Template talk:Own

ko

|ko = 자작 --Kwj2772 (msg) 05:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Slomox (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with a category

Bottom of Template:Own shows that it belong to category:Localisation templates, but that category does not have Template:Own template. --Jarekt (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It shows up now for me. The category is added via the documentation. Pages with a category included via templates can take some time to appear in the category. --Slomox (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It works for me now as well. I did not add this category so I assumed it was around for a while. --Jarekt (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please correct asturian

the correct form for asturian (ast) is: "Trabayu propiu", thanks --Mikel (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Slomox (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

bs

Please add bs=Vlastito djelo --Smooth_O (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Slomox (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Self-published work

{{Editprotected}} Shouldn't this add pages to Category:Self-published work? --Yarnalgo (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Every image tagged with {{Own}} should also have {{PD-self}} or some similar template. Those templates already add the category. If we included the category in {{Own}} too, it would be present twice in the page. That does no harm, but it's unnecessary. So I'm a bit sceptical. --Slomox (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because it is own work doesn't mean it needs a {{Self}} equivalent template. A file could be own work and then just have a stand-alone license tag. I don't know, it's not that big of a deal. --Yarnalgo (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should start moving away from mixing source and licenses. The main reason we have things like PD-self is because of the misuse of {{PD}} (users were applying it to everything without reason so we made the reason part of the license). I keep hoping we'll come to our senses and simply stop using the useless {{Self}} (ok, I guess upload bots use it somehow, but it makes us look unprofessional and silly). Anyway, my point is, in the future, let's make this template the only thing that includes the category. Rocket000 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me, can we change this to say "Created by uploader" or something? The personal pronoun is inappropriate. Rocket000 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the edit protected templates, since we are not going to add it into the category, its not longer needed to warn administrators that there is a edit needed here. Feel free to replace it when its needed again :) Huib talk 17:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

zh

Please revise zh to be zh-hans.--百楽兎 (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But this has the disadvantage, that now a user who has specified "zh" as his preferred language in the preferences, will see the English text "own work". --Slomox (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Previously it worked, cause zh-hans would fallback to zh. This could be solved by either changing "|zh-hans=上传者自己的作品" to "|zh|zh-hans=上传者自己的作品" (would work for this template) or by adding a fallback for zh to Template:GetFallback (would work for all templates using autotranslate). --Slomox (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing language?

The code is "
|th=งานของผู้อัปโหลดเอง
|tl|tgl=Sariling gawa
|tr=Yükleyenin kendi çalışması
"
shouldn't it rather be: "
|th=งานของผู้อัปโหลดเอง
|tl=
|tgl=Sariling gawa
|tr=Yükleyenin kendi çalışması
"
?
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagalog has the two-letter language code 'tl' and the three-letter code 'tgl'. In the Commons system there is a irregularity, cause {{Tl}} is reserved for another template than the Tagalog equivalent of the English {{En}} template. So Tagalog uses {{Tgl}} för localisation. That's the reason, why there are two codes in one row. And "|tl|tgl=..." is the standard syntax to do this. "|tl=|tgl=..." would render an empty string, if the code is 'tl'. --Slomox (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext

I started a thread on MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext concerning the use of this template in upload forms. --Leyo 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

eu

|eu=Norberak egina

Keta (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Frisian language

Please add support for the frisian language:

|fy=Eigen wurk

--Bouwe Brouwer (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Slomox (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Serbian language

Please add the line:

|sr=Сопствено дело

Nikola (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Slomox (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Malayalam Language

Hi Please change "ml=കയറ്റിവിട്ടിരിയ്ക്കുന്നയാളുടെ സ്വന്തം കൃതി" to "ml=അപ്‌‌ലോഡ് ചെയ്ത ആളുടെ സ്വന്തം കൃതി". Thanks--Praveenp (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done after confirmation on #wikipedia-ml Otourly (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Latvian (lv)

Please add: "lv=Paša darbs". --Papuass (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Slomox (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting similar template

Hi, I'm a contributor for the category:BSicon project. I usually make simple icons and the date of making is usually the same date as the uploading. So I prefer to write "(as upload date)" in the date column of the file description template. Now I'm thinking of creating a similar template as {{Own}}, something like {{Samedate}} or more reasonable name. Any suggestions? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, just write down the date in the date parameter. To the reader it's not really important whether the dates are the same. For him it only means an additional (although only a little) burden to accessing the information.

And additionally it's safe against e.g. a reupload under an new name (at another date) invalidating the "(as upload date)" reference. --Slomox (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You can put "~~~~~" in the date field, which at present would render as "11:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)", preferably without the quotes.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation

Please add a period after the template text. SharkD (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we need period since it is a phrase not a sentence. --Jarekt (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominal sentences?  Done for latin alphabet. Otourly (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

note: reverted for de as it's neither grammatically needed nor common in German to add a period after just two words --:bdk: 21:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Parameter for Attribution

{{edit protected}}

Amend template to accept an optional single parameter.

The parameter being a name to use for Attribution (like for example a user name on a wiki from which the image is transferred)

Rather than display 'Own Work' with the parameter the display would be 'Own work by <Attribution>'

The local version at enwiki has been 'tweaked' to do this already, and if the Commons version was also suitably amended it would greatly simplify the transfer of some images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Attribution goes to the permission parameter. That's the correct place for it and en: should also place it there. So I'm opposed. --Slomox (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have {{Credit line}} for attribution notices. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Agree with the above. Source != author. Although, I still support changing this to avoid the personal adjective, such as "created by uploader". Rocket000 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the person named in the "author" field instead of the uploader? At least that's how I understand and use the template. Most times it's the same but not all the time. --Slomox (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It refers to the uploader since they are the ones creating the description page. Any personal pronouns would thus refer to them, right? If it said "I made this myself", it only makes sense the speaker is the one writing it. If it referred to the author, then we could use {{own}} for every source. That wouldn't make sense. It should only be used when the source is yourself, meaning you must be the author (otherwise, how did you get it?) Rocket000 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, 'Own' refers to the author named in the 'author' parameter, but the author must be a registered user. Only for registered users a statement like 'own work' is enough, cause we can verify this relatively easy. For authors who are no Wikimedia users we need more comprehensive sourcing. Actually that's quite the same as what you say, but with the exception that for example files, which were renamed by uploading under the new name and deleting the old one, are still covered by my version but not by your version. The renamer would have to change the source according to your version removing the 'own' template, but in my version he wouldn't. --Slomox (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

True. I didn't think about that. I guess it could be "created by original Commons uploader", but I don't like that. :) Rocket000 (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

zh-tw

Please add "zh-tw=上傳者自己的作品". --百楽兎 (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Kwj2772 (msg) 04:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian

{{Editprotected}} |ru=собственная работа → |ru=собственное произведение (correct translation)

For example, see "Cultural Works" → "произведения культуры" or Google Dictionary. -- TarzanASG ⁺¹  17:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done, as we will probably move soon to use the Translatewiki strings ({{int:wm-license-own-work}} in this case), you might also want to make the change over at translatewiki:MediaWiki:Wm-license-own-work/ru. If you can't do this by yourself, I can do it for you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please revert this change. Phrase «собственное произведение» stylistically it is not correct in Russian language. The analogy with the translation of «Cultural Works» is inappropriate. Translatewiki variant reflects the established expression. See also correct Google Dictionary link as example. --Kaganer (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This link to machine translation is incorrect. -- TarzanASG ⁺¹  09:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, here translation from «English-russiasn economics dictionary» ABBYY Lingvo. --Kaganer (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

pt-br

Better rename |pt-br=Trabalho próprio criado pelo carregador. Dédi's (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Friend, this edition is without a point in the end. Do you think better "Trabalho próprio pelo carregador."? Actually it's without the point in the end. I'm waiting a reply for it. Thanks.
--Vin 2 (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Own photo etc.

If the file page contains something like "own photo" in some language, it is problematic to replace it with {{Own}} because then there can be not clear whether it is related to the photo or to the depicted subject. This problem relates with all files (photos, paintings, drawings) which depict some real subject. Also in case of audio or video files can be unclear whether the "own" appertain to the record itself or to the recorded performance, music or other event or subject. Sometimes the recording is more creative than the recorded or depicted subject, sometimes the recorded or depicted is a creative work and the depicting or recording is only technical matter, but mostly both those aspects should be taken into account. Should we modify the text of this template, or rather create some its special variants? --ŠJů (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Own}} always refers to the photo and never to the depicted subject. So its safe to replace "own photo" with {{Own}}. --Slomox (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In case of reproductions of two-dimensial works, all author and license information are related to the reproduced work generally. But there is a continuum from creative photographs to pure technical reproduction or a scan. If it is not just a pure reproduction but a non-creative (non-artistic, technical) photograph, an user can also suppose that "own work" is related to the depicted work, not to the photograph. Maybe that you understand it in some way and never in different way, but relevant is what the template really says or doesn't say. That is the question. --ŠJů (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a file as an example where this poses a problem? --Slomox (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Examples are images, where only the photograph is own work, but not the depicted work. The latter might still be copyrighted and photographs are only possible due to the freedom of panorama. Two random examples: File:Engel1.jpg, File:Stuttgart SI Centrum Informationstafel 2003.jpg.

Therefore, I suggest allowing {{own|photo}} or similar, which would give e.g. “own work (photo)” or “self-photographed”. --Leyo 23:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think if it is needed we can use "Photo: {{own}}"--Jarekt (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That only works for a couple of languages. What about internationalization? For simplicity, I made my examples above for English only. --Leyo 01:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As explained somewhere else: what about {{Self photographed}} (or is this bad English?). I would really like to avoid {{Own photo}} (or {{own|photo}}) because people will confuse it with "having the photo" / "Owning the photo" in the sense of owning the paper photograph / jpg file on "own" computer. If we make a new template it should be more clear. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see. I favor {{Self-photographed}}, i.e. hyphenated. --Leyo 13:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Using self-photographed, we have a new template, we'll have to publicize to old and new users ... and we have to translate. What about int:self-photographed and translatewiki?

Also, we have to find a mechanism to show which license belongs to the photo and which one to the depicted artwork (sculpture). All in all, we have to improve licensing and source-indicating for new users. -- RE rillke questions? 10:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Do you think this topic should be discussed elsewhere (on a page with more watchers)? --Leyo 15:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

regarding photo/object shown: thats true. But something like {{Self photographed}} would make it clear that it only applies to the photo and not to the work shown. If a work is shown it needs to be indicated separately. {tl|self-sculptured}}? :-D Maybe a solution would be two addition fields in {{Information}}: "source_of_work_shown" and "author_of_work_shown". I do not know what the best solution is - but a more clear source tag like {tl|self-sculptured}} would help. If there is a work shown in a photograph (which has a non-obvious source - like a sculpture or a painting) then the uploader needs to explain this separately and if he did not the file can be tagged with {{Dw no source since}} or {{Missing source of work shown}}...

int:self-photographed can be wrapped by {{Self-photographed}}, can't it? COM:VPP would be the place to go for a poll/descision discussion. But we are at an earlier stage. Hmm... or not? This talk page is not very good - but I do not know which one is better. COM:VP is to broad and crowded. Well, maybe COM:VPP would be the best - or - a advertisement there pointing to this talk page. I think I prefer the last option. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was bold and created {{Self-photographed}}. --Leyo 21:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Leyo, would you be interested creating a new template information? I asked Saibo, but he had no time. -- RE rillke questions? 10:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Contributing to yes, but not as a driving force, sorry.

BTW: There is now a request for adding a parameter to Template:Self-photographed. --Leyo 06:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Late response, but yes, "self-photographed" is bad English, and moreover, it's confusing, because it sounds like a self-portrait is being described. I oppose using this designation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The unambiguous expression is "photographed by me". No-one can misunderstand that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Category

{{editprotected}} The category Multilingual tags: Source would be much more logical than Localisation templates. Could somebody edit it? --Petrus Adamus (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done By the way categories of many protected pages are on their documentation subpages where they can be edited even if page is protected, as in [[Template:Own/doc|this case].--Jarekt (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Own using

We have Template:Own based. What about creating a Template:Own using? It might be used to indicate e.g. the software that was used to create a figure. --Leyo 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I created the template. Any additional translation would be appreciated. --Leyo 12:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Placement

I put this template in many uploads in the author field. Will that break anything?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably not but you might want to move it to source field and provide the author. You can ask for help at Commons:Bots/Work requests or use Help:VisualFileChange.js. --Jarekt (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It might lead to your images externally credited like "Photo: own" or "(C) own". --Túrelio (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There were less than 100 so I just did it manually.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Add

Please add to the Chechen language (Сан болх).-- Дагиров Умар (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done I added it to https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:Translations/MediaWiki:wm-license-own-work and it will show up here at some point. --Jarekt (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Heavily used template

{{Edit request}} Please add <noinclude>{{heavily used template}}</noinclude> to the top of this high use template (example). Riley Huntley (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

{{done}} [1] ↔ User: Perhelion 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhelion, template does not belong in /doc. I would have placed it there if that was my intention, thanks for trying to help though. Riley Huntley (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok yes, why is it not sufficient there (except of the transparent background)!? The /doc page is also for other not functional related information (like cats). ↔ User: Perhelion 09:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well first, the template instructions says to use directly on the template. And more importantly, the template links to the talk page. If we use it on the /doc, someone will open discussion at Template talk:Example/doc instead of Template talk:Example. I think the /doc system works better, but that would require getting consensus on the template's talk to modify the template and its usage. (Not to mention refreshing the cache of the hundreds of templates that use this template directly). Hope that makes more sense. :) Riley Huntley (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Awesome! Thank you! Steinsplitter (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that was an cache refresh of 1.5 Mill files! :P ↔ User: Perhelion 09:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yepp, But the jobqueue looks fine right now and en:Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance ;) --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarify that it is own work by the author not the uploader

The template currently reads (en-version):

This template is used in the |source= parameter of the {{Information}} template to render the words "own work" in the language specified in the user's preferences.

Use this to say that you personally created the entire original image by yourself (for example, you drew the picture on paper, you used a camera to take the photograph, you painted the picture on canvas, etc.). Do not use this tag for any images that you saw on any website, downloaded from any source, scanned from a book, newspaper, or magazine, or copied from anything.

This sentence needs to be reworded to include that the template indicates that it is the own work by the author (as given in the author= field), not the uploader. Possible suggestion:

This template is used in the |source= parameter of the {{Information}} template to render the words "own work" in the language specified in the user's preferences.

Use this to say that the person stated in the |author parameter created the entire original image by himself (for example, the author drew the picture on paper, used a camera to take the photograph, painted the picture on canvas, etc.). Unless you are the author of the work, do not use this tag for any images that you saw on any website, downloaded from any source, scanned from a book, newspaper, or magazine, or copied from anything.

Also note that the second sentence is only included in 2 languagues. Any thoughts? --Schlurcher (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

For me the meaning of the {{Own}} means work was performed by the uploader. It is added automatically by the upload wizard when the uploader picks "This file is my own work" option. Changing the meaning of the "own work" to work performed by the "person stated in the |author" field, would mean that if you list Ansel Adams in "author" field than you can claim it as "own work", which makes little sense. Schlurcher in other discussions mentioned File:Phantasialand condor.jpg as an example where a file with equivalent of {{Own}} template was moved by him in 2005 from other wikipedia and {{Own}} template was used in the source. A lot has changed since 2005, but currently transfers from other wikipedia would get information about the transfer. In my opinion files like that should not use {{Own}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The upload wizard also automatically selects you for the "author" field; so this is not a contradiction of the use. I would also use {{Own}} if I upload a file on someone's behalf, like a family member. For me the information, who uploaded the file is completele irrelevant for determining if a file is an own work of the author or not. I'm interested to hear further thoughts. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

But then every file would have this template because every file is the own work of the author. That is the definition of the author of the work. --GPSLeo (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Parameter for attribution redux

The template {{Artwork}} which is meant to replace {{Information}} lists the |author= field as For some objects "author" is more appropriate term than "artist" referencing |artist= Artist who created the original object. So if we're adding the Artwork template to a photo of an artwork that has |source= Own/Own Photo and |author= Username, something's gotta give in terms of what we're supposed to be using these templates for. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)