Template talk:PermissionOTRS

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Gadget PermissionOTRS allows inserting this template easily.

Commons people with access to OTRS[edit]

A partial list of OTRS volunteers who are administrators on Commons is at m:OTRS/personnel (look for people with a "Y" in the "Commons" column.). Some OTRS volunteers can also be found on Category:Commons OTRS volunteers.

Is this template too complicated?[edit]

Hi,

Is this template too complicated? For instant, what is the function of the parameter "freeform" (idem for "debug") ?

The following code would be easier (limiting itself to the parameter ticket, id, or 1), wouldn't it ?

OTRS Wikimedia.svg The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available <template error: no id or ticket is specified>Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account.

Afrikaans | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | latviešu | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
{| class="messagebox" style="width: 100%;"
|-
| width="70" | [[Image:OTRS Wikimedia.svg|70px]]
| The permission for use of this work has been archived in [[Commons:OTRS|the Wikimedia OTRS system]]; it is available <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">{{ #if: {{{ticket|}}}| '''[{{{ticket}}} here]'''{{{category|[[Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed]]}}}
        |{{ #if: {{{id|}}}|as '''[[otrs:{{{id}}}|ticket {{{id}}}]]'''{{{category|[[Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed]]}}}
                       |{{ #if: {{{1|}}}|[[otrs:{{{1}}}|ticket {{{1}}}]]
                                | <span style="color: red; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic"><template error: no id or ticket is specified></span>{{{category|[[Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID]]}}}
                        }}
                }}
        }}</span> for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact [[m:OTRS/personnel|someone with an OTRS account]]. 
{{ #if: {{{ticket|}}}|<br /><small>Ticket link: {{{ticket}}}</small>}}
|-
| colspan="2" |
<center><hr width="90%" />{{Template:PermissionOTRS/lang}}</center>
|}

Cheers.--Bapti 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is too complicated. Unfortunately this is I think because different wikis use different parameters for this and the template tries to support them all. I have no idea what the freeform thing is. I'll check how this template is used and see whether I can simplify it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:ConfirmationOTRS[edit]

Is there anything stopping a bot from converting the image pages now using the deprecated {{ConfirmationOTRS}} to use {{PermissionOTRS}} instead? /Lokal_Profil 01:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Working on it.. Rocket000 09:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
And ✓ Done. Rocket000 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. /Lokal_Profil 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

It would be nice if there was an optional field to add details. As in [1] -- Drini 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to explain your wish more specific? I kind of understand what you would like to have, but it would be easier to understand if you write us more details. Thank you, my name 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: Please don't forget to sign your contributions on talk pages such as this one.

The proposal is to add a "note" field. The first 2 lines on the linked exampel are what we have now (links to the otrs ticket). The 3rd line is the proposal which could be used to add notes like "permission was given under the license XY for reuse all content from site ABC") that one is a bit simplist, but more examples could be constructed (it's always good to have the ability to add details when needed) -- Drini 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Example:

OTRS Wikimedia.svg El permiso para el uso de esta obra se ha recibido en el sistema OTRS de Wikimedia. (ticket en OTRS).
Si necesitas verificar el permiso, consulta a uno de los asistentes de OTRS.
  • Permiso para usar material del sitio www.sinviola.com.ar bajo la licencia GFDL. -- m:drini 20:28 21 jun 2008 (UTC)

comes from

{{PermissionOTRS|
    |ticket=https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1578290
    |nota=Permiso para usar material del sitio www.sinviola.com.ar bajo la licencia GFDL. -- m:drini  20:28 21 jun 2008 (UTC) }}

-- Drini 20:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

{{PermissionOTRS}} is supposed to be used inside {{Information}}. You would leave your note elsewhere inside that Information template, probably above or below the "PermissionOTRS" which is in the "Permission" section. Cbrown1023 talk 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think Drini's idea is very good: it increases transparency and makes life simpler for those without OTRS access. Many of us use the PermissionOTRS gadget that admits only introduction of the link, so adding further description would mean a second edit on the page; the script could be, however, adapted so two consecutive windows appear (first the link, then the short description). I don't know if you're using something like that already on es.wiki or if it's all done manually. Patrícia msg 14:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Add a tickmark to the template[edit]

OTRS Wikimedia verified.svg

I was confused recently by this template. I thought it meant that somebody had only submitted an ticket, not that it had also been confirmed. The reintroduction of a green checkmark icon of some kind would make things far clearer, as would a change in wording/emphasis of "archived"; perhaps replacing it with "verified and archived". --Tom Edwards (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a very good point to replace "archived" in "verified and archived". For the icon, I don't think a checkmark icon is clearer than the OTRS logo. And this logo is very useful to identify an OTRS permission on first glance.--Bapti 15:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Perhaps I'm nitpicking here, but it would be better to highlight only the words "verified and archived" (that way they stand out against the supporting text).
Also, I wasn't very clear about what I had in mind for the image. See the replacement above-left. :-) --Tom Edwards (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
it would be better to highlight only the words "verified and archived"
Yeah, maybe it's better to higligt only "verified and archived".
For the picture, I see your point but i think it's quite dissapointed to strike the OTRS logo with a green checkmark. Perhaps, it would make more sens to have the checkmark on the left for exemple instead of over the logo.--Bapti 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the current version is fine. No need to change the images. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rjd0060 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to people with an account[edit]

The template says "To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account.".

I propose changing the link to Category:Commons OTRS volunteers for obvious reasons. Any reason not to? - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this change especially as there is a link to m:OTRS/personnel on Category:Commons OTRS volunteers :)--Bapti 20:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Without objection, motion carried. Cirt (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, hope there is no problem with that. I think it just makes sense to do it that way. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Autotranslation[edit]

This template is going to be hard to auto translate. Anyone feels like he can pull this one of? Multichill (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Add link to OTRS Noticeboard[edit]

I'd like to replace

It is available for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account.

with

It is available for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account or leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard.

Any objections? - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No objections, so ✓ Done. See here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No link to ticket with ticket number[edit]

Here a ticket number is specified, but no link is produced. --Nemo 11:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Two related categories are also discussed there.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Add a See also section and move to doc-subpage[edit]

{{editprotected}}

1. Add a See also section:

See also

2. Add a {{documentation}} subpage, so others than admins can edit the documentation. Alternatively go for a semi-protected template. Nsaa (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done , there's already a documentation for this template at Template:PermissionOTRS/doc. However, the documentation template has been screwed up and it hasn't been fixed yet. Furthermore, I can see no point in linking to en.wikipedia's OTRS pending template, as this is the permission and not the pending template. --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing Tickets[edit]

There is a lot of files in the Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID directory. All these files produce valid looking templates like

OTRS Wikimedia

The permission to use this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. It is available for users with an OTRS account. If you wish to reuse this work elsewhere, please read the instructions at COM:REUSE. If you are a Commons user and wish to confirm the permission, please leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard.

It was suggested that {{PermissionOTRS}} with no ticket ID produce template with a warning instead of affirmation that ticket is "verified and archived". Any objections? --Jarekt (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Only objections is that it was not my idea ;-) It is far better that it has some kind of text saying that this files is claimed to have a permission but a link to the ticket is missing or whatever you think is a good text. --MGA73 (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obviously ;-) --Leyo 07:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I just found this File:Igreja Matriz de Treixedo 25.jpg it is bad... There is not ticket but template thinks so. If anyone knows how to fix that we could do that also. --MGA73 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Just forget that... It is probably better to keep the template simple and try to find and fix tickets with a bad syntax. So that is what I'm trying to do with my bot right now. --MGA73 (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I designed this category as a more AGF replacement for my previous attempt, Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed but needing more research, when I was working on the OTRS-related templates in September 2007. Ideally, it should be empty, and OTRS account-holders with time on their hands should be patrolling it for new erroneous syntax. If producing a (preferably red) error message rather than a valid-looking pretty box would help reduce that workload without arousing too much ire from our contributors, I would support it. For text of the error message, borrowing from the source of Template:Delete, I suggest "No OTRS ticket ID given. PLEASE give an OTRS ticket ID, or this item will end up in Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID."   — Jeff G. ツ 05:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Going farther[edit]

If OTRS (including its incoming queue) is searchable for the pagename, a bot with read-only OTRS access could theoretically be programmed to initiate deletion proceedings against any item alleging an OTRS ticket without a ticket ID and without mention of the item's pagename in OTRS, and we could add "and could eventually be deleted" to that error message. Any objections?   — Jeff G. ツ 05:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

2 years later[edit]

I proposed 2 years ago adding a small field to improve the template by adding notes, which we've been using on eswiki since then.

Examples: [2] [3] [4]

We usually do it to explicit the source/license on the ticket but it is sometimes useful for other infobits. This greatly helps people without OTRS access who can't access the original ticket.

I just want to know if it would be really bad or hurtful to add it (if it hadn't been done so).
If it's too much problem, I apologize, as I will continue adding that information bits (field note or not) as in File:EarthAngels.jpg [5] but it really looks messy and I think the alternative is better. -- Drini 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I checked the documentation but I found no clue if it's enabled or not, and I looked at the template code only to get puzzled by the template code and getting scared away. -- Drini 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Delinking "as"[edit]

Would anyone oppose my delinking "as" in the template? It would make more sense to only link "ticket ###" especially as ticket:### is the format of the interwiki link. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No opposition, so lets throw an editprotected tag up here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I'm looking wrong, but I don't see where "as" is linked... Trijnsteltalk 19:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done by another admin. Romaine (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
In future, please be more specific where and what to change. I had non-english interface and was slightly confused. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 11:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This comment has been restored. It was deleted by Sílvia Gomes. Also I marked it as done. -- Rillke(q?) 20:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


The word "verified" should be removed or replaced[edit]

In this 2008 edit, the word "verified" was added to the template, in bold. But OTRS agents do not really verify licenses, as various DRs and otrs notice-board discussions show. I propose that the declaration in the ticket does not correspond to reality. So I propose to remove that word, or to replace it with something less pretentious. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I second this as verified sounds like some 100% guarantee which it is not. While some sort of verification is expected to take place through an OTRS process it usually relies to some extent on the trust of third party statements. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done I agree that this addition was not right. I corrected it in en and pl versions. Could other users correct other languages?--Jarekt (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

related discussion[edit]

At the noticeboard is a discussion to remove the link and notice to contact somebody directly: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#PermissionOTRS. mabdul 17:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Acompanhamento de solicitação[edit]

Boa tarde, peço desculpa por incomodar, mas aconselharam-me a falar com um volutário do OTRS, pelo que vim falar aqui. Acontece que o meu email está demorado a ser respondido e a imagem carregada foi proposta para eliminação apesar de ter sido carregada via OTRS, pelo que eu gostaria, se não se importasse, que fizesse o acompanhamento da solicitação, o pedido diz respeito à seguinte imagem: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vanessa_como_Judy_Garland.png

Obrigada, Atenciosamente,Shania Twain Portugal (talk)

Template is not working correctly?[edit]

Is it just me or does {{PermissionOTRS}} not send the files to Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID? --MGA73 (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed -- Rillke(q?) 21:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
There are now 354 files in that category. I've already fixed some. There are several cases like this one where parameter 1 is the URL instead of the ID. It would be got if a bot could fix these cases. --Leyo 20:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This should be even doable with VisualFileChange, option custom replace. -- Rillke(q?) 21:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I might try it, but I am unsure if e.g. replacing https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=3538172 by id=3538172 would yield a correct link, since I cannot prove it. --Leyo 21:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. The OTRS seems like confusing people with their ticket and id usage. Now they point to ticket, even if id= was used in the template. I marked those what were used completely without reference as |missingID=true so it is easy to filter them (either out of that category or into a new category or both) by editing the template. About 20 of the remaining ones in the category had some parameters but their format was not recognized by my regexps. -- Rillke(q?) 21:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{edit request}}

There is extra linebreak due to the debug if expression at the end being on its own line; this results in an extra paragraph after the box when the template is used. Here's requesting that the linebreak be moved into the if expression. For the sake of avoiding any potential confusion, I have copied the entirety of the template source and made the change as follows:

Thanks. -— Isarra 17:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Snipe! Blurpeace 17:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Confirm permission[edit]

Hello OTRS volunteers commons came to tell you what my email is slow to be answered, it's been two days that I sent the email with permission to use the image http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/file:BreatheInLife.jpg want you to answer my email and confirm permission please, now the image is still in the public domain, and it should be of limited use for the file in wikipedia http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathe_In_Life.

(talk)

Sorry for my bad english. My email:eduardo-pb@hotmail.com _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Olá voluntários do OTRS commons vim aqui para dizer que o que o meu email está demorado a ser respondido, já faz 2 dias que eu mandei o email com a permissão de uso da imagem http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:BreatheInLife.jpg quero que respondam o meu email e confirmem a permissão por favor, atualmente a imagem ainda está em domínio púplico, e ela deverá ser de uso restrito para o arquivo na wikipédia http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathe_In_Life.

Preference for ticket= vs id=[edit]

The documentation says to use ticket= "when you know the URL of the OTRS ticket" and then to use id= "when you only know the ID number". That implies that the full-URL form is preferable. However, the former (apparently preferred) way displays the link as "here" whereas the other form displays the actual ticket id#. It seems like actually displaying the id# is a better way, since it's the permanent identifier of the ticket and is one that has a meaning to non-OTRS people). It also protects against changes to URL interface to the OTRS system (just need to update the template, which generates links from the id#, rather than fixing the hardcoded URLs in every place that the template is used). DMacks (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

ticket= parameter broken[edit]

{{edit request}} The URLs generated by the ticket= template parameter are broken. The index.pl CGI interface currently takes a TicketID= parameter rather than TicketNumber= DMacks (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I do not disagree with you but the request needs to be a little bit more specific do you want me to remove the ticket= option or do you have a suggestion as to what replacement code will fix the problem? MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
In the URL links that are generated, the CGI parameter-name should be "TicketID" rather than "TicketNumber". For example:
ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber={{{id}}}
becomes:
ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID={{{id}}}
There are a total of three such/similar occurrences. To verify that it's correct, check that the links in the documentation examples #2 ({{PermissionOTRS|id=0000000000000000}}) and 3 ({{PermissionOTRS|2000000000000000}}) produce links that do not result in "Error: No TicketID is given!" error-pages from the OTRS system. DMacks (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
If an OTRS volunteer had confirmed that, I would have replaced these 3 occurrences. -- Rillke(q?) 20:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Ticket:0000000000000 still links to TicketNumber. The IW-map must be changed? (should be done before)
I had a talk with a member of the Wikimedia Support team (OTRS) and he confirmed that both links (id and ticket) work. Please prove that this change is required (or ask an other OTRS member who is also admin here, directly). Thank you. -- Rillke(q?) 20:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
To test I cloned the template to User:DMacks/test1 and put a live ticket# value into its examples at User:DMacks/test1/doc—I have OTRS en permissions and can access it using the normal OTRS system (no comment on its specific merits obviously):
  • {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2012052010005694}}
generates links to
https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=201205201000569
(obviously:), to which OTRS responds "No Permission!" even when I am already viewing that ticket in another browser tab.
  • {{PermissionOTRS|id=2012052010005694}}
generates links to
https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2012052010005694
to which OTRS displays the ticket as expected.
So I no longer understand at all what's going on except that these two URLs are not functionally equivalent synonyms. Why "the other" one worked vs not in my earlier test (using the actual template doc examples) I also don't know or care (except to again demonstrate that they are not equivalent URL syntaxes, or at best the lay language meanings of the terms "ticket ID" and "ticket #" are not numerically equal). DMacks (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Update required to use the interwiki mapped shortcut[edit]

Looks to be about time that we change the notation of this template to utilise the interwiki mapped shortcut [[ticket:ddddddddddd]] rather than the more complex extended form on show.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This template handles both calls like {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=######}} and more standard {{PermissionOTRS|id=################}}. Right now both are handled by the same code and that can not be done by [[ticket:ddddddddddd]]. So for simplicity sake the current version is better. --Jarekt (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the template[edit]

If you use the template incorrectly, the template should preferably notify you and put the file in some maintenance category. For example, File:1258984509 cover2009.jpg has {{PermissionOTRS|ticket number}}. Since the tag contains the words "ticket number" instead of including the actual ticket number, there is no way to verify whether the permission is correct. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I nominated this file for deletion. I agree that your proposal would be quite useful, but I have no idea how to do that. Yann (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed in the current version. --Jarekt (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of the template[edit]

This template wikicode seems to be very complicated to the point of not readable. I looked through it, identified several options which are no longer used and removed them. Then rewrote the template at {{PermissionOTRS/sandbox}} and tested the new and old versions at {{PermissionOTRS/testcases}}. The new version should be much simpler and readable, and the part of the code for detecting Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID, should work this time. Are there any other test cases I should make sure that work before swapping the templates? --Jarekt (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request of 14 March 2013[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please go to Template:PermissionOTRS/en and change "The permission for use of this work" to "Permission to use this work". The current wording sounds very unnatural. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done--Jarekt (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This template misleads people about the licence and is badly worded[edit]

I routinely use Wikimedia Commons to obtain images for classroom use and I'm careful to note the license terms so that I can abide by them (even though it's not always necessary under my local copyright law). However, this template regularly makes me do a double-take and I imagine it's even more confusing for people who aren't used to Commons.

Imagine someone arrives at a Commons page from Wikipedia, wondering whether they can use an image on their website or in their presentation. They see the heading Permission and are confronted with an unreadable paragraph about something called OTRS. They are told "If you wish to reuse this work elsewhere, please read the instructions at COM:REUSE." They go to the mysterious COM:REUSE (perhaps wondering "is that some other website????") and find a page that does not contain any reference whatsoever to OTRS! If they persist and read further down the image page they may find the Creative Commons license/PD/etc. terms of use, but that relatively clear statement is muddled by this template. They must "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" .....is that what OTRS is for?

Can this template please be rewritten or hidden so that people can use the images in Commons as the authors and uploaders intended?! Why not change 'Permission' to 'Are you the copyright holder?' or something else more informative? 106.3.103.128 14:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. make the text smaller and put a "heading" saying ✓ Permission confirmed or similar. --93.132.210.33 11:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I wondered what this tag meant when I first came across it. I thought it was some special license that needed other permissions besides the CC/GDFL. It could be worded better. "This template is not a license. It merely verifies the licensing elsewhere on this file page has been accepted by the OTRS system. Com:Re-users may wish to verify #xxxxxxxxxxxxx is valid for the licensing at Com:OTRS/NB or check the file history to insure it was added correctly." --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree --Jarekt (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree. That looks like enough consensus. Should we have an admin boldly change it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The reference to OTRS and the ticket number are important. What OTRS is all about can be easily examined by following the link. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think one of the main issues is re-users asking about how to attribute at the OTRS notice board. I have seen a few queries there. They go to com:reuse and it doesn't explain the OTRS tag so they end up at OTRS asking. We may also look into seeing if a bot can detect a non-OTRS member adding or modifying an OTRS tag which has also been done.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
A bot for this task is not required; this is caught by filter 69. OTRS is linked to and this should explain it. The link to the OTRS noticeboard is helpful as well even if occassionally unrelated questions about reusing images are asked for. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So lets look at the actual text:

"The permission to use this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. It is available as ticket #2000000000000000 for users with an OTRS account. If you wish to reuse this work elsewhere, please read the instructions at COM:REUSE. If you are a Commons user and wish to confirm the permission, please leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard."

How should we improve it, if at all? To me the first 2 sentences are fine. The 3rd sentence about the com:reuse seems unnecessary, and it seems to be confusing to others. If nothing else it is in a wrong place stuck between 2 sentences about OTRS. The forth sentence starting with "If you are a Commons user " seems to be putting unnecessary conditions about who is allowed to leave a note. May be it should just be "If you wish to confirm...". I also agree with the suggestion to clearly state somewhere that this is not a license, and may be that license should be somewhere on the page. Finally I think we should add some small print asking regular non-OTRS users not to add it to the files themselves, but to wait for OTRS agent to do it for them. --Jarekt (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Being in the Permission field may be part of the confusion as well. If it were after any licenses then only commons users would probably read it. It could be shortened to:
"Licensing was approved by the the Wikimedia OTRS system with ticket #2000000000000000. If you wish to confirm the permission before re-using, please leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard."--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry but I think that this adds more confusion. Firstly, what is the Wikimedia OTRS system? This is basically a tool, a piece of software. It certainly does not approve anything. Secondly, we have an OTRS team who processes, among other tasks, incoming permission tickets. But it does not approve them but simply tags the images with this ticket, if the permission ticket appears genuine and sound. Please note also that a similar verb verified was removed before due to this discussion. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree my wording isn't perfect. The 'system' is a combination of the emails, the volunteers, and the software. I still feel that the existing wording is confusing as it looks like more permission is needed to re-use the file. Just being in the permission section causes that. If the summary template had a received section it would fit better there. Moving it below all licenses would probably solve most issues. I put Template:Personality rights above licenses because I feel that should be read first before re-use off-wiki. With most images the license should be read before the OTRS template that just processed it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Privacy link[edit]

{{editprotected}} It's proposed to add, in Template:PermissionOTRS/en after "available", a (linked) adverb "only" (and similarly on the Template:OTRS received text). One word can save some confusion.[6] --Nemo 11:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done in en and pl versions.--Jarekt (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The "only" should go after the "as ticket #xxx" text. Otherwise the "only" modifies the ticket number rather than users when the template is used with a ticket number. --Jfhutson (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that was the intention, although both interpretations work fine and mean about the same. The template page version modifying users was accidental and I removed "only" if ticket info is missing. --Jarekt (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarify the second sentence[edit]

I suggest that the second sentence in the box can be made clearer by changing from "It is available for users ..." to "The details of the permission are available for checking by users ..." because it currently gives the impression that the permission to reuse the work is for OTRS members only. Green Giant (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think that people will misunderstand this. The preceding sentence references that it is referring to the permission for the work. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
If we assume that uninformed readers know what OTRS is about but we shouldn't assume that. The "It" in the second sentence refers to "The permission to use this work" in the first sentence, so the second sentence can be read as meaning that only OTRS members can reuse the work, rather than anyone can reuse the work. It might be clearer to just remove the second sentence altogether because we can assume that OTRS members will know how to check the permission anyway. Green Giant (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree...This has been the first question in ... years. But if anybody else has anything to say... Rjd0060 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
On the one hand I agree with Green Giant that the second sentence could be made more clear. If it was a new template than I would not mind changing it. But on the other hand it is not that bad, it did not change from the version #1, I do not like to make short templates longer, current version is mostly in synch with English wikipedia template (including that sentence) and the changes might trigger need to change 60 other language subtemplates. But I guess I am weakly leaning towards changing, I would propose changing "It is available for users with an OTRS account." to "Full documentation is available to OTRS volunteers." Or may be ".. is available for review by ..", "... can be reviewed by ...", "... can be verified by ...". Any other opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)