Template talk:Permission received

Wording of template

As I understand it this template is used when a permission IS received but not yet approver for one of these reasons

1) it can be missing something and someone can be in contact with sender to fix the problems or 2) it can be simply just not be checked yet (example if it is in a language that the person that "found" the permission can not understand or if it is added by the sender who do not want to approve own mails).

As I read it the wording ("However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file.") only covers option one. So I suggest that we add some text to cover option two. For example "However, the message was not yet checked or it was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file." --MGA73 (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Or even we could add a parameter such as {{OTRS received|reason=1}} giving "the email is awaiting processing by a volunteer", ...reason=2 giving "the permission was not under a free license", ...reason=3 giving "the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published", and defaulting to what already exists. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Created Template:OTRS received/sandbox for testing. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added some examples for easy "review". It looks good to me. If default is how it is now then we can implement this feature with no risk. I support implementation when others have had some time to see this and perhaps suggest improvements. --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding link

{{Editprotect}} 1. As information in the template. A link to {{PermissionOTRS}} like this: If the email contains sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license, please replace this template with {{PermissionOTRS|id=xxxxxx}}
If the permission provided is not acceptable, nominate the file for deletion or delete it.

2. Under See also add

• Template:PermissionOTRS

3. Add {{Documentation}} to the template so others than admins can edit the template documentation.

Nsaa (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1 and 2 are done, although I would think OTRS volunteers don't need instructions on how to add permissionOTRS tags. So is 3. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for adding the request. I did it myself, since it was not a fully protected page. I've not used it very much, and I was looking for the exact name of the permissionOTRS template before I could do this edit Nsaa (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

i18n

Is there any specifiic reason why we apparently have translated versions but the template is not autotranslated? Just not done? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a bit difficult? Let's invent a capable solution. -- RE rillke questions? 18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hope this works as expected. We should notify translators to change their translations accordingly. -- RE rillke questions? 09:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too busy. Looks good - without checking it in depth - I trust you. :) Did you already notify them (if active)? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't. -- RE rillke questions? 09:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this template really has a complicated structure. Just curious: the translations were not displayed at all before, right?

I have converted the remaining translations (ca, es, mk, nl). Let's track the completeness below. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the the translations were not in use before using autotranslate. I listed this at Template:Requested translations -- RE rillke questions? 20:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Checked

the translation is → 1. completely translated and → 2. works correctly

• català |  Not OK OK
• Deutsch | OK OK
• English | OK OK
• español | OK OK
• français | OK  Not OK
• македонски |  Not OK  Not OK
• Nederlands |  Not OK  Not OK

Ticket ID vs. ticket number

OTRS tickets have a ticket ID (a database ID, I guess; these days in the millions range) and a ticket number (which is basically a timestamp). The ticket ID is used in the OTRS URL; the ticket number is used in the email subject. Both can be used to link to a ticket (with the query parameters TicketID and TicketNumber, respectively) but they are not interchangeable.

This template expects the ticket number, but calls it "id", which is confusing, to put it mildly. Fixing that retroactively seems very difficult, so how about autodetecting the type of the id parameter (a ticket number is exactly 16 digits, a ticket ID is much less than that) and choosing the right query parameter based on that? --Tgr (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp

The ticket number contains in its first eight digits year, month and day (yyyymmdd). Why is it necessary to repeat it with the three parameters, when it is specified with the ticket number - it can easily be extracted from the number without any arror, and the Category:OTRS received - No timestamp given becomes completly redundant. -- sarang♥사랑 04:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Dropping the wikitext ID to use SDC only?

Now that we have the information in SDC through Wikimedia VRTS ticket number (P6305), can we drop the ID in the wikitext? I quickly put together a new version of the OTRS template at {{PermissionOTRS/sandbox}} that uses SDC directly - let me know if you spot any issues with it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Does it add files to subcats of Category:Permission received? It would be very helpful if the subcat was determined automatically from the id's first 8 digits (YYYYMMDD), so as to make the year, month, and day parameters optional and eliminate the need for Category:Permission received - No timestamp given‎. Also, does it keep the id searchable?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: It's been several years since I suggested this! I think subcats could be done automatically. I'm not sure about searchable IDs, but I think that's possible, or it can be done through SDC queries. If you want to follow up on this, please ping me again, but it would also need a wider conversation ... somewhere, I'm not sure where (since this page is apparently not watched too much!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: A wider conversation could be at COM:VRTN. I want to ensure that we can still use both searches to find the ID.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks, given recent news I'm not going to be taking this forward, but I hope someone else can think about it! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)