Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 11



Template:PD-MDGov

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PD-MDGov

The template cites as evidence that the Maryland government archives are in the public domain. However, the key sentence on that page appears to be "PLEASE NOTE: Rights assessment for associated source material is the responsibility of the user." (bolding in the original): in other words, they make no guarantee about the copyright status of works in the archive. --Carnildo (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to invalid tag. (Second choice: Delete.) Yes (as I said when calling for this TFD) I don't think this is a valid license, but not because of Carnildo's argument, which is largely tangential; gobs of work clearly in the public domain on many, many sites (e.g. on many sites for which PD-USGov is valid) is tagged in a way that leaves some parts of rights assessment  way (or worse!)  --Elvey (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In case it's nuked instead of redirected: The content is: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a State Archive of the State of Maryland. "This information resource of the Maryland State Archives is presented here for fair use in the public domain." When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. Please note that rights assessment for any associated source material is the sole responsibility of the user., citing the above URL.


 * Keep as is. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Any reason? --Carnildo (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete After reading the Maryland government link, I see no evidence that information from the Maryland government can be distributed commercially or be used to create derivative works. 2600:1002:B10F:AB5E:301B:36DA:820F:2322 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no evidence of what content from the sites would actually be in the public domain. Also, if the content was simply in the public domain, why would the page say that the content is presented for fair use in the public domain.  I thought that fair use had a completely different legal meaning the public domain, but I could be wrong. -- THMOPENREECYRA  (public) 19:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * delete per Carnildo. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:New user

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * New user

effectively unused template (not used after 2008) The Banner talk 22:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment note that and  are different from this template -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – It's very necessary to notice new user. Banhtrung1 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * delete/redirect to Welcome after replacing. it appears this template has been used as some sort of a userbox, which is not really what it is intended for. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PD-NJGov
The result of the discussion was delete, seems that WP requires the ability to modify, which is in conflict with this license. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PD-NJGov

Not a free license. It permits copying, but not modification or the distribution of modified copies. --Carnildo (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The attached link states that "anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State." The "without obligation" verbiage is a blanket permission for all uses.DavidinNJ (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * KEEP per DavidinNJ, and the State of New Jersey, this is a valid free license. The copyright statement on the State websites is clear and unequivocal…they release their rights to anyone who may want to view, copy, or distribute.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above and my comments on commons' copy. Please withdraw, --Elvey (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not withdrawn. The "blanket permission" doesn't cover modification, only "view, copy, or distribute". --Carnildo (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Any attempt to oblige the copier to not modify would be a violation of the "without obligation" verbiage. So the "blanket permission" certainly does cover modification.--Elvey (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how copyright law works. Even ignoring the fact that "obligation" in a legal context usually refers to payment, copyright works on the principle that anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden.  Since there is no explicit permission to modify, modification is forbidden. --Carnildo (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Carnildo, Copyright doesn't operate "on the principle that anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden." Most copyrights don't discuss fair use, yet there are a broad range of activities are permitted under fair use. If you look at the second part of the PD-NJGOV template relating to OPRA requests, New Jersey law states that "government records shall be readily accessible" to the citizens.  However, the state supreme court said that language gave a business the right to "catalogue and sell the information," which inherently includes both modification and commercial distribution. The same rationale applies to information on the state website. DavidinNJ (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The explicit permission of fair use lies in copyright law rather than individual copyright statements. And I don't see where "catalogue and sell" permits modification. --Carnildo (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Carnildo, the law works on the basis that anything not forbidden is permitted, and what the law means is what it says as normally understood in English, unless words are defined under statute to have particular meanings. If you want to argue otherwise, present some evidence, or go home.  'Obligation' in a legal context refers to anything that's an obligation, including payment, promise or service.  That's what it means in English, and here.  --Elvey (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Carnildo. Government records are public domain, the state has it enshrined in law, the courts and the Government Records Council agree:
 * NJSA 47:1A-1 states "The Legislature finds and declares it to be the public policy of this State that: government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this State, with certain exceptions, for the protection of the public interest, and any limitations on the right of access accorded by P.L.1963, c.73 (C.47:1A-1 et seq.) as amended and supplemented, shall be construed in favor of the public's right of access; ...all government records shall be subject to public access unless exempt from such access by: P.L.1963, c.73 (C.47:1A-1 et seq.) The exemptions, only 21 of them largely dealing with employee privacy and personal identifier information, are defined in 47:1A-1.1/1A-1.2/1A-2.2/1A-3.
 * Nothing limits access (and "access" explicitly, stated above, permits copying and use): NJSA 47:1A-8: Nothing contained in P.L.1963, c.73 (C.47:1A-1 et seq.), as amended and supplemented, shall be construed as limiting the common law right of access to a government record...
 * This has been construed by the courts in several cases to be an unimpeded right of access and is construed as a free license for use (i.e. including copying): Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008); Nero v. Hyland, 76 N.J. 213 (1978); Bergen County Improvement Auth. v. N. Jersey Media Group, Inc., 370 N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div.), cert.den. 182 N.J. 143 (2004); Keddie v. Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36 (1997)
 * This gets augmented by the copyright statement on NJ websites.
 * While there is no case law on modification of a public record in NJ jurisprudence (YET), and no explicit mention of "you can modify" in the copyright statement, the phrase "without obligation to the state" likely would be construed by the courts (given a lot of state case law on derivative work, residual controlling interests and obligations, etc.) to permit forms of its use (including modification and adaptation) without any permission from the state. The statute on public records access explicitly says decisions on use are to be liberally construed to benefit the public--i.e. the person using the public record. It's clearly stated...use, copy, distribute without obligation (permission, payment, etc.).
 * Unless you know more about NJ Public Records law and its interpretation that is contrary to the plain text of the state court decisions or the New Jersey Statutes, your objection should be withdrawn.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The Commons counterpart of the template was deleted this discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment After carefully reading Burnett v. County of Bergen it seems very obvious that both commercial distribution and modification of New Jersey government records is permitted. Specifically, a data aggregation company sued Bergen County, NJ in order to obtain property records which the county was unwilling to release because of privacy concerns. The New Jersey Supreme Court found in favor of the company, stating that it was permissible for them to "catalogue and sell the information by way of an easy-to-search computerized database." Elsewhere in their decision, the court acknowledges that this means that "diverse pieces of information, such as a name, SSN, address, bank or mortgage holder and simulated signature, are assembled into a package."  I don't see how you can catalogue information and assembled data into a package, and it not be considered a modification. The NJ Supreme Court later notes that the information will be very different once the company is done processing it: "There is a vast difference between the public records that might be found after a diligent search of courthouse files, county archives, and local police stations throughout the country and a computerized summary located in a single clearinghouse of information." While the decision does not specifically use the term "modify", it is patently obvious that the company is modifying the data, and that the court is permitting this. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither side in Burnett v. County of Bergen makes an argument based on copyright law, and the court's decision is not based on it, so it cannot be used to determine the copyright status of public records. Additionally, the note that "the information will be very different once the company is done processing it" is irrelevant, because it's in reference to facts.  Facts cannot be copyrighted, only their arrangement, and that only to the extent that the arrangement is a creative act (eg. Feist v. Rural ruled that a simple alphabetical arrangement of names, as in a telephone book, is not creative enough to attract copyright). --Carnildo (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: The excerpt from the attached link above neatly reproduces the first sentence of a paragraph while omitting the following sentences, which read:"However, the State makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of Copyright or Trademark claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. Making a copy of such material may be subject to the copyright of trademark laws."


 * Clearly this cannot constitute a free use license. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fat&#38;Happy, This is a standard legal disclaimer, and doesn't mean much. The state is saying that they have no copyright on these images and documents, but are not legally responsible if someone else makes a copyright claim to these works. The federal government takes the same stance. DavidinNJ (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The issue appears to be whether New Jersey's government gives a free license to all users, without any significant restrictions.  The answer to that question, from what I can see and from my studies in IP law, is in the negative.  In my mind, "free license" means the right to copy, use, or modify, subject only to reasonable and extrinsic legal limits, such as defamation, right to privacy, false light, and other dignitary torts, as well as the issues of intellectual honesty, such as attribution and plagiarism.  In this case, the website twice mentions "copyright ... [and] ... trademark" as restrictions.  In the first case, the conjunction used is "or": "Copyright or Trademark claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display." (emphasis added).  Under the rules of statutory interpretation, "or" is used broadly. In the latter case, there is clearly a typo: "copyright of trademark" (emphasis added), which I suspect they meant to write "or".  In either case, "or" means both items, that is, broadly. Under the doctrine of United States v. McBoyle, if the legislature wanted to allow certain exceptions, they could have done so more clearly.  Furtthermore, the website, farther down, specifies, "Unauthorized attempts to modify or modifications of any information stored on the State's web pages may result in criminal prosecution."  None of that sounds like permission to use and modify.  The general rule, therefore, applies: state documents are copyrighted unless the state specifically allows it. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bearian, Thank you for your analysis. Your explanation of the copyright on material from state websites makes complete sense. Did you have a chance to review the second part of the template, regarding public record requests (i.e., OPRA)? DavidinNJ (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but if an editor can prove permission, then it would be acceptable. Bearian (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearian. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename & Modify Based on Bearian's analysis, I struck my former vote. Works from state websites are not in the public domain. However, documents and images obtained from Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests are not copyrighted.  I propose deleting the first two paragraphs of the current template that discuss state websites, but keep the final paragraph about OPRA requests. The template should be renamed "Template: PD-NJPR." DavidinNJ (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The final paragraph is based on Burnett v. County of Bergen, Carnildo made a point earlier in this discussion that the decision in this case was not based on copyright law. January  ( talk ) 13:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No state law case is purely based on copyright, as copyright is exclusively a federal issue. However, the language of the decision is clear that a person who obtains material through an OPRA request can commercially distribute it, and make derivatives of it. 2600:1002:B11C:EBF7:121A:F66F:66A8:9C86 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This case wasn't based on copyright at all, since it involved data that was not copyrightable in the first place. January  ( talk ) 15:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename & Modify After reading all the comments here Bearian's assessment seems best. Agree with DavidinNJ that renaming and modifying is the best solution. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename and modify This template is complicated because it permits infornation from state websites, and separately information from OPRA requests. After reading the arguments on this page, we should eliminate part 1 of the template, and keep part 2.
 * (1) I don't think its 100% proven that information from state websites is in the public domain. I agree with Colonel Henry that a court would probably rule in favor of someone trying to make derivatives or commercially distribute material from state websites. However,  because there is no case law on this issue, we must go by the language on the state website.  As Bearian notes, the language on the state webpage does not support the claim that the material is public domain.
 * (2) There is much more case law for OPRA requests, which are similar to federal freedom of information requests. The case Burnett v. County of Bergen provides overwhelming evidence that material obtained through OPRA requests is in the public domain.  Once a person gets documents from an OPRA request, they can sell it and make derivates of it. 2600:1002:B10F:AB5E:301B:36DA:820F:2322 (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The decision in Burnett says exactly nothing about the copyright status of government records. The documents involved are "assignments of mortgages, deeds, discharges/satisfactions of mortgages, lis pendens, miscellaneous, mortgages, releases of mortgages, vacations, construction liens, federal liens, inheritance tax waivers, institutional liens (a request plaintiff later withdrew), and releases of judgment", and the dispute was over whether the records needed to be redacted to hide sensitive information (such as Social Security numbers) and who would pay the cost of redaction.  The fact that the intended use of the records was to "compile, organize, and sell electronic access to title information" tells us nothing about the copyright status of OPRA requests, because the process of compiling and organizing extract the uncopyrightable facts from otherwise-copyrightable documents. --Carnildo (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete completely. There is not enough information on the website for these images to be completely in the public domain, or even released under another free license that is compatible with our standards. As for the OPRA requests, I would think that we need some sort of hard proof (via ORTS) that the file/item actually did come from an OPRA request, otherwise, people wishing to harm the project could simply say that a file is from an OPRA request and slap a tag on it, with no proof otherwise. -- THMOPENREECYRA  (public) 19:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's assume good faith. Any copyright template can be abused if someone wants to falsify their source, but that's not a good reason to delete a template.  2600:1002:B10F:AB5E:301B:36DA:820F:2322 (talk)
 * Absolutely all templates can be abused. This one has the ability to be highly misleading except for those familiar with the OPRA process, especially since it requires a bit of effort and work, and a dash of time to go through the process.  If the file was published on a NJ website, there would never be anyway to prove one way or another that the image really was from an OPRA request or whether it was just taken from the website.  And if it were not first published elsewhere and was just obtained from that request (which would be awesome for our use) I would think it would need some evidence of permission as do most, if not all, images that have not been published prior (save for uploads of photos taken by the editor). -- THMOPENREECYRA  (public) 22:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearian and Carnildo. The case for OPRA records being PD seems to be based on Burnett v. County of Bergen, a case that was about privacy not copyright, being taken out of context. January  ( talk ) 15:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment 1: The website grant says this: "The State of New Jersey has made the content of these pages available to the public and anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State, unless otherwise stated on particular material or information to which a restriction on free use may apply". So contrary to Bearian this does mean it's PD, largely because Bearian also doesn't address the argument that the text he, like Carnildo, cites is simply tangential boilerplate.  It's certainly the case that the text  "Unauthorized attempts to modify or modifications of any information stored on the State's web pages may result in criminal prosecution." would be perfectly appropriate on a US (federal) website with nothing but PD-USGov work on it.  It implies nothing whatsoever about the copyright status of such work.--Elvey (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum to Comment 1: Also note that the sentence uses the terms without obligation and free use in a way that the former implies the latter in the eyes of the author.  When the author is saying that there's no obligation, s/he is saying there is no restriction on free use.  --Elvey (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment 2: Notice that Carnildo hasn't replied to my comment above, or to -ColonelHenry's. So obligation means what I showed it means.  Also notice that likewise,  Fat&Happy has not responded to DavidInNJ.  The argument is no better than the ones against PD-CAGov and PD-FLGov! - For example, people insisted, wrongly, that Microdecisions was ONLY about GIS data. --Elvey (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment 3: The Open Public Records Act of NJ says:
 * "The Legislature finds and declares it to be the public policy of this State that:
 * 􏰑 government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this State, with certain exceptions, for the protection of the public interest, and any limitations on the right of access accorded by P.L.1963, c.73 (C.47:1A-1 et seq.) as amended and supplemented, shall be construed in favor of the public's right of access"
 * When one is barred from copying or redistributing a state work at will e.g. in a different format, one is restricting access. Such a restriction cannot be "construed in favor of the public's right of access" and therefore is unlawful by default.
 * The OPRA goes on to say,
 * "d. A custodian shall permit access to a government record and provide a copy thereof in the medium requested if the public agency maintains the record in that medium."
 * This doesn't give the government the option of providing the record, depending on what the requester plans to do with it. It says it SHALL be provided.--Elvey (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're really, really stretching there. You're correct that the government doesn't have the option of refusing access based on what the recipient intends to do with the record, but that doesn't mean that the government can't later sue the recipient for what they do with it.  OPRA enumerates certain things that the government can't sue over ("inspection, copying, and examination"), but the creation of derivative works is notably absent from the list.


 * As for the meaning of "obligation", http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=obligation&type=1 --Carnildo (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And that definition SUPPORTS my argument - that "obligation" does NOT just refer to payments. You agreed with me when I suggested PD-MDGov needed to go, but your logic for proposing that deletion (also above) was as confused as for this one.  I posted 3 comments, (labeled "Comment 1", …) and a quotation, and all you can say is I'm "really, really stretching there".  If you're going to make a blanket attack on what I've said, tell us - what are you talking about?  What am I stretching?  Are you conceding I'm correct with respect to comments 1, 2 and 3 and just commenting on the quotation?  --Elvey (talk)
 * You're clearly not going to accept that "obligation" is not a "get out of jail free" card, so there's no point in continuing this discussion. --Carnildo (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearian and Carnildo, incompatible with our licensing. Frietjes (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Yeah, insisting on your ridiculous narrow redefinition of 'obligation' as a term that refers only to money is your most unimpressive move yet. Well, except for your uncivil refusal to discuss things - I asked " If you're going to make a blanket attack on what I've said, tell us - what are you talking about? What am I stretching? Are you conceding I'm correct with respect to comments 1, 2 and 3 and just commenting on the quotation?" you responded, "there's no point in continuing this discussion". As you won't discuss things, I can't make you, but that does make it OK for me to simply recreate the template as soon as it's been deleted. --Elvey (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:UlcinjSettlements
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * UlcinjSettlements

single use template, should be merged with the article (or deleted per WP:NOT). Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete per nom <tt>-PC-XT+</tt> 06:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:UlcinjSettlements1
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * UlcinjSettlements1

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - This one is more condensed than the one above. Maybe it should be merged into the article instead? Just a thought... <tt>-PC-XT+</tt> 06:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Michigan State Spartans men's ice hockey roster
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 03:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Michigan State Spartans men's ice hockey roster
 * Minnesota–Duluth Bulldogs men's ice hockey roster
 * Minnesota Golden Gophers men's ice hockey roster
 * Penn State Nittany Lions men's ice hockey roster

no longer used after being merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all per no use. Sawol (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:LongdendaleChainReservoirs
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * LongdendaleChainReservoirs

replaced by a standard succession box. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per redundant. Sawol (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AP Indiana All-Century HS Basketball team navbox
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 05:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * AP Indiana All-Century HS Basketball team navbox

No stand-alone article to support navbox, and none of these articles reference each other in the context of being selected for a statewide all-time team. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this template should be deleted. If the nominator is not satisfied with the supporting content, then I would welcome the nominator to add some articles or other content that would enhance the overall presentation.  This is a true, documented list of some of the greatest high school players in the history of Indiana high school basketball. and a century team marks a long period of time.  I believe each player's personal bio is enhanced when recognition is given for inclusion to this team.  Instead of taking a simple approach that deletes this content, can't it be reworked some how to put it in a format or other presentation that is acceptable to all?   Jlhcpa (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, does not need a navbox. Sure, it's a wonderful honour, but I would suggest starting with creating Associated Press Indiana All-Century high school basketball team, then adding a link to that article in the awards section for each player. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. No need to create high school basketball team navbox. It is not notable. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Summer Universiade basketball navboxes
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 03:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Summer Universiade is a multi-sport event held for student and youth people only. Their navboxes are unnecessary. Banhtrung1 (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Canada men basketball team 1995 Summer Universiade
 * Italy women basketball team 1995 Summer Universiade
 * Japan men basketball team 1995 Summer Universiade
 * Japan women basketball team 1995 Summer Universiade
 * United States women basketball team 1995 Summer Universiade
 * United States men basketball team 1995 Summer Universiade


 * Delete all because Basketball at the 1995 Summer Universiade is sufficient. Sawol (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your opinion. If we want reader know informations about Summer Universiade, we would mention them in each player article. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - it should be noted that even though these templates was nominated on 11 July, the link to the discussion was not added to the templates untill today. . Mentoz86 (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I didn't have enough time to browse Wikipedia so I forget to tag them. Anyway, the templates like them shouldn't be exist, avoid an excessive! Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CountriesAtLusophonyGames
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete all but CountriesAtLusophonyGames. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 13:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Lusophony Games is a minor multi-sport event. So participating countries' articles are unnecessary. Banhtrung1 (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

All related articles and templates should be deleted.


 * Lusophony Games Angola
 * Lusophony Games Brazil
 * Lusophony Games Cape Verde
 * Lusophony Games East Timor
 * Lusophony Games Equatorial Guinea
 * Lusophony Games Guinea-Bissau
 * Lusophony Games India
 * Lusophony Games Macau
 * Lusophony Games Mozambique
 * Lusophony Games Portugal
 * Lusophony Games Sri Lanka
 * Lusophony Games São Tomé and Príncipe
 * CountriesAt2006LusophonyGames
 * CountriesAt2009LusophonyGames
 * CountriesAtLusophonyGames


 * Keep CountriesAtLusophonyGames/Delete the rest I agree that a nation-by-nation analysis of every edition of this competition is overkill. However, I think the overall articles documenting the nation's historical participation at the Lusophony Games are a worthwhile effort. I think the pages for each nation per edition (e.g. Brazil at the 2009 Lusophony Games) should have the information merged into the parent page (e.g. Brazil at the Lusophony Games). SFB 18:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:COp
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was wrong venue, please feel free to renominate at WP:RFD. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 04:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * COp

Illogical superfluous template that works as redirect <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 03:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and delete cop as well, for the same reason -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * wrong venue, you want WP:RFD (see Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 18). Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a redirect, it is a template (although containing only a redirect) <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * see Templates for discussion. Frietjes (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:UNREF
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was wrong venue, please feel free to renominate at WP:RFD. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 04:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * UNREF

superfluous template working as redirect <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 03:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the tags are &lt;ref&gt; so "un-&lt;ref&gt;" makes sense -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * wrong venue, you want WP:RFD. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dominican Republic women u20 volleyball team 2009 World Championship
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a youth competition so its navbox must be deleted.

Banhtrung1 (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Junior World competition. I do not know why you want to delete it. Does it really bother you? According to WP:TEMPLATE this one is ok, and according to WP:TD none of the 4 points are violated in this one. Why saying MUST? Osplace 01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Navboxes for youth competitions are not necessary. They don't notable so this is not eligible to create them. Like football! Banhtrung1 (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a Junior not Youth, and were is the rule about this? I could not find anything in WP:TD. Thanks, Osplace 13:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Junior as well as youth competitions' navboxes are not also necessary. They are not watched and known commonly. They are minor tournaments only. It's very useful to delete their navboxes. Banhtrung1 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, no need for youth squad templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Summer Universiade navboxes
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 04:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Spain men volleyball team 1995 Summer Universiade
 * Italy men volleyball team 1995 Summer Universiade

Summer Universiade is a minor multi-sport event because it's held for student and young athlete only.

Their navboxes are not necessary. Banhtrung1 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all because Volleyball at the 1995 Summer Universiade is sufficient. Sawol (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bulgaria Volleyball
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 04:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bulgaria Volleyball

This template is excessive!

Volleyball team squads are changed constantly. So this is unnecessary.

We should create squad navboxes for a team in a certain competition. Banhtrung1 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete because Bulgaria men's national volleyball team is sufficient. Sawol (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

U21 Euro squad (next)
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is youth tournament so navboxes are not necessary. They should be deleted speedy, like here, here and here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Banhtrung1 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ukraine Squad 2006 Euro U-21
 * Serbia and Montenegro U21 Squad Euro 2006
 * Denmark squad 2006 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship
 * Netherlands squad 2006 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship
 * France squad 2006 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship
 * Germany Squad 2006 Euro U-21
 * Croatia U21 Squad Euro 2004
 * Serbia and Montenegro U21 Squad Euro 2004
 * Germany Squad 2004 Euro U-21
 * Sweden Squad 2004 Euro U-21
 * Switzerland Squad 2004 Euro U-21
 * Belarus U-21 Squad Euro 2004
 * Belgium Squad 2002 Euro U-21
 * England squad 2002 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship
 * France squad 2002 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship
 * Switzerland Squad 2002 Euro U-21
 * Greece Squad 1998 Euro U-21
 * Norway Squad 1998 Euro U-21
 * Romania Squad 1998 Euro U-21
 * Sweden Squad 1998 Euro U-21
 * France squad 1996 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship
 * Spain squad 1996 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship
 * Scotland Squad 1996 Euro U-21
 * Czech Republic Squad 2000 Euro U-21
 * Czech Republic Squad 2002 Euro U-21
 * Croatia U21 Squad Euro 2000
 * Turkey squad 2000 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship
 * Slovakia Squad 2000 Euro U-21
 * Spain squad 1994 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship
 * Spain squad 1998 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship
 * Spain squad 2000 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship
 * Italy Squad 1996 Euro U-21
 * Italy Squad 2000 Euro U-21
 * Italy Squad 2002 Euro U-21
 * Italy Squad 2004 Euro U-21
 * Italy Squad 2006 Euro U-21
 * Italy Squad 1994 Euro U-21
 * Portugal Squad 1994 Euro U-21
 * Portugal Squad 2002 Euro U-21
 * Portugal Squad 2004 Euro U-21
 * Portugal Squad 2006 Euro U-21


 * Comment - I don't think it is appropriate to nominate these templates before the discussion about the same templates from June 30 has been closed. It should also be noted that there is a discussion at WP:AN whether the nominator should be banned from making further nominations. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - most of these templates was kept in a discussion from October 2011, because they provide useful navigation between articles on a related subject. These squad-templates are from a major European tournament, and they also pass the criteria listed in WP:NAVBOX,so if you want to delete these templates why should we have any squad-templates at all? Mentoz86 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Squad-templates are necessary for official international and continental senior tournaments only, such as FIFA World Cup, AFC Asian Cup... For the youth competitions, sub-articles which mention about each team squad are sufficient! Banhtrung1 (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But 2013 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship squads, does not provide navigation like a navigationbox does. Do you want every article to have a "See also" link to the squad-article instead? Mentoz86 (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course nobody want it happen. We should mention about U21 Euro in each player article. Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But should we mention all of the other players that was in the squad in each article aswell? A navbox like this is made for a reason, to not put all those links in the "See also" section. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've reverted this edit, where the whole nomination was removed. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can't find any criteria besides nominator own belief. These are templates, meant to do what they are exactly doing, per WP:NAVBOX we should keep them all. Osplace 01:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is the first time you have participated Tfd. It's youth tournaments only. This is ineligible to create navboxes. They should be extinct. Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all per the previous talks below. Sawol (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_30 (the latest)
 * Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_14
 * Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_22
 * I don't see the value in linking to a discussion from 2009... Mentoz86 (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Although it from 2009, it is still discussion. We should respect for the historical truth! Above templates are REALLY not value! They mention about youth competitions so they are unnecessary. Too many templates will make article be too long, make difficult for the reader! Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But what about last time these templates was discussion in October 2011 the consensus was to keep these templates, shouldn't we "respect that decision" aswell? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all - per recent similar TfDs and current consensus.--Oleola (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We must delete all because youth competitions' templates are very supernumerary. Banhtrung1 (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The nominator should not vote in their own discussions, and you should know that by now. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, navbox cruft that just bloats the foot of an article. participation in a youth squad is not a sufficiently notable achievement to warrant the use of a navigation box.  Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.