The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Airports in Sergipe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one working link, not counting another one in the title. It's a navigation box that hardly allows any navigation at all. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 23:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Egyptian Exchange (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and broken Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox high school basketball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, unused. Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DualLicenseWithCC-ByND-3.0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia licensing guidelines, it kind of useless to has a template that allow you to license stuff under a invalid license. The CC BY-ND is incompatible with Wikipedia's CC BY-SA version 3.0 and the GFDL 1.2+. The ND license is disallowed on Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:91B9:158A:7BA4:ADA9 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note this is allowed as explained in Wikipedia:Multi-licensing#How it works. It must be understood that a contributor with this template on their userpage is "dual-licencing" their contributions, i.e. under releasing them both under the CC-BY-SA-3 and the CC-BY-ND-3. If the work (presumably article) is not derivative, then either one of those two licences can be chosen (again see the section linked). It doesn't make much sense to me why a person would want to do that, given that ND is more restrictive than SA, but I'm not a copyright lawyer. --Inops (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or, at the very least, Subst and Delete. As mentioned by Inops, this is a legitimate, although little used, practice on WP. In this particular case, this template predates WMF's switch from GFDL to CC-BY-SA. Because the GFDL requires that distribution be accompanied by the full text of the license, at the time this template was created WP's use of the GFDL made it quite onerous to use WP content in small printed works. So at the time some reusers might have actually appreciated the option to use the CC-BY-ND license. At the very least, if the template is deleted, it's content should first be substituted into the user pages of the users who are still using this template. See previous discussion of this template at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 8. —RP88 ^(talk) 18:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I'd support a Subst and Delete if community consensus is such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a perfect ly valid license grant, although there is little current reason to use it, as explained above by Inops. I see no valid reason to delete this template. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).