Talk:ICSID Review
Add topic | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Icsid review.gif
[edit]
Image:Icsid review.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Re-merged from "ICSID Review: Foreign Investment Law Journal"
[edit]A couple of days ago this article seems to have had a copy-and-paste move to ICSID Review: Foreign Investment Law Journal. Firstly, that is not the correct way to move articles to new titles, because it loses the editing history of the article; see WP:CPM. Second, the journal's web site itself refers to it as ICSID Review and the extra subtitle doesn't seem necessary to disambiguate it from any other ICSID review so I think the shorter title is better. I have merged the histories of the two article titles, here at the shorter title, but if anyone still feels that the longer title (or some other title) would be an improvement, here would be a good place to discuss it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)