thanks for looking at that so promptly. I realise a certain amount of license is given for basic arithmetic in arriving at the hook, but I'm still not...
Click to read more »it is paywalled. Video was uploaded under an open source and correct license — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustios Paleo (talk • contribs)...
Click to read more »Low resolution = | Purpose = | Replaceability = | Other information = | Licensing = <!--Choose: On / Off --> }} For other specific rationale templates,...
Click to read more »(this is the most common reason). The license submitted might not have provided an acceptable free content license. (Statements of permission that allow...
Click to read more »song, not a platform for elevating whichever company pays for the song's licensing. In "Use in television", paragraph 3, sentence 2 has a primary non-independent...
Click to read more »Goetz at Nuremberg available online from USC, but I don't know about the licensing. I would imagine it's fair use to include, but would want someone to review...
Click to read more »article is new. Long enough. Posted by due date. The image is pre-1923, no license issues. Earwig's copyvio detector: violation likely! So back I went, checking...
Click to read more »The photo is very nice and has "Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license." Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the review! I will...
Click to read more »his habilitation (the former being a job, the latter being more like a license). Moreover, the Nazis were not going to un-suspend Fröschels. In point...
Click to read more »(created 30 Dec), well-sourced, neutral, presentable, image under valid license, and hook is cited. Nice work! seefooddiet (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2025...
Click to read more »"that the copyright holder has released the image under an acceptable free license". Furthermore please resolve the (relatively minor) hook and citation issues...
Click to read more »identified in the article itself. I also note that the current image lacks licensing info; perhaps you could forward the information you have to an OTRS address...
Click to read more »(I've tidied up the licensing on that one) is a reasonable substitute. Easy enough fix -- just move that second portrait up and get rid of the first (you...
Click to read more »there is an image with appropriate licensing, please feel free to add it :) although I have tried without luck to get the image, maybe there's something...
Click to read more »sources, I have to AGF on hook sourcing and questions of copyvio. Image license for the first-proposed image looks OK; it's not clear if OTRS has confirmed...
Click to read more »That article is good to go. Regarding the hook, the image has a clean license. I'm not sure that it really works to have the text as part of the image...
Click to read more »I added her birth name to the lead. Do you mean the image has a free license? (It does.) -SusanLesch (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Well, ALT0 was...
Click to read more »but the first one from gallery would also work. I have to trust the licensing, but see no problems with copyright for an old piece of art outside ;)...
Click to read more »closest available (images on Flickr and panoramio are not with the right license to import them here and/or are also not of the park itself) image resembling...
Click to read more »(talk) 02:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC) QPQ in progress; just missing the image licensing (pinging @Elisa.rolle:), so this is good to go. Yoninah (talk) 14:42,...
Click to read more »fact is found and verifiable in the article, the image has an appropriate license and shows up well in the thumbnail size. HaEr48 (talk) 19:25, 10 August...
Click to read more »check out, new enough, long enough, not seeing evidence of copyvio, image licensing looks suitable. But some specifics within the article: You mention "descents"...
Click to read more »link it here. Moonraker (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC) @Moonraker: New license has been added. ALT2a: ...that many of the photographs taken by Maharaja...
Click to read more »copyright renewal in that time period. Consequently I am changing the license to Template:PD-US-not renewed (I also think there is a good case to made...
Click to read more »org/10.1016/j.tcrr.2022.09.005 Under a Creative Commons license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Excerpt: P. 176 "Amongst the victims, the...
Click to read more »further disruption. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not a driver license application. (In background for recent arrivals, BM very passionately disagreed...
Click to read more »size, format, and neutrality. Image displays well and has share-alike cc license, but should have alt text which describes the picture (in addition to the...
Click to read more »check out OK; article is suitable sourced; hook fact is supported; image licensing is OK. However, the wording of the hook is awkward. I suggest the following...
Click to read more »well known pre-1850 sources (plus image originating from Flickr whose license issues were sorted out on Commons in 2017). Only the QPQ is missing from...
Click to read more »I think that I get used to the text and may miss some bad wording. Artem.G (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC) OK, but the licensing template is still...
Click to read more »time (2-8 Aug), is long enough (~2,800 chars), CC-by-SA 4.0 on the image license (AGF on the authorship) and does not require a QPQ, since the nominator...
Click to read more »the game is "about" the seven deadly sins seems like too much dramatic license. It was a tactical RPG, not the Pilgrim's Progress. More generally, I'm...
Click to read more »16:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)) The reviewer only has to check the image licensing and whether it appears in the article. See WP:DYKR#If there is an image...
Click to read more »paraphrasing, but more importantly there's no comment on the image suitability/licensing. Sorry for the long review, I seem incapable of doing them short these...
Click to read more »"beacon". Image licensing is okay. Unfortunately this image does not show the two structures at equal distance, so it's hard to get a sense of their...
Click to read more »well-cited, neutrally written, Earwig now finds nothing, QPQ done. The licensing of the image seems to focus on the statue and not the photograph, if evrik...
Click to read more »Save the Queen! (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Again NOTCENSORED =/= license to casually feature racist crap on the front page, in this enthusiastic...
Click to read more »is still too early to claim fair use with a Template:Non-free biog-pic license. Flibirigit (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Photo had been added to...
Click to read more »8,000 people" or such. One other issue is with the image, which has no license for being copyright-free in the US, which I believe is requirted for mainpage...
Click to read more »the actual quote is "I'd rather be dead in a ditch", and we don't have license to modify quotes in hooks, even if we're up against the length issue. (The...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Copypaste. User:Ajh1492, you could try to contact them and ask them for a free license for the text they are using; see Wikipedia:Requests for permission. I am...
Click to read more »like the UK has FOP for 3d art so if we find an image with the correct license it could be used. Lightburst (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC) @Dumelow:...
Click to read more »@Fuebaey:. What do you think of these alts? ALT4: ... that surfboards and license plates decorate the interior of Hodad's, an iconic burger joint on a San...
Click to read more »sources, no copyvio opvious. The hook is fine and sourced. The image is license and a must. I made some little edits, revert if you don't like. Article:...
Click to read more »sure most pictures are free to use, I've seen a couple get removed because the provenance/license ended up not being right. I'm sure some slip through the...
Click to read more »caused by limitations in the translator. Image has an appropriate free license and as China has freedom of panorama there do no appear to be any issues...
Click to read more »(UTC). Solid article, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is license and stunning, so I hope we'll see it on the Main page. - Questions regarding...
Click to read more »rationale for the license must be explained in the details section, esp. how the image was definitely taken in America pre-1923 (license should be as verifiable...
Click to read more »stacks up with well-known historical events. Not certain if the image licensing is suitable for the front page - "No machine-readable source provided...
Click to read more »(which still applies here). Requesting that the promoter looks at the licensing behind the original image, though I'm assuming Facebook saying they don't...
Click to read more »your burden, if you want to include a file, to upload it under a proper license, or in this case, to present a fair use rational that was in fact rational...
Click to read more »you can now see the Dictionary of Sydney article does not have the CC licensing on it and the google cache doesn't show it either. I must be mad! I'm...
Click to read more »AFD, it's thoroughly footnoted, and the hook source is verified. Image license looks OK, based mostly on the notes on the image from which this image...
Click to read more »3% which is incidental based on names and phrases). No image to review, license for the image in the article is good, and the article is stable and well...
Click to read more »Valenciano (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Well, if some grammatical license is allowed... ALT1:... that the 58-year old Berlin club Knaack, named after...
Click to read more »29 September 2011 (UTC) - note - there is a query about the image whose license is based on freedonm of panorama. I'm told that this does not permit the...
Click to read more »the license is ok after all. Schwede66 22:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) @Schwede66: there is evidence that this was CC-BY licensed at one point. CC licenses are...
Click to read more »mbendi.com Conclusion - Mostly factual details (scope and duration of licenses). Not sufficiently closely paraphrased to bar the DYK. I think it's probably...
Click to read more »able to ask one of the iNaturalist users if they feel like changing the license on their images[1] of 492 to something compatible.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋...
Click to read more »from a GA. Image is clear at the size, sourced from iNaturalist and the license is verified to be CC-BY-4.0 on the source site. On the hook, while interesting...
Click to read more »exception of one bare youtube URL), and I did not notice any plagiarism. Image license is OK. That takes us to the hooks. Most of them seem advert-like to me...
Click to read more »the image page lists http://agostinho.exblog.jp/ as attribution in the license. I looked through it though, but I can find the Commons image on there...
Click to read more »inline citation. I would love to see a pic but don't know enough about licensing. ALT1: ... that Mexican artist Alfredo Zalce had such an aversion to public...
Click to read more »meets DYK sourcing requirements. All images used in the article are free licenses on the Commons. The first two images would be very suitable to the DYK...
Click to read more »Whilst not the most important issue at all, we might as well get it right. The licensing of the new image is fine, but the lighting is suboptimal. ALT0...
Click to read more »Fifth, the last paragraph of the article says that, following Bailey's license being suspended, "Massie was subsequently made the new captain of the Spread...
Click to read more »Wikipedia yesterday and it is now in the neighborhood box. I followed the licensing format from another user who had uploaded a picture of Circle C Ranch...
Click to read more »might be accessible to minors. In practice, the law has given police broad license to interpret almost any mention of being LGBT — whether uttered, printed...
Click to read more »the subject. Image is used in the article, on Commons and has a valid license. QPQ done. Good to go. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:21, 10 September...
Click to read more »--> | publisher = | country = | history = | frequency = | openaccess = | license = | impact = | impact-year = | bluebook = | mathscinet = | nlm = | ISSN...
Click to read more »the photographer was probably not Holzmann himself and thus the current licensing tag does not apply (if the photographer is unknown, a different tag is...
Click to read more »Sorry, I should have looked. I only nominated, and know little about pic licenses. Will ask. Is Philg88,who brought the article to my attention, aware of...
Click to read more »until 1905, well after the rest of the lines. Probably okay for "artistic license", though. I can add the source in later today. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs)...
Click to read more »journalist's license." ALT1: ... that Matthew Tye, who had interviewed Chinese people without securing a required journalist's license, uploaded a YouTube...
Click to read more »what was wrong with the image. Perhaps there's something awry with the license, but the NSB is both defunct and illegal, and there can't be a legal entity...
Click to read more »want this hook to run with an image. However, it looks like it needs a license review first. ~deltasock (talk • cont) 15:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC) Date...
Click to read more »And the image must appear in the article per WP:DYK#Image 3. The image licensing must be checked before applying an approval tick. Thanks, Yoninah (talk)...
Click to read more »the author/funder. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license." As such the images in the preprint version on BioRxiv are cc-by-4.0 and...
Click to read more »to have medical schooling well past one's bachelorate and I'm not sure licensing boards would accept someone with only undergraduate training anywhere...
Click to read more »Tasmanian Legislation. Retrieved 14 September 2012. "South Australia gays get new rights by Tony Grew (7 December 2006)". pinknews.com.au. Retrieved 3...
Click to read more »under your belt, one is required for this nomination from you. The image's license is fine, but I'm not sure that it's a great image. There are better images...
Click to read more »inline cite. The new proposed image also has to be reviewed regarding licensing. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC) New reviewer needed...
Click to read more »above comment I'd like someone to review this point. As to the poetic license, I think this is OK for a hook. A statement like "walked the city too poor...
Click to read more »think that could work. Could you propose an alternative hook? The image license seems in order, but I don't think this photo is clear at diminished size...
Click to read more »the station to its critical hours directional array as required by its license; (2) failed to repaint its tower structures after seventy five percent...
Click to read more »sources are used. The hook is short enough and interesting. The image licensing checks out and is ready to appear on the main page. QPQ complete. Typos...
Click to read more »mixed up a bit, 8 is the same as 6. Please sort. The picture has an OTRS license. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I would mention "Slumdog...
Click to read more »transferring to the nom page and Shellnut is new to DYK). Image is under GNU 1.2 license on Commons, which is acceptable. QPQ not needed. There is a problem with...
Click to read more »status. Images in the public domain, or released under one of the free licenses compatible with Wikipedia, can be uploaded at will. In other cases, the...
Click to read more »is presentable. Only one image in the article, which has an appropriate license. QPQ is done. However the hook's source is a primary source. Additionally...
Click to read more »findings last month by the Maryland Medical Board (here) in revoking his license, Midei appears to be a bad guy. But DYK is not the place to be marching...
Click to read more »is compliant in terms of hook length, image is on commons with a free license, additional QPQ review appreciated. ALT3 is ready. EdChem (talk) 13:40...
Click to read more »rejecting it. Anyway, I'm glad you like it, so let's go with it. The image license issue is more serious, though. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read Polish...
Click to read more »WP:DISCORD, ChaoticEnby said that their partner released the photo under the CC license and gave them permission to upload it. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:03, 27...
Click to read more »and verified. Article is well-sourced. Etc. Image is nice and has a good license. (If I've counted correctly, this leaves three articles in this nomination...
Click to read more »asking copyright owners to release their photographs under a Wiki-suitable license. This is by no means a DYK requirement, but would mean a major improvement...
Click to read more »the photographer can always release the photo under a Creative Commons license through the process described at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission...
Click to read more »are references, and it appears neutral. The image has a suitably free license and looks OK in miniature. copyvio check finds nothing. QPQ performed satisfactorily...
Click to read more »Alone in the Dark led to Chaosium removing Infrogames's Call of Cthulhu license? Source: Ichbiah, Daniel (2009). La Saga des Jeux Vidéo [The Video Game...
Click to read more »of communication for ROMU, who kindly offered a commercial-use-allowed license for a low-resolution photo (would want it to be non-commercial for anything...
Click to read more »number of problems: CopyVio The image used is not under Creative Commons license and it is under discussion as a likely copyright vio. Incomplete information...
Click to read more »that as it may, for ALT2, picture occurs in the article, has a suitable license, and the hook is referenced, and for the original hook without picture...
Click to read more »to go. ALT2, please. --Orlady (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Image license is OK, but for DYK it could be cropped. --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 4 January...
Click to read more »death does not precede personal life. The image is quite low quality. The licensing is not fully compliant; what proof is there that it was published before...
Click to read more »to commons are 3.0 or 2.0 - other than legal boilerplate - all of these licenses simply release the image to the public.Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 21 August...
Click to read more »question wasn't directed at you. BTW, an appraiser's license is quite different from a realtor's license. EEng 19:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC) The article is...
Click to read more »one-liners or bullet points, e.g. in the Variant section? (4) Picture licensing query: the picture has a free licence, but is the design on the cards...
Click to read more »More important, if I'm reading this correctly, ITV is suing for unpaid licensing fees, not plagiarism, and Alphabetical is based on The Alphabet Game but...
Click to read more »spotchecks in both articles. The image is from Flickr with an acceptable, free license. No POV problems that I can see, move stable for both. Froggerlaura ribbit...
Click to read more »only good for Mountain View Hospital (the predecessor name) in 2012. The licensing is likely to have changed once the St. Charles system took over the hospital;...
Click to read more »with something better, even better. - I am not sure about the picture license, reads somewhat restrictive. English is not my language, did you know?...
Click to read more »the quick review, Ktin. The image description page [1] indicates the licensing is appropriate. Also, I checked the img at 100px and it seems fine to...
Click to read more »Hope to get to this shortly. Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC) @Scorpions13256: Congratulations on sorting out the image licensing! I think...
Click to read more »compatible and accepted on commons by an OTRS admin. Its using a cc-sa 4.0 license. nableezy - 17:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Added as an option for promoters'...
Click to read more »unable to find a suitable one that can be uploaded to commons with proper licensing. Please help me find/upload a picture for this artifact. Created by Raydann (talk)...
Click to read more »now side by side – it just looks a little funny that there's a CC-BY-4.0 license alongside them as well. Seems contradictory. In any case I wouldn't be...
Click to read more »to screen a documentary would be to release it on the net under a free license, something that doesn't seem to have been considered at all. 4) The article...
Click to read more »page where the original is attributed. This is required by the CCBYSA license, and so it needs to be sorted out which is the original and which is the...
Click to read more »--> | publisher = | country = | history = | frequency = | openaccess = | license = | impact = | impact-year = | bluebook = | mathscinet = | nlm = | ISSN...
Click to read more »—CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC) The license checks out. Feel free to add it to the nomination. — Chris Woodrich (talk)...
Click to read more »sure it’s a primary source.) Tell me which image is the best and best license.I fixed because it’s not necessarily implied there were multiple androgynoi...
Click to read more »history ) ... that the DI MA-1 Mk. III rifle was made in Myanmar without license despite claims that it was made entirely in Myanmar? Source: https://web...
Click to read more »interesting and cited. Copyvio check finds none, and image has CCA Share-alike license 2.0 so can be used. Ready to go. Moonraker (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2012...
Click to read more »flawed.),[49] (In ... R$7,510,500.),[51] (On ... issue.),[56] (In ... license.),[58] (She ... problems.),[60] (Cyclists ... exploited.),[65] (The .....
Click to read more »in a video comment. You may include information such as your driver's license number, national identification number, or passport number. You can then...
Click to read more »lindberghitis in '27 and a year later became the proud owner of private license #5894", "Wings Over Dixie - Ninenty Niners", The Charlotte Observer, 26...
Click to read more »should be designated as fair use, rather than relying on the CC-BY-SA license: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Silverlake, Los Angeles...
Click to read more »(UTC) Well, I found a picture of a knife, but I don't know how to properly license it. http://knivesillustrated.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/KI-1210-QA-01...
Click to read more »short, interesting, and well-sourced. The image, meanwhile, has a proper license. Overall, this is an amusing article that is good enough to be shown in...
Click to read more »(talk) 13:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC) One issue; I'm uncertain about the licensing of a number of images in the article and in the image hook. Are you very...
Click to read more »--> | publisher = | country = | history = | frequency = | openaccess = | license = | impact = | impact-year = | bluebook = | mathscinet = | nlm = | ISSN...
Click to read more »copyright ©2006 Ferdinand Reus. All rights reserved." I didn't see the CC license anywhere. Am I missing something? BorgQueen (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2023...
Click to read more »War Other licenses Aliens Versus Predator 2 Gotham City Impostors Tron 2.0 The Matrix Online TNN Outdoors Pro Hunter 2 Standalone games Claw Get Medieval...
Click to read more »created it in 1933? It seems that Template:Logo fur is a more appropriate license. Flibirigit (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Substantial article on plenty...
Click to read more »copyvio (it needs to attribute any mirrored text to us per our copyleft licenses). Hook eligibility: Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good...
Click to read more »(talk) 16:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Perhaps GRuban knows about the image licensing - just helped with another one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 15 September...
Click to read more »have a look at Commons:Hirtle chart to see if you can find a suitable license, and amend if so. We can't put content on the main page that may be in...
Click to read more »is neutral in tone. All images used in the article have a public domain license on the Commons. The nominated image is used in the article, clear at a...
Click to read more »recommendation is written more explicitly as a requirement in Help:Translation § Licensing.) I do not believe the {{translated}} template on Talk:Gohobi satisfies...
Click to read more »it meets the DYK minimum. The image is relevant and has an appropriate license; I think it would be improved by cropping off the bottom (with the tops...
Click to read more »subject of the promoted article might violate WP:ASTONISH. The picture license of the beer is okay but that pic does not currently occur in the article...
Click to read more »different reviewer here. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Get your act together guys, this is a complete waste of everybody's time. Next...
Click to read more »