Template talk:PLOS

 

How to handle different licenses?

While CC BY 2.5 has been the default license at PLOS since they started publishing in 2003, they have switched to CC BY 3.0 and then CC BY 4.0 in late 2013. In addition, they have published a few thousand articles under CC0. The template in its current form does not allow for such variation. How should we handle that? I thought of adding a license parameter - so that something like {{PLOS|CC0}} would be possible - but could not really find my way through the complex template structure used here. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, adding a parameter specifying which version of CC is used is essential, otherwise this template cannot be used for many articles. Need to find someone who knows how to do this! BabelStone (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way is to use {{Cc0}}, {{Cc-by-2.5}} and {{Cc-by-4.0}} and so on instead of {{PLOS}}. (I already proposed to delete this template in 2010.) --Snek01 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Snek01 − we should almost never mix-up source and license. The way forward is to convert {{PLOS}} to a source template, and slap CC-XX on all files. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

My, and to think I was in favour of keeping the template back then. Er, ah, well… :-° Jean-Fred (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Jean-Fred: See en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wakatobi flowerpecker. The article has only CC BY-4.0 license; which may applicable to the images too. But out template says CC BY-2.5 too (which should be avoided). Jee 08:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have updated the (English version of the) template to take an optional "version" parameter to change the version of Cc-by. A better solution might be possible, but at least this is better than forcing 2.5 to be displayed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I just arrived here looking for a solution to the same issue. The version parameter is an improvement, but now using a correct version parameter contradicts the text at the bottom of the template. The website currently states (via linking to the 4.0 license) that content is published under CC-BY 4.0, not 3.0 as the template indicates. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Version parameter does not work

Hi! ThaddeusB added two years ago the parameter "version" in order to specify the version of CC-by licence. It appears that currently this parameter is not taken into account. See for example the example section of the documentation or here. Could someone fix that? Pamputt (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Updating

Hello, I think that this model should be updated. Indeed, the link to licence has moved to https://www.plos.org/terms-of-use and now the default licence is CC BY 4.0. Could some modify the template to take this into account? Pamputt (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This issue has also been brought up at this FAC review[1]. It seems there's also a dead link in the template. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I kinda fixed the parameter, you can use 2.5 (or ignore it as it is the default value), 3.0 and 4.0. Totodu74 (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Auto categorization?

Perhaps I am mistaken, but didn't this template at one time place files into a category, e.g. Category:Media from PLOS journals or similar? Would there be utility in categorizing files with this template in addition to the narrower categories of specific journal? Thanks. -Animalparty (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)