Template talk:Permission ticket

For a list of people with OTRS access see the the Meta-Wiki list

Keeping mortal users in the dark
What is the rationale for keeping the permission emails secret? –Henning Makholm 20:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They can contain personal and sensistive information. The thought is that if a requester wants their email to be read by anyone, they can post it on Wikipedia.  By emailing, they expect a confidential, personal interaction.  Mart inp23  11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
We have 2 OTRS permission templates. That's not really straightforward since they both have a similar function, and ConfirmationImageOTRS has no commons equivalent. What do you think of trying to merge both (by tweaking the commons version at the same time), so tagging and transfers are easier to do? -- lucasbfr  talk 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with - no point in having 2 templates which appear to do the same thing. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, they serve different purposes. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this template used?
Is this template supposed to be placed by the users granting permission via email or by OTRS reviewers? If the former is the case, shouldn't there be a confirmation process proving the legality of the template placement? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's placed by the OTRS reviewers, as the only ones who can verify the ticket. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 09:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What is being permissioned?
This template doesn't specify exactly which work has been permitted. For instance, if I own a work and choose to copy it onto the wiki, I may be challenged on it and asked to give permission through OTRS - that's fine. Now, while I'm going through the OTRS process, which may take a few days, some other editor copies in material from a completely different source, which does not permit re-use. Then an OTRS volunteer stamps the article with official imprimatur that the use is permitted, responding to my own quite valid release. Et voila, a non-permitted use gets tagged as permitted, i.e. you can't even tell from the history timestamps what is OK or not.

Should this template be modified so that "this work" can be made blue with a diff= and/or diff=+oldid= parameter? This would add a link to index.php with &title, &diff and &oldid arguments, so that clicking on "this work" would show exactly what work has been permitted. Franamax (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change in wording
editprotected

Technically, the owners of the files aren't giving Wikipedia permission to use the work, they are licensing it under a free license. The term 'permission' is misleading, once they have licensed the work under a free license, permission is unnecessary. Therefore I suggest changing "The permission for use of this work" to "The licensing of this work". This does not change any code, just some raw text, so there is no chance of it messing with the display of the template. Icestryke (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but it's "permission to release it under a free license". I don't think changing the term would be appropriate- "permission" is the term used internally on the OTRS software, the email address, the template name... I think you'd need to change a lot of things, if you want the term "permission" to no longer be associated with the process. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

editprotected If this is the case, non-controversial change request, change the first line from "The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system;" to "A grant of permission from the copyright holder of ; licensing it under a free content license compatible with Wikipedia's licensing policy, has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system;" This is clearer and more concise. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the proposed text actually match what OTRS does in practice? I.e. do they confirm that the person is the copyright holder and do they confirm that the person is licensing the content under a free license, or do they just ask for "permission"? — RockMFR 02:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with this change for a couple reasons. One, the current language is what is used on many pages on wiki, as well as other projects so things should stay consistent unless there's compelling reason to change it, which leads to my second point - the wording can be interpreted either way.  The current wording is correct though not as specific as the proposed change, but I see no reason to change it.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Change is clearly disputed. Please discuss first. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 10:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Update link
Please replace all instances of  with   now that HTTPS support is available on all of the servers. – Adrignola talk 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been working on the code. Turns out this template has been broken since 2008. New improved code is on Template:PermissionOTRS/sandbox. Let me know if this is okay. Also, can we move this template to Template:OTRS permission? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandbox version looks okay. I'll wait a little while in case there are any objections (template has over 3,000 transclusions, I think), but barring that I'll copy the sandbox over in a little while. Given the requested name already redirects, I'm a little hesitant to move the page. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Code deployed. OTRS permission seems to flow better than Permission OTRS, and a space in between to separate the words makes it slightly clearer. I can't think of a reason not to move it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Laziness about moving all the subpages with a pinch database lag, both of which are pretty weak arguments if someone's willing to put in the work. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, ✅! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Breakage when transfering
I am noticing that this template is breaking when images from here are moved to the Commons. The permission is valid, but somehow the ticket numbers are being lost in the transfer. Is there a way that we could try and incorporate http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PermissionOTRS into this template (minus the auto translate) so such transfers would be easier to pull off? I am a Commons sysop so if editing/code is going to be an issue, I can do that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Over 1,100 error transclusions in Talk namespace
I posted a notice at OTRS noticeboard. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving this template this weekend
I'll be moving this template to Template:Permission ticket at some point this weekend to help fulfill a bot request, as part of the VRT/VRTS naming migration. Keegan (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

logo replacement
Please replace File:OTRS Wikimedia.svg by File:Permission logo 2021.svg per OTRS to VRT migration process (see T280392 and T280398). --Krd 06:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)