Template talk:Own

vfd

Template:Own

• Delete Pointless template. Doesn't really save any effort typing {{Own}} than just typing Own work. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep When numerous files were deleted due to FoP reasons on Commons, I had just paste the code. Not a valid reason for deletion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Commons needs such template to provide translation. Apart from "own", there are many commonly used templates. I am not sure we want to create templates here for all of them, and one might want to check the validity of the description – while doing that, removing the braces is not that big an effort, I think. It is irritating to get a lot of red text at saving, but I believe avoiding it is a loosing game. –LPfi (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue though is that images could get deleted any moment from Commons, so wasting time by having to manually type "Own work" may be time consuming. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I also could do what @Ikan Kekek: does at times when they locally upload files for this very same reason, but I'm not very comfortable messing with attribution for obvious reasons. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - it's easier to write "Own work" than "{{Own}}". Gizza ^(roam) 23:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with DaGizza. Pashley (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The point is that if you copy the Commons description, you already have "{{Own}}" there. For it to say "Own work" without the template you have to delete the curlies and add " work". Same with "{{photo}}", "{{other date}}", "{{Location}}" (ours is not the same), "{{Object location}}", etc. –LPfi (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

But usually, here's a typical commons description:

{{Information
|description=en:Al-Akbar a Surabaya Mosque fr:La mosquée Al-Akbar a Surabaya.
|date=2016-11-30 09:04:33
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:Lasthib|Lasthib]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

The location, photo, otherdate and all that isn't really used for locally hosted files, but the "Own work" is. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It is true that authorship information needs to stay, and {{own}} is the most common template. I'd very much have also the other information saved. On the other hand, leaving the template(s) redlinked is not the end of the world. Rather, I'd leave it redlinked until author information is corrected. Indeed, author=[Commons user] and {{self|CC-BY or whatever}} are nearly always incorrect in files threatened by deletion at Commons because of freedom of panorama issues – we seldom have the architect as Commons user, and that's why we need to host them locally. –LPfi (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Is your suggestion that we should copy all the Commons templates here? I think it's quite acceptable for different Wikis to have somewhat different interfaces, and I simply copy the relevant text from the Commons files pages in a coherent way which does not break the attributions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Not all, but those templates which save time, including {{own}}. Much better to use this template then remove the curly braces and then have to type "Own work". I wouldn't though, want to copy langswitch for the descriptions as it won't work here and for the descriptions, technically we should only be having the English version although I don't think anyone follows it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Just an FYI, but if the consensus is to delete, I am not going to delete it and I warn the same to whoever is going to delete it to avoid legal trouble. By deleting it, you break the attribution which would used to say "Own work" but now all it will say is Template:Own which does not provide the correct attribution. While I wouldn't go against consensus, I will not do something which can get us into legal trouble and breaks CC BY SA. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be corrected – but on every individual file. Usually files are uploaded locally because the uploader is not the author of the work depicted. Until the template is replaced by the correct description of authorship, the file is a copyright violation. –LPfi (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, the template is usually used in the source field, while the photographer is attributed in the author field. The source field is mostly for internal use, so a broken template is no big deal (other than that it gives a bad image of us if common). –LPfi (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Technically no, because for any viewer, when clicking the image, it comes up with the author info and the source, which are the two key things needed for attribution. The author field is something that is a different issue, but then the source info is what would be missing by deleting this template. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Outcome: It's well past 14 days, and there's consensus to delete (3 deletes, 1 keep and LPfi who's neutral), but I don't want to break attribution links. Do we keep or delete? I personally won't go against consensus, but this is a much harmless template that if deleted, breaks source links and attribution. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Replace links, then Delete. I am still in the belief that this template is used in the source field, not in the attribution field, and thus deletion will not break attribution, but it does not hurt to check. The source field is mostly for internal use, so a broken template there is no big deal, but it doesn't hurt to repair the descriptions there while checking the attribution, and if the source field also has legal implications, then doing that might be important. –LPfi (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It is used on seven pages, I'm taking care of those. I also think "source: own" is as good as "source: own work". –LPfi (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: Six of the seven files are attributed to Wikivoyage users without user page. Am I correct in assuming the links should go to user pages on Commons? The seventh is a blue link, but I assume it is the Commons user page that was linked before the move. I wait until having an answer, as there is no hurry. –LPfi (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to go to Commons, but in general, I'm having the feeling of "why do we need to fix the sources of all files when this is used on something that's perfectly fine" sort of feeling.

As far as I know, the source field is important to know where we got the image from, and the author alone is not good enough (and it quite annoys me when we have external news sources use these images and solely attributes "Wikimedia Commons" and not the author). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The source field is important for checking validity of copyright information, and sometimes important for getting better versions or complementing the description. "Own" is as good as it gets for own photos – you won't be able to check the original in my memory card. For attribution, image agencies are often cited without mentioning the author, so extending the practice to Commons images is understandable, although frustrating, violating the licence, and illegal in Finland (probably in all EU).

Important though is that we get the author right. A JD at Commons should not be attributed as JD at Wikivoyage. If they are redlinked here, there is no way a third party can know that they are Joe Doe at example.com, the page prominently linked at their user page at Commons, or even to know that JD at Wikivoyage is the same person as JD at Commons (them for some reason knowing the latter). Cf attributing my Commons images to "LPfi" at WT!

–LPfi (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Would it be a wise idea to revisit this later? Given that WOSlinker's obviously doesn't understand why this template was created and hasn't made any comment on this discussion except their own nomination, and their reason for deletion also is not a valid reason for deletion, maybe revisit this in a month or so? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: I'd like to fix the attribution of those images sooner rather than later. For the template itself, there is no hurry, but I don't see there is any reason to have this discussion here for an additional month. –LPfi (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It's almost one month now, and this discussion is going nowhere so I'm closing this. But to LPfi, once you've fixed everything, feel free to do whatever you need to do with this template (and feel free to delete this template if needed once you've finished) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What happened here? Consensus to delete but not deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Not deleted because no one decided to fix up the source information that would have been screwed up if this were deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I was going to fix the template transclusions and attributions, but I asked SHB2000 above whether the user pages linked on the copy at Commons where Commons user pages. I cannot check to what extent the description was edited, as the original is deleted. I postponed the work in wait for an answer that never came and forgot about it. I assume the link wasn't edited to change [[voy:User:JD]] to [[User:JD]], so doing the fixes now, but I would very much like that confirmed, as changing attribution is a legal thing and I'll become the culprit if a redlink indeed is correct before my "fixing" it. –LPfi (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there somewhere where we can ask this question? How do other wikis handle this? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Here or your user page, I assume :-)

The question is whether you copied the description pages verbatim, and to what extent you edited them (they are mostly your uploads).

But a more serious problem surfaced:

I tried to fix the files. However, the files linking to this template either lack information on the author of the underlying work, or are free files uploaded when the template already was questioned. The authors are usually known – the non-free images are more or less by definition famous recent works – but in the first cases I tried to fix, the authors were mentioned neither in the deletion discussion nor on the Wikipedia pages I tried.

Digging up information on authors is work I am not going to do just because somebody decided to use a template. Finnish law requires attributing authors, so touching images with bad attribution puts me at legal risk (in theory, at least). Neither do I have much desire to fix uploads by established users who are at least as well versed to do that work as myself – why fix a November 2021 upload unless I am also going to fix June 2022 uploads. Thus, unless somebody makes the legwork, I am not going to do the fixes. I might delete the template and affected images unless somebody else sees it worthwhile to look up authors.

–LPfi (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)