Template talk:PLOS

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Fairytale Trash Questionmark No.svg

This template was nominated for deletion on but was kept.
The deletion debate is here. Please consider that decision before you re-nominate it.


العربية | বাংলা | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | +/−

How to handle different licenses?[edit]

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)