Template talk:PermissionTicket/Archive/2014

Privacy link

{{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.[1] --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)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarify the second sentence

{{Edit request}} 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)

@Rjd0060: As an OTRS agent, I have regularly seen requests that were presumably prompted by such misunderstanding, asking how they can get permission to use: ticket:2014071110012203 and ticket:2014070310017116 for recent examples. Although they don't necessarily say "I am asking because I saw this tag", but these kind of requests for permissions to use are significantly more frequent for images with the OTRS tag than for others in my experience. I believe a clearer wording and design would help reduce the workload of OTRS agents. whym (talk) 23:30, 2 September 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)

• I find the text ambiguous and unclear. The second sentence could mean three things:

1. Only people with OTRS access can view the permission statement.
2. Only people with OTRS access are permitted to use the material.
3. Only people with OTRS access can access the material.

If you are having trouble identifying the correct interpretation, you could take a look at the Swedish translation, which tells you that either the second or the third interpretation is the correct one, whereas the first one is impossible (wrong gender of "it").

I suggest that we disambiguate the English text and check all translations for errors such as the one in the Swedish translation. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the reasons I made this request is that some files have the OTRS template in the Summary section and the actual license in the Licensing section. See for example File:Blausen 0353 Epidermis.png, which is the subject of a request currently at the OTRS noticeboard. I don't wish to criticise this method of displaying the license but I can see how uninformed readers might notice the OTRS template and might miss the CC license. This could be solved by adding a new parameter to contain the actual license, similar to how {{PD-Art}} can incorporate one of several PD templates, e.g. {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}. For an example please see File:" Manuel da Costa Ataíde - Agonia e Morte de São Francisco ".jpg. So an OTRS agent could add the following to a file that has been licensed through OTRS: {{PermissionOTRS |id=################ |license=CC-BY-SA 4.0}} and the result would be the normal OTRS box with a license beneath the ticket link but incorporated within the box. Green Giant (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the license should be added directly to the file and not through additional parameters to {{PermissionOTRS}}. License templates are often often quite complicated (see Commons:Multi-license copyright tags for example) and come with additional parameters. There is no need to complicate this template any further. I agree that the traditional way of adding {{PermissionOTRS}} to the permission field of the {{Information}} template and putting license in a new License section might not be the best layout, but for some reason that is how most files use it. We are not going to change it.

By the way I just looked at the template code of the second sentence and in most cases (when {{PermissionOTRS}} is using "id" parameter) the sentence will be: "It is available only as ticket #xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for users with an OTRS account.". May be change to "Full documentation is available only to OTRS volunteers as ticket #xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx."? --Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough but at the very least OTRS members should be encouraged (but not forced) to put the OTRS template and license template together, either in Permissions or Licensing. One uninformed reader has just explained that they asked about the permission to use an image at the OTRS noticeboard because they were confused by the wording of the template. Including this user, there are four current requests and approximately thirty more archived requests in 2014, which have asked for permission to use an image, despite those images having appropriate licenses. The only reason they are asking at the noticeboard is because the OTRS template confuses them about the licensing. Perhaps it is time to revise the wording of this template so there is as little potential for confusion as possible? Green Giant (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This really does need fixing because the stream of people asking permission is growing - see the most recent three. Green Giant (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done en and pl version. Green Giant thank you for pushing this. --Jarekt (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)