Template talk:Ticket confirmation

Public domain tag

Using this template on images may be misleading, see e.g. Image:12AE10CompactronTube.jpg, where the author has released the image into the public domain. He has not stated that he'd license it under the GFDL, he has explicitly said "public domain". Since this tag is used on that image page, there are now two different and slightly conflicting licensing claims there. I would suggest that for images, a second template be used where one could explicitly specify to what license the photographer agreed. Lupo 19:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps this template should simply changed accordingly (commons does it this way, too). -- mkrohn 00:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

PR department ==> Communications committee

The template currently states "evidence of this has been lodged with the Wikimedia PR department". The link on meta is changed to Communications committee. Maybe the wording should be adapted accordingly? --S.K. 14:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been fixed, thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

templates lacking "otrs" parameter?

I have noticed that a number of articles with this template do not supply the OTRS ticket number. This is particularly true of older {{confirmation}} templates which didn't support a ticket number at all. Is this a serious problem, if there is no record of permission having been received? I'm wondering if it would make sense to modify the template to add such articles to a "ConfirmationOTRS templates lacking a ticket number" category to make it easier for volunteers to identify and clean up those requests. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Without a ticket number it may not be possible to verify that confirmation was received at all. It is difficult to even verify that the template was added by someone on OTRS at all. —Centrx→talk • 05:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then it sounds like something does need to be done with those articles, even if it's just removing the confirmation template altogether. Do you think that makes more sense? Tim Pierce (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ask the user who added it before doing anything. Also, they may have just used a wrong parameter so edit the page to see if there is a ticket number there. It's also possible to search the OTRS system for article names or links - it's not always accurate but it can help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

License options

I have updated the template to accept the options discussed on the OTRS-en-l list. -- Avi (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Credit

What about credit to the original owner? --geagea^Talk 07:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Intergovernmental organization license

Creative Commons offers a special license, CC SA 3.0 IGO, which is used by international, intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations. Currently this template does not recognize this template. Perhaps it should.

I applied this template at Talk:WHO Model List of Essential Medicines with a note explaining that the template presents an incorrect license.

@John Cummings: - perhaps you have ideas for addressing this. This template was made in 2006 and while useful it lacks some options which might be more useful now, like listing the text donor or noting which text is released among whatever text is on a page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Bluerasberry, Commons has a template for this license, not sure if that is helpful? I think we need a new template as this is specifically for the unported version? --John Cummings (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA-4.0

CC-BY-SA-4.0 was added to this template in this edit. Since this license is incompatible for text contributions, is there a case where this could be permitted or should this option be removed? Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this template used for images? If so, then that would explain why that parameter exists. Otherwise, I don't see its purpose. We will either G12 or revdel text that is CC-BY-SA 4.0, depending on the severity of the infringement. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This template appears to be only intended for text contributions. In any case, it doesn't appear as if there are any File: transclusions. {{OTRS permission}} is used for files. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem may be worse than this, as I've seen G12s declined due to CC-BY-SA 4.0. It looks like the option was added in error by someone who was unaware that the licence is not compatible for text. I think it may need to be made clearer that the licence is not compatible. Adam9007 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I usually only deal with file copyright, so my apologies for this mishap with license incompatibility. I figured that since it was an option in the template it was OK. Is someone able to do a search on article talk pages to see if there instances of this template using CC-BY-SA-4.0 as well? Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I just did a PetScan, and it came up with nothing. However, I have a feeling I've done it wrong, as I don't really know how to use it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I've found Talk:The Washington Papers so far. The parameter was recently added so I doubt they'll be many. I'm halfway through checking the transclusions. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The only other page using it was Talk:Kamnoetvidya Science Academy and the Nigerian Gambling pages. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It is only these 3 pages., unelss someone has done a custom version of the template, if someone thought 4.0 was acceptable but couldn't make it work wth the template. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I've switched it to an error. Feel free to remove it entirely. CC BY-SA 4.0 was marked for Talk:Gambling in Nigeria, Talk:Kamnoetvidya Science Academy, Talk:The Washington Papers, and User talk:Pzez/sandbox. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 September 2019

"Attribution" and CC-BY licences should be added to the template, because they are less restrictive than CC-BY-SA, and they are included in WP:Compatible license (well, requesting attribution isn't, but is less restrictive than CC BY in any case). Thanks Ruthven (msg) 12:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd support this. For clarity's sake, that would mean adding the following to the {{#switch}}:

|attribution = for anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other uses are permitted. 
|cc-by-3.0 = under the <span class="plainlinks">[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 3.0]</span> license.
|cc-by-4.0 = under the <span class="plainlinks">[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0]</span> license.

--AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 December 2019

{{edit template-protected|Template:ConfirmationOTRS|answered=no}} Please add {{{licence}}} as an alias for {{{license}}}, as a significant number of transclusions use this alternate spelling.

Change {{#switch:{{lc:{{{license|}}}}} to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{license|{{{licence|}}}}}}}} AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Eh, there's actually only 9 left. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Archived source

How to use this template if the source has been removed from its original location, but was archived and is available at a webarchive? I did the following,[1] and want to be sure if that is the correct way of handling such a situation. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, that works fine, you could also use {{webarchive}} in the |source= field. What's important is that people understand what the template says and that they can find the original source. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about using {{webarchive}} in the |source= field, as - after all - it is not really the source, but I understand the guiding principle now. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

logo replacement

Please replace File:OTRS Wikimedia.svg by File:Permission logo 2021.svg per OTRS to VRT migration process (see Phab:T280392 and Phab:T280398). --Krd 06:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done firefly ( t · c ) 07:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

Not sure how to get all of the template syntax right, but the displaying that CC-BY-SA-4.0 is not compatible should be removed after the ToU updates, in effect as of 7 June 2023. The text in question is which {{Error|is not [[WP:Compatible license|compatible]] with Wikipedia's license. The template syntax that styles or displays it should also be removed, but I don't know which bits of syntax/code should be removed. Thank you in advance! Sennecaster (Chat) 03:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to confirm, you seem to be asking for this change — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I'm simply trying to remove the warning about incompatible licensing that no longer applies. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 On hold Please see MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyright#Protected edit request on 8 June 2023 for more discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Of all the batch of edits inspired by the adjustments up the legal way, this one seems appropriate. It is in fact no longer an error to add media matching CC by SA 4.0. Izno (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

Please change [[File:Permission logo 2021.svg|100px|VRT icon]] to [[File:Permission logo 2021.svg|100px|VRT icon|link=|alt=]] per MOS:BLANKALT, as the image is purely decorative. HouseBlaster^talk 12:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 18:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)