Commons talk:Wikimedia VRT release generator

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator.


Next generation technology[edit]

Thanks to FDMS4 for developing this powerful tool. My guess of the historical time loss in trying to coordinate the unfortunate image permission process is thousands of human labor hours from hundreds of thousands of people. In the future people will find it unimaginable that we had a weird process requiring website navigation, cutting and pasting weird templates from various places, an unstructured off-wiki email conversation, and approval from multiple highly trained/educated Wikimedia editors just to get pictures uploaded.

The last form was awesome. This on-wiki one is better. Not only do we save time now but we also greatly lower the barrier for anyone to get their media into Commons. Also this will greatly increase quality control in tracking the provenance of copyright.

Wow wow, I know we still have to improve for the future but this is fairly called next generation technology. Awesome thanks and great. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text box for entering filenames is not user friendly[edit]

In the last 24 hours, I have tried to instruct several people how to use this release generator, but two people have had difficulty with using the text field where the file names need to be entered. In an email to them, I explained exactly what text to copy and paste for the Commons file names, but where they are getting hung up is using the pipe character as a delimiter. One didn't understand how to enter the character from his keyboard and tried using an uppercase i, while another tried simply to copy paste all the file names into the box. At the risk of frustrating them enough with back-and-forth emails that they want to give up and not follow through 100% on the release process, I instead gave them instructions on how to send a release using the older email template which is not preferred. I get the feeling that a lot of authors who will be using this form are older and not as tech savvy, so I would recommend that the form be modified to be more user friendly. Perhaps have one text box per file name, and have a + icon that can add an additional text box for any subsequent file names that need to be entered. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Y2kcrazyjoker4, thanks for your feedback. I'm aware that pipe characters aren't the easiest to type, however, there aren't really any more user-friendly alternatives since other characters could be part of acceptable MediaWiki file names or URLs. I originally decided against requiring users to add separate input boxes for additional files since that usually takes longer than just typing a character (provided you know how to type it, of course) and also bloats up the simplistic interface, but I have nevertheless added separate input boxes for additional files to my to-do list.    FDMS  4    09:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wording of the OTRS e-mail generated[edit]

Please see Commons:Village_pump#OTRS_release_generator_produces_text_not_understood_by_OTRS_admins - it seems the text is not accepted well by OTRS admins.--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Commons:Village pump discussion, there is nothing wrong with the text. Whether case is clear or not is determined by the OTRS agent handling the ticket. The best way for a ticket to be processed is for the sender to respond the queries/email. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tool translation[edit]

Hi, I wanted to know how can I translate the tool, could somebody help with that? Thanks, Elisardojm (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me see if I can help:
  1. Translate MediaWiki:Relgen.js/text into your own language, example: MediaWiki:Relgen.js/i18n/nl;
  2. Translate the Commons:Relgen langswitches, example: [1];
  3. Ask FDMS4 to implement your text (or any other interface admin);
  4. If you have any questions, ping FDMS4.
Ciell (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Ciell! I think that all is done, Galician translation is at MediaWiki talk:Relgen.js/i18n/gl. FDMS4, could you copy the translation? Thanks to all! Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elisardojm Thanks, ✓ Done --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 12:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Dyolf77! Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ciell: I have shamelessly copied and adapted your instructions to MediaWiki:Relgen.js/i18n, there is now an inputbox with the source text as a preload that should assist users in creating translations. The aforementioned page is now also advertised at the top of this talkpage. Thank you!    FDMS  4    18:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wauw, that looks great FDMS4! Ciell (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do I actually switch languages for the tool? I don't see a language switch. --MB-one (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tool (and I think all 'i18n' translations) pick up your standard language setting for the Wikimedia projects. At the top of each page you can switch your general language setting, and the displayed language for this kind of tools will change with that. Ciell (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to modify the release generator[edit]

I initially posted this proposal at Commons Talk:Email templates but since it involves the release generator, I thought it best to include it here. The purpose of my proposed changes is to help eliminate some of the frustration and repetitive, time consuming, back-and-forth exchanges between OTRS agents and uploaders by simply providing the important questions/instructions at the time of upload. Following are the most common reasons for the proposed changes to the release generator:

  1. the upload is missing the attachment
  2. the file is already uploaded, but the submitter does not provide the filename
  3. the submitter fails to complete certain parts of the form
  4. the person in the picture is granting the license

Can the following changes be made and scripted (java?) as instructions in the release generator? Also, to help eliminate spam & junk mail - can we simply add a CAPTCHA? The following example shows what a completed form by a hypothetical uploader would look like using a form similar to what we're using now for a CC-BY-SA 4.0 (international) release. My red text shows the proposed changes/additions; the highlighted text is my explanation of how the script would work.


I hereby affirm that I, [name], am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the ☑attached ▢ uploaded media work: coded to check that a name was included and that one of the 2 choices was marked - if not, code triggers an error message with the reason it cannot be saved and what to fix.

(content attached to this email) <— if “attached" is checked but there is no attachment (over a certain size to avoid confusion with sig card attachments) code prevents upload and sends an error message with what needs to be fixed.

If uploaded, provide name of file on Commons: (File:Name of your image.jpg) <— coded to make sure one of the 2 choices (attached or uploaded) is marked and if uploaded was checked. If file name not provided and uploaded is checked, an error message pops up with what needs fixing.

I am not the person in the image
▢ I am the person in the image. Note to submitter: If you are the person in the image, the photographer must submit this form directly from their email account. If this image is a selfie or self portrait using your camera’s timer, be sure to check the box that says you are the actual photographer. If it was a “ work for hire” arranged by your school, government or company, please submit verifiable evidence with confirmation that the photographer released all claims of copyright. (If a school, government or company, this form must be filled out and submitted by an authorized person)
I am the actual photographer of the image Note to uploader: check this box if the image was a selfie or taken using the self-timer on your camera.

  • I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
  • I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
  • I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
  • I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
  • I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Roesel's bush-cricket (Metrioptera roeselii diluta) male.jpg

Thank you in advance for your consideration of the proposed changes. Please ping me when you respond. Atsme Talk 📧 09:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Atsme Talk 📧 15:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually the attachment is never necessary if the file has been uploaded on Commons, and, most importantly, we do not want attached files! Actually, what is needed is the URL on Commons, and the URL of a potential previous publication. Then, I would not include the "I am the person in the image", but specify in the guidelines thatwe do accept only the photographer's permission or the person in the image must provide the documentation (from the photographer) that allows him to upload the file under free license. So, from my point of view, it is more completing eventually the guidelines than modifying the current release statement. Ruthven (msg) 13:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, Ruthven. The modifications I've proposed are based entirely on real life cases (and boilerplate emails) because contributors tend to either not read the guidelines, or misinterpret them or simply overlook something. I also provided for those images that already uploaded by requesting the submitter to provide the URL. These automated modifications will prevent inadequate submissions and include instructions to the applicant to make the necessary corrections - it saves us bukoos of time, and addresses what you brought up in an automated response. Think about when you make a purchase online, and you fill out their form - if you don't include a zipcode, or phone number, payment info, etc. - the form rejects submission and tells you what is needed. I think a simple rewording of the image upload section that I included in the modifications will fix the issue you brought up about not wanting image submissions; however, I disagree that we should remove that option entirely. Otrs agents are often asked to upload the image because contributors are intimidated by the process. In a short period of time, I have handled multiple permission requests that had images attached, and I'd much rather get the upload correct at the time of the release, which includes adding the permissions tag, checking the quality, and knowing what article it's going in, all in one felled sweep. I think it's really good that we're working together to find ways to automate and not procrastinate using boilerplate emails that prolong the process. Atsme Talk 📧 14:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as an OTRS agent, it becomes frustrating to be replying to emails over and over again, "what is the url?", "what article is it for?", etc., when an improved template as suggested by Atsme would be much more efficient and probably reduce the unnecessary back-and-forth by half.  JGHowes  talk 14:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as an OTRS agent, unless the option to attach a file is removed. Attachments don't help, it creates more work for the OTRS agent to upload it, and if the OTRS agent doesn't upload it (and I always decline to do so) then more interaction is needed to explain what to do. I prefer the file to be uploaded first, so that I can review the release and tag the upload page appropriately. If you let people attach files, then they will do so. The back-end code can determine if the file page URL is valid; that's all we need. Anachronist (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, some of you may not be aware but look at the submitted tickets from the release generator - it already includes that option: "I hereby affirm that I represent [yada yada], the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: content attached to this email" That which triggers our first round of boilerplate emails to tell the contributor there is nothing attached - an extra step we don't need. My proposal simply compensates for the failures in the current generator form. We can always polish the verbage. What we need right now is for OTRS agents to get behind it, and demonstrate that (1) there is an issue as I've pointed out, and (2) that we can fix it with proper scripting; i.e., 21st Century updates. Are we on the same page now? Atsme Talk 📧 21:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the "content attached to this email" makes sense for photosubmission queue, and is needed for that. For the rest, if english queues don't have a boilerplate saying: "And what's the URL of the uploaded files then?", please write it and the issue is solved in one click of the mouse. Ruthven (msg) 21:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know the existing generator already includes that option. That's broken in my opinion, so while we're looking at improvements, then the biggest improvement would be to remove the option to attach a picture. The same release generator shouldn't be used for the photo submission queue, but if it is, then there should be some dynamic javascript that changes the form based on its purpose ("I want to upload a photo" vs "I want to give permission from a photo I uploaded"). Anachronist (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 100% Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Anachronist. The option to attach a file should be removed at first as a single step, and after monitoring the improvement for some weeks, additional steps can be discussed. Don't mixed different things into a single change, this is a marathon, not a sprint. --Krd 13:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We can certainly modify that language in the generator - I don't see that as a problem - but we must also eliminate similar references in the email templates which is what caused me to add it in the first place: See Commons:Email_templates#Email message template for release of rights to a file, #4 (my bold text): You must clearly identify the content that you're permitting us to use. A statement such as "I am creator of the images used on XYZ page" is NOT sufficient. You must provide exact URL link(s) to the content or attach the content to the email message. For images, we prefer that you upload them to Wikimedia Commons, place Subst:OP somewhere on the file description page, and provide the URL(s) of the uploaded content in your email message. And in our boilerplates for "Photosubmission nothing attached": Unfortunately, we could not find an image attached to your request. Please respond to this email with your originally intended upload. Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia., and "Photosubmission: Successful submission": We have uploaded your photograph to our site, and have inserted it into the appropriate article. Thank you for providing it. What is the purpose of those boilerplates because that is what I used to modify the generator language. Atsme Talk 📧 14:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As an OTRS agent who has resolved over 1000 tickets, I don't like to be treated as an upload service. I wouldn't download a 10MB image and upload it to Commons only to waste 20MB of my internet capacity. Simple as that 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Isn't User:Atsme's proposal specifically about photosubmissions in the first place? As matters now stand, we get an OTRS ticket from John Doe granting a cc-by-sa4.0 license, but no indication of whether it's a photo that's already uploaded and, if so, what is the filename/url/username? This, then, necessitates the OTRS agent reply with en-2 "Commons-What image are you discussing?". Then, when John Doe replies, "It's myself", we send "en-Permission from photographer not subject", and so forth. The improved generator proposed by User:Atsme would streamline this unnecessary back-and-forth. Why anyone would oppose this is beyond me. Secondly, a blanket prohibition on OTRS accepting photosubmissions by email would eliminate a source of desired photos. I'm thinking of useful images of notable persons we sometimes receive from authorized representatives of corporations, institutions of higher learning, celebrity's press agents, etc. The alternative, which requires the copyright holder to set up a Commons user account, is really not very realistic for such cases, is it?  JGHowes  talk 23:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative Modification[edit]

Since the opposes above are focused on "attached images and uploads", I have simply removed that portion from the text, and made a few adjustments. We can fix the email boilerplates ourselves.


I hereby affirm that I, [name of copyright holder], am the (check only one) ▢ creator, ▢ photographer or ▢ sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:Insert file name, which is the media work that was uploaded to Commons.
script checks to see (1) that a name is present, (2) one of the 3 boxes has been checked, and (3) that a file name was included. If not, it triggers an error message with the reason the form cannot be submitted and what needs to be fixed.

If the image is a portrait, please check one of the following:
▢ This image is a portrait, and I am the person depicted in the image. ▢ A verifiable signed release by the photographer is attached. Note to uploader: If you are the person in the image, the photographer must submit this form directly from their email account or you must submit a verifiable copy of the copyright release signed and provided to you by the photographer.
▢ This image is a self-portrait, Note to uploader: check this box only if the image was a selfie or taken using the self-timer on your camera.
▢ This image was a work for hire that was arranged by a school, government or company, and I have complete authority as the [insert title] to release the copyright under the license specified on this form.
At this point, the script checks to see if the appropriate boxes have been checked, and if not, it prevents submission and generates an error message with instructions for what is needed. For example, if sole owner was checked, and image is a portrait is checked, the script prevents submission unless work for hire is also checked. These are the details that can be worked out with the scriptwriter who modifies the generator text.

  • I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
  • I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
  • I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
  • I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
  • I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

That should work a little better. I believe it will help immensely in cutting down on the back and forth emails, save time and frustration, and also save volunteers from having to upload images for others, now that I know it was not part of our job. What I've suggested here is open to further suggestions and modification. I'm hoping for input, not a vote. It's obvious that we need to automate some of our work and this is just one step in the process. In the interim, happy back and forth! :-) Atsme Talk 📧 18:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion for newest modification proposal[edit]

Please provide proposed changes and related input below. Sorry about delay, but I've been without PC for a while. As OTRS agent, I'm quite tired to get permissions from the subject of the file. It's a long discussion with them to explain they're not the copyright holder unless they've got a contract. Is iy possible to set clear this point somewhere? Thanks. Sorry if this is not the right place to write about this, but most of the permissions have this problem. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, details of the modifications will be worked out with the tech who writes the script. As proposed above, we include the following note to uploader: If you are the person in the image, the photographer must submit this form directly from their email account or you must submit a verifiable copy of the copyright release signed and provided to you by the photographer. We can always tweak the wording before anything is set in stone. Atsme Talk 📧 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"you must submit a verifiable copy of the copyright release signed and provided to you by the photographer" could be not enough. This point could lead to forward emails, and We don't accept forwarded emails. Perhaps add "and provided to you by the photographer as pdf, jpg, etc" could be more specific. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OTRS/VRTS rename[edit]

Commons:OTRS redirects to Commons:Volunteer Response Team.

Should the text on this page (and the next steps) be renamed from OTRS to VRTS (Volunteer Response Team Software)?

However, it might cause confusion if the page heading and titles are OTRS and the text mentions VRTS. // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator, it should be renamed to Commons:Wikimedia release generator, as there is no need to use VRTS there. --Krd 15:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would this break anything? The page appears to load MediaWiki:Relgen.js and I'm not sure if it directly references this page title anywhere. Courtesy pinging FDMS4 (though they seem to be inactive) — Berrely • TC 11:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it a typo that this page is called the "Wikimedia VTR release generator" but says VRT in the body text? --2A00:23C4:8083:B001:3CC9:B324:2131:832C 09:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it definetely is... DragonflySixtyseven can you fix the error? — Berrely • TC 10:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Localisation and update of the some strings[edit]

Proposed:

  1. localize "Loading …" phrase
  2. localize "release of" phrase in the release email subject
  3. localize "Wikimedia VRTS release generator - Wikimedia Commons" phrase
  4. replace lost "OTRS" > "VRT"
  5. localize "Version " + "developed and maintained by" phrase

See all proposed changings implemented in the sandbox:

After changes, needs update all translations.

Ping @Jarekt, @FDMS4.
Ping also @Ruthven

--Kaganer (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Ruthven for @Kaganer, who should be aware that per mw:Extension:Echo#Usage, one must link to another user's page and sign in the same edit (or mention in an Edit Summary) in order to effectively mention, notify, or ping them, and even then only if they have "Notify me when someone links to my user page" set (which is the default here).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G., Should be aware, but should be not remember. I enough rarely do this to keep it in my head permanently. --Kaganer (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaganer ✓ Done Some translations are still to be updated. Ruthven (msg) 10:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven, i'm sorry - but i'm lost two localized strings in first stage. See minor updates Revision #722977792 and Revision #722978134. --Kaganer (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: In your edit (but not on Kaganer’s subpage), developer is assigned without having been declared. Browsers may accept it, but I don’t think it’s valid JavaScript. Please change developer = in line 17 to var developer =. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe "contentSub" section currently is not generated correctly (language values not substituted) because of this issue. --Kaganer (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagline[edit]

@Ruthven, tagline string still seen in any languages as:

⧼relgen-common-ver-v1⧽ 1.5 | ⧼relgen-common-dev-v1⧽

(without substitution of translated texts). --Kaganer (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kaganer Any suggestion? Ruthven (msg) 13:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe is needs realise suggestion by @Tacsipacsi above - change developer = in line 17 to var developer =. --Kaganer (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to Creative Commons[edit]

Attribution — you must ... provide a link to the license. I'm not sure, but should the link to the license, and not just its name, be included in the text of a generated email? Анастасия Львоваru/en 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support. But this is not a minor change.
IMHO, Is needs to add "licenseurl" variable, depends from "license" value.
And define this as switch, for
  • "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International" = "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed." + ulang
  • "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" = "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed." + ulang
  • "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal" = "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed." + ulang
And then using this value for generate hyperlink in the result text for release email. --Kaganer (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Release email subject string for Japan (and some other languages)[edit]

(copied from Revision #723294680)

@Whym wrote: "Can the first line be "release of $1"? In normal Japanese, "release of" will be translated as a suffix, not a prefix to the title of the work. Anything I can think of with a prefix would have to be an acrobatic use of language. "

My proposal:

IMHO, for this improving, in string #175 is needs replace

mw.msg("relgen-s5-subj-v1") + ' ' + subj

to the

mw.msg("relgen-s5-subj-v1", subj)

and then replace in MediaWiki:Relgen.js/text

	"relgen-s5-subj-v1": "release of", // Prefix for release email subject string

to the

	"relgen-s5-subj-v1": "release of $1", // Release email subject string, where $1 - list of mediafiles OR text of "relgen-res-p3s-c2-v1"

All exist translations may be updated directly, if this is relevant. --Kaganer (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping @Ruthven --Kaganer (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaganer Let's try to figure out all the changes before modifying the JS. In that way we'll avoid asking for translations many times (as we've already done). Thanks Ruthven (msg) 21:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm agree. This is notice only. --Kaganer (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaganer ✓ Done and fixed the var problem. Ruthven (msg) 13:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]