Template talk:PermissionTicket

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see Archive/. The latest archive is located at Archive/2024.

Gadget PermissionOTRS allows inserting this template easily.

Commons people with access to OTRS

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bapti (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 November 2008‎ (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Example:

	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)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Missing Tickets

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

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)[reply]
Support Obviously ;-) --Leyo 07:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Going farther

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)[reply]

2 years later

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The word "verified" should be removed or replaced

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Acompanhamento de solicitação

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shania Twain Portugal (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Confirm permission

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardopb (talk • contribs) 22:42, 13 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Preference for ticket= vs id=

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)[reply]

ticket= parameter broken

{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If an OTRS volunteer had confirmed that, I would have replaced these 3 occurrences. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rewrite of the template

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)[reply]

This template misleads people about the licence and is badly worded

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)[reply]

Support. make the text smaller and put a "heading" saying

Permission confirmed or similar. --93.132.210.33 11:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree --Jarekt (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. That looks like enough consensus. Should we have an admin boldly change it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rewrite

Hi folks! As noted above, this template has a history of making people think they need to ask the noticeboard for permission before using the content in question. Here is a rewrite that:

starts by stating that the content is free and that requesting permission isn't needed
uses human-readable link text instead of ~~en:WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!~~COM:REUSE
calls OTRS what it is (a permission archive) instead of referring to it by the cryptic four-letter abbreviation for the tool used to manage it
avoids the phrase "confirm the permission", needless links to unhelpful Wikipedia articles

This work is [[freedomdefined:Definition|free]] and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to '''[[Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia|use this content]]''', you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page.

Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been '''{{color|#0f7f1f|reviewed}}''' by a [[:Category:Commons OTRS volunteers|trusted volunteer]] and stored in our [[Commons:OTRS|permission archive]]. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers{{ #if: {{{1|}}} | {{nbsp}}<span class="plainlinksneverexpand">{{#if: {{{2|}}} | as '''[{{{1}}} ticket #{{{2}}}]'''|[{{{1}}} here]}}</span>}}.

<small>If you are a Commons user and have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the [[Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard|OTRS noticeboard]].</small>

Here's the current text from Template:PermissionOTRS/en for comparison:

The permission to use this work has been <span style="font-weight:bold;color:#0F7F1F;">archived</span> in [[Commons:OTRS|the Wikimedia OTRS system]]. Full documentation is available [[w:en:Secrecy of correspondence|only]] to [[:Category:Commons OTRS volunteers|OTRS volunteers]] {{ #if: {{{1|}}} | <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">{{#if: {{{2|}}} | as '''[{{{1}}} ticket #{{{2}}}]'''|[{{{1}}} here]}}</span>}}. 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 [[Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard|OTRS noticeboard]].

—LX (talk, contribs) 22:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It looks indeed better. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been sitting for five weeks now, there seems to be some support, no opposition, and yet the text is being changed without implementing the changes above. What gives? —LX (talk, contribs) 08:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made that change because anybody can ask for confirmation, not just Commoners. I would rather see far less text because I think it confuses some people. So far this year, we've had twenty requests and there were more than forty last year from people who think OTRS can give them permission to use an image. I get the impression that they ask at the noticeboard because of the text of the template. In fact I would support a complete redesign of the OTRS templates and the methodology. Green Giant (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with removing the bit about "if you are a Commons user". Anyone reading the text is a Commons user in my book. I agree that people ask for permission at the noticeboard because of the template – that's precisely what the reworded version addresses. What I don't understand is why the edit request is neither implemented nor rejected. Using full protection on a demonstrably confusing template and then ignoring edit requests is not how page protection is supposed to be used. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done – requested lowering of the protection level and updated the template myself instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small change to reflect status quo. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as I explained above, it's a bad idea to keep throwing the abbreviation of the tool that our permission archive happens to use in the face of new users. (Besides, "a otrs member" isn't even proper English – it should be "an", and writing the abbreviation in all lowercase makes me wonder if these volunteers look like the image on the right.) As for your edit comment, the fact that not all trusted volunteers have access does not negate the fact that the correspondence has been reviewed by a (particular kind of) trusted volunteer. I stand by my original wording. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LX, for what it's worth, I appreciate the effort that you've put into the re-write, and I understand your frustration. It took just over a month to get the template changed by a few words when I made the suggestion last year. I fully

Support the change of the wording because it is definitely an improvement but I want to see a complete rethink of how and why we use the OTRS templates. As experienced users, we've become adapted to the intricacies of Wikimedia, so I think we are resistant to changing methods. However, after reviewing the OTRS noticeboard archives, it has become clear to me that a significant number of people (more than 60 in 18 months), have been misled by an OTRS box into thinking that they need to ask OTRS for permission to use an image. This could be for any number of reasons but it cannot be addressed by putting more information into the already crowded box on the file page. One idea I have been thinking about is to make the file page box as simple and clear as possible and move the bulk of the information to a separate ticket information page. The box needs only three sections:

the logo at the left
the words "Ticket:20xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" in the centre, with a link to the ticket, and in smaller text below it, the words "Authorized users only"
the words "More information" at the right, with a link to the ticket information page.

In that ticket page we'd have a lot more room to clarify the details of the ticket, including for example:

the text that you've proposed above
the date when the ticket was created, because we shouldn't assume that people will work out that the first eight digits in the ticket number are the date
the name of the author/copyright holder
the attribution if provided by the author, although this might not always be necessary
the license(s) issued with the ticket
a list of works/files covered by said licenses
the name of the volunteer who dealt with the ticket (as a first point of contact)
a list of tickets associated with the same author

Some tickets cover multiple files and some authors have multiple tickets. In the 2015 archive of the OTRS noticeboard (i.e. just seven months) there were nine separate queries in which the requestor would have been helped by a public list of files linked to a ticket. The only way a non-OTRS person can find this out is to carry out a search for the ticket number but the results won't tell them whether those files are actually covered by that ticket and they will still end up asking at the noticeboard. I've actually been asking about this on the OTRS wiki since Wednesday 5 August, but if this sounds like something Commoners might want, I'm happy to ask for the discussion to be moved to the Commons VP/Proposals. Green Giant (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it would be a good idea to increase the transparency in this way, which wouldn't require disclosure of any sensitive information. It sounds like it might require some software (or at least gadget) support, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the volunteer will be added by the otrs script yet, but not displayed (i only included it for otrs received). The date shouldn't be a problem or parsing it from the ticket id. Tickets associated with the same author, license etc. is causing a lot of load if there are a lot of affected files, even if you add a "view/hide" function, the content is still loaded in the background. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I want the name of the volunteer to be more visible is for the sake of inexperienced users. I know and you know how to find this information but that isn't my purpose. When I say a list of files and a list of tickets, I mean literally a set of wiki-links rather than calling on the OTRS software. I wouldn't want to see a gallery or have the page calling up changes from the ticket subdomain. This is something that I would expect volunteers to do, manually if necessary but preferably by script. There would not be any need to strain the servers more than they are now. The ticket pages wouldn't be templates that would need transcluding anywhere. The increased OTRS workload is down to a shortage of volunteers, an awkward interface and resistance to change but that is no reason to keep this information as secret as possible from other users. I really don't want to see another twenty users asking OTRS for permission over the remaining months of 2015. I think 60 confused newbies in 18 months is an indication that we are doing things wrong. I'd rather that they looked at a file page, noted a simple OTRS box and IF they were intrigued by what it mean't, they could click on the "More information" link and be taken to a summary of the ticket, with links to help pages and FAQ's like Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/FAQ (which was viewed less than 1,000 times over the last three month) before they see a link suggesting they make a request at the OTRS Noticeboard (16,000 views in three month). Instead of crowding the file page, let's make it clearer and simpler for other users. One example that I'm impressed by is the {{Tracked}} template, which simply tells me where to find the task on Phabricator but doesn't feel the need to tell me about what Phabricator is or why tracking is done over there. Simple and effective. Green Giant (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using PermissionOTRS template with incorrect parameter

I added a parameter maintenance. The file pages with other than the specified parameters show up in the above linked category. In addition to spelling or syntax errors, several of the errors occur due to the use of undefined parameters such as date, source, user, comment or similar. Shall we allow their use too? --Leyo 19:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User is used by gadget etc. It allows to see who processed the ticket. Comment, source and date is not needed as far i can see. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyo: Your edit is adding ugly red warnings to thousands of files (and the cat is becoming bigger an bigger because jobqueue is updating all transclusions). To prevent adding red warnings to ten thousands of page i removed the template for now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that (important for a “diagnosis”). The red warnings are intended. I am, however, fine with your temporary removal to discuss what undocumented parameters are also to be allowed. --Leyo 20:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be perfect if we could suppress the red warnings. But there is noting written about how to in the documentation :-(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be suppressed, at least not after the preliminary phase. --Leyo 20:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC) PS. There were ~180,000 images in Category:Pages using Book template with incorrect parameter in the beginning.[reply]

Wow. If you like to add the template again, feel free :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get the job queue too busy and wait for other comments concerning allowed parameters first.

The pattern comment=signature seems to occur quite often (exam ples). Such uses might be normalized by bot to user=user name.

Other errors originate from the transclusion in other templates, e.g. in Template:OCHA map. --Leyo 21:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. No worries about the job queue - the graph seems fine :). Currently running a +b script to convert all comment=sig to comment=user (based on my research, this is the main problem - the data param is not so often used.). --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's see what remains afterwards. --Leyo 12:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago when I rewrote this template I spend a lot of time looking at those parameters and I remember noticing a huge variety of unused parameters. I am not sure what would Category:Pages using PermissionOTRS template with incorrect parameter help with. There are only 2 parameters that matter "id" (aka. 1 or 2) or alternative "ticket", if they are both missing than the file ends up in Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID. If the file is not in Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID than no matter what incorrect parameters it is using we should not care. --Jarekt (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: I seen you today cleaning up stuff. Thanks! There should be only the parameters aforementioned by you (the user parameter seems useful as well so that users can see quickly who processed the ticket, likely this should be implanted in the template). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many wikipedias have similar, but slightly different PermissionOTRS templates and when files are transferred from those wikipedias, they come with those regional settings. For example German Wikipedia adds id to the unnamed parameter #2. Serbian does not use "ticketNumber" (which we call "id") but "ticketID" so their uploads end up in Category:Items with incorrect OTRS ticket ID. I clean up what I could, but There is not much else that can be done. I marked parameter "2" as depreciated and fixed all files that used it (I hope) but I think that parameter "2" should stay because there are a lot of transfers from German Wikipedia. One thing I would love to do is to find some way of replace templates using "ticket" with "id", but I do not a way to automatically look up those. --Jarekt (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/179858347: It's about time for re-activation. --Leyo 11:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyo: Done (the red warnings are currently hidden via CSS, but you can unhide them via your local css; Just want to avoid that people are popping up here to complain;). The category will likely be filed with thousands of files in the next days. Should non existing parameters be removed? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Concerning CSS, I would prefer a user group specific approach, i.e. how it may be done in de-WP for editors and sysops. Showing the warning to autoconfirmed users (allowing them to fix their own errors), i.e. not to show it to all readers is probably OK. --Leyo 15:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: "ticket" with "id" stuff is done. I think we can remove unnecessary prams with a regex replacement (remove everything, catch ID and user, then construct new template). --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent news Steinsplitter. I am eager to retire ticket parameter from PermissionOTRS template. I will work on that once we empty Category:Items with ticket OTRS permission confirmed. --Jarekt (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: I am purging the pages by bot to get the cat filled contemporary. Btw a start - maybe you have improvements (feel free to run a better regex with your awb bot)? --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more about {{#invoke:TemplatePar|check and filling of Category:Pages using PermissionOTRS template with incorrect parameter and I am not convinced we need it. {{PermissionOTRS}} after retiring "ticket" parameter is now very simple: it just need 16 digit number passed as "id", "1" or "2". That is the only thing it is looking for. What other parameters are in the template is irrelevant. We can spend effort standardizing it, and cleaning it up but to me that sounds like cosmetic change that make no difference to the display of the page. In other templates Parameter check is useful to look for no longer used parameters, syntax errors or information which is not properly displayed by the template. But in case of {{PermissionOTRS}} if we have id we have all we need and if we do not we add an error category. --Jarekt (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds reasonable. Agree. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It a way to detect inappropriate additions including potential vandalism. There is no harm in having this maintenance category. --Leyo 21:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm, but clean up of those issues is (in my opinion) a cosmetic change of beautifying code without any visual changes. I will not object if someone does it, but I do not see it as necessary. I would object to maintenance category, which no one is planning to use. The issue is that many OTRS templates were transferred from other wikis which have different formats, my main concern is to have ticket number and all other users, dates comments, signatures, etc. are irrelevant. --Jarekt (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bot policy applies to articles in en.wikipedia, not to files on Commons. --Leyo 20:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do not have many policies on Commons, but as a frequent bot operator, I assure you that idea of cosmetic changes and trying to strike a balance between time, benefits and potential risks is something we think about. We, including me, do not always get the balance right but we try. That said if you want to work on those images, that is fine with me. --Jarekt (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the files in the maintenance category shouldn't be there anymore. We probably need to be patient. --Leyo 09:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too. This weekend some of the Category:Creator template maintenance finally caught up with a change I made to template:Creator in the end of April, so 2 months is a norm. We could use touch.py to remove files from Category:Pages using PermissionOTRS template with incorrect parameter that should not be there, but it is easier to just wait. --Jarekt (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At a rate of ~7 touches per minute, this task would take ten hours. --Leyo 12:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 hours is faster than 2 months. At the moment I do not have working version of pywikipediabot but in the past I run some much longer jobs. --Jarekt (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touching them right now, there are only ~3k in the cat so i shouldn't take too long. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I could reduce the category content to 275 files by now. --Leyo 15:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Such fixes are far from being cosmetic. ;-) --Leyo 16:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done all remaining ones fixed. — Jeff G. ツ 04:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but several of your fixes are incorrect and may have caused new issues. Some edits were just unnecessary since I had fixed them before (and thus were not in the maintenance category anymore). Please go through your edits to check. --Leyo 09:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyo: I'm sorry, but I was working from a list of 274 generated by JWB, I thought the "comment", "date", and "2" parameters were illegal, and the signature of de:Benutzer:Redlinux was particularly vexing because it had an embedded vertical bar. — Jeff G. ツ 12:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you checked & fixed all your replacements by hand? --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsplitter: I did them all for this section alphabetically by hand in JWB (not using regexes). I am going through my edits per Leyo the same way, restoring unique comments I had put outside, but some RL issues have been getting in the way. — Jeff G. ツ 14:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Jeff G. ツ 22:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing parameter/line "Permission="

Sometimes the parameter "Permission=" is missing in the {{Information}} template, and when it happens it cause a problem and we have to check what was the problem. Is it possible to change the template to add the line automatically when this line is missing? -- Geagea (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geagea, I moved this question to MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-PermissionOTRS.js#Missing_parameter.2Fline_.22Permission.3D.22. The template has nothing to do with process of adding it to files, which is done by .js files. --Jarekt (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look on this tonight. Thanks for report. ↔ User: Perhelion 16:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done ↔ User: Perhelion 08:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Layout (difference to EN)

There appear an over large line-break to the last line "Ticket link: " (it looks like 2 empty lines) , but not on the EN version for some reasons. There appears a extra ‹p› element with extra margin (0.5 % of the page, on the EN version there is another ‹p› element before so the margin get swallowed). To remove the ‹p› the line-break on Template:PermissionOTRS/layout should be removed, at the {{#if. Maybe something has changed on how the Wiki-syntax get parsed? -- User: Perhelion 19:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that if you have a line break between two <small>s, they are in the same paragraph, while if its just normal content, the <br> becomes the first tag in the paragraph, which makes it have a huge “padding”. I think the best solution would be to migrate to the Translate extension, and use the same HTML tags in all language versions, thus have the same appearance regardless of the language. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, but that must be also done by an admin. -- User: Perhelion 17:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for most of the task, no sysop is needed. Migrating to the Translate extension consists of the following steps:

Preparing the page. Template:PermissionOTRS/i18n has to be created based on the English page, but with <translate> tags. This can be done by any user.
Marking for translation. This page should be marked for translation by a translation admin. (It’s not the same as sysop: most sysops are not translation admins, while for example I’m one despite of not being a sysop.)
Migrating the existing translations. Every translation has to be migrated to the new system. I don’t know about any other way than copying the texts one by one. This can be done by anyone. (I usually move the original pages before marking the page for translation – it cannot be done afterwards – for copyright reasons, while it causes a little service disruption. Maybe not ideal for a such highly-visible template.)
Embedding the new version. As the location of the translations changes, the main template should be changed to embed the new version. This is the only step to be done by a sysop.

--Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket image

While I understand the change of image (OTRS is being renamed to VRTS), I still prefer the good 'ol ticket image. It's iconic, in my opinion.

For those who want the old ticket image back, you can use this JavaScript hack I made. :) panda kekok 9 14:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pandakekok9: We are no longer legally allowed to keep that image. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Its description page doesn’t mention any restrictions on its usage. CC0, own work, what’s wrong with it? —Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark issue it seems. But that's a non-copyright restriction. If hosting this image on Commons is now illegal, we'd be deleting a lot of logos here, even if they are in the public domain. panda kekok 9 15:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And even then, my script is not illegal. It simply replaces the src attribute of an img tag that has an alt value of OTRS Wikimedia. panda kekok 9 15:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pandakekok9: I don’t think anybody said that. Your script is not illegal, of course, but it will break if the image gets deleted. This is just a gentle warning that people should probably not start using it if it will stop working in the near future. Peace, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lua version

I rewrote the code of the template using Lua language. The new version should be more readable and easier to maintain and expand in the future. Please report any issues here or on my talk page. --Jarekt (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New feature of PermissionTicket template

I added to {{PermissionTicket}} template, a link to SPARQL query allowing finding other files with the same ticket number. See for example the template in File:"Arielle" - 2004.jpg. It probably can be improved and other useful queries can be possible. If you have some ideas or requests, please let me know. --Jarekt (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jarekt, that can be usefull indeed. I do not know where to look to see the new feature. Of course I am seeing the translated version (in Dutch). Ellywa (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellywa, You should see "Find other files from the same ticket:

" on a bottom of the template now. You can translate "Find other files from the same ticket:" part at Template:PermissionTicket/nl by adding "|query_name=....". By the way Template:PermissionTicket/nl seems to be way out of date as compared to Template:PermissionTicket/en. --Jarekt (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jarekt, I made a new translation and added the query on Template:PermissionTicket/nl. I am seeing the new feature now if I look in English (by logging out or by changing my preferences). ~~But in Dutch I do not see the new option. What did I do wrong?~~ After some hours I am seeing the option in the Dutch version as well. Ellywa (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great --Jarekt (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

imo it might be more user-friendly for most layman users to simply use something like https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MediaSearch&search=haswbstatement%3AP6305%3D2006101710008538 . RZuo (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

This is just minor issue perhaps, but maybe the name should be changed to Template:Permission ticket to be consistent with the naming used for Template:Permission received and Template:Permission pending. Or, maybe aliases (redirects?) for Template:PermissionReceived or Template:PermissionPending should be created for those templates. I'm also going to note that Template:Permission Ticket, Template:Permission Received and Template:Permission Pending don't exist when it might be helpful if they did. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]