Template talk:Palestine topics

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Miniapolis 20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people → Template:Palestinian territories topics otherwise to "Template:[Something] topics" – To match other "[Territory name] topics" template names in Category:Country and territory topics templates and its subcategories. CsDix (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support This is just the title of a template, it doesn't matter too much what the title is, but the nom has raised a far more important point. This template is about the Palestinian territories (and the people) in general, not just the Palestinian National Authority specifically. The PNA is "an administrative organization established to govern the West Bank and Gaza Strip", it's not a country or territory itself, it governs the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Rename this to "Template:Palestinian territories topics" and change "Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people" to "Palestinian territories and the Palestinian people". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the topics are mostly related to PNA, some to State of Palestine, others to West Bank and Gaza; in any case this is not something which can be defined as Palestinian territories. What are Palestinian territories? - Occupied territories in 1967? Occupied areas today? Palestinian-controlled territories today? totally unclear.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• oPt means what's described in the lede of that article - the WB and Gaza occupied in 1967. Japinderum (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm thinking of Palestinian territories in the sense of Palestinian territories. CsDix (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Palestinian Authority defines "Palestinian territories" as "Liberated Palestinian territories", meaning those they currently control (areas A+B of WB, GS controlled by Hamas); international community related to Palestinian territories as "Palestinian-controlled territories", more or less in accordance with the Palestinian Authority stance.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the PNA and international community conceders Area C and east Jerusalem to be part of the Palestinian territories. This template is about the Palestinian territories (including entities associated with the Palestinian territories such as the Palestinian National Authority and the State of Palestine) and the Palestinian people. We most certainly can define the Palestinian territories as the Palestinian territories. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean I'm thinking of Palestinian territories in the sense described in the Wikipedia article called Palestinian territories: "The Palestinian territories ... comprise the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip." So, the PNA would be one of the topics addressed within a "Palestinian territories topics" template. CsDix (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the template includes topics related to the PLO and SoP and while it can be argued those are included because of the "and the Palestinian people" I think having PNA in front of the title is misleading. Japinderum (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although what would be wrong with simply Template:Palestinian territories? --BDD (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing, ultimately, I suppose – it's just that it's categorised with templates called "X topics". CsDix (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, should have read the request more carefully. Yes, it would be best to move as proposed. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT - you can't change the opening proposal on the fly, during the discussion - it makes it unclear who supports/opposes what. Initially the proposal was to move to "Palestinian territories and Palestinian people", now it's different from that. And that change was not announced here. There is no problem with the actual move to be to a different target from what was proposed (if, for example, all responds were "oppose, but I think XXXX will be better", then it gets moved to XXXX despite the opening proposal being for YYYY). My opinion is that "and Palestinian people" should remain, because this is an unique case and not some "general [territories] something template" (or whatever you call it). If that is removed, then some of the wikilinks in the template may have to be removed. Japinderum (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was here from the beginning, the proposal was always to move this to "Template:Palestinian territories topics". I agree that "and the Palestinian people" remain in the header of the template itself, the thing that you would see transcended into the article itself, but the title should probably be standardized to to match the rest of the Category:Country and territory topics templates. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, sorry, you are right. Japinderum (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Still, at Wikipedia:Requested moves is written another title. My support is for the title Template:Palestinian territories topics, as shown here. Japinderum (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - i agree in general that it should be <X topics>, i disagree with the "Palestinian territories", which can refer to "occupied palestinian territories", "palestinian controlled territories" or "liberated palestinian territories (Hamas designation for Gaza). I think it should be kept "Palestinian National Authority topics", while another template soon should be created named "State of Palestine topics" in accordance with the recent change of status in UN and the following title change of Palestine in all UN institutions.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a Template:Palestinian National Authority topics and a Template:State of Palestine topics are viable and would be sufficiently distinct, that seems fine to me. (The former would be about an authority (an administration, a government, etc) so I imagine would sit in a "politics and government templates" category rather than a "country and territory topics templates" one.) If, though, these wouldn't be that distinct, or, perhaps, not receive sufficient consensus to be viable, it looks as though Wikipedia uses "Palestinian territories" as the compromise (consensus?) approach. CsDix (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with counter proposal per Greyshark, as it would work neatly as two sub-templates under the broader Template:Palestinian nationalism. This would then need some pruning, to remove the topics which related to other topics such as the state of Palestine (per new template proposed by Greyshark, to include topics related to the palestinian territories) and Palestinian people (per existing template here Template:Palestinians). Oncenawhile (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Theoretically they can be made distinct, but knowing what happens to edits about such topics in other articles it's dubious this can be actually achieved. Recent title change in the UN, however diplomatically important, is irrelevant to almost all wikilinks currently in the template, so that's not a good reason to make changes there. State of Palestine currently only claims, but doesn't have any control over the Palestinian territories - so what Oncenawhile proposes can be made only with big caution, that realistically won't be adhered to when editing in this politically-loaded topic. Japinderum (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep asserting that "Palestinian territories" is a vague and dubious term. I won't bother to repeat everything I said at Talk:Palestinian_territories#Considered_by_whom but, the long standing lead of Palestinian territories has described the PT as consisting of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and if there were any real dispute over that, the lead definition would have dawn far far more controversy, and would have done so a long time ago. the overwhelming majority of RS describe the PT as consisting of the west Bank and Gaza Strip [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. You're previously assertions that PT can commonly refer to just Area's A and and B of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was rejected.

The Palestinian Territories consists of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there may be valid reasons for a split, but PT being vague is not one of them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmette, your above comment is a kind of loose and incorrect, because it was your proposal which was rejected - [12]. Don't try to make it the other way around (as i remember you even apologized for that incident).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irreverent. The objection was to your assertion about the meaning of the term "Palestinian territories", it clearly states "[Greyshark09's] claim that the Pt term today is widely implemented not to the entire WB and GS, but specifically to the areas under PNA control is completely unsupported and easily refuted." Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is irreverent?Greyshark09 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greysharks proposal isn't piratical, only two articles here are about the SOP (State of Palestine and International recognition of the State of Palestine) there's nothing to split. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are quiet several articles on SoP and more on "Palestine" which actually relate to SoP.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few about SoP (All pages with titles containing State of Palestine), and if the PLO wants th keep celebrating the UN vote by blurring the lines between the SOP and PNA, it wouldn't be piratical for them to have separate infoboxes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my proposal is not piratical (piracy?)Greyshark09 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - reminder - to date (2012) a Palestinian state still does not have sovereignty over the entire Palestinian territories. These types of templates (the state templates) should only contain the information related to the official governmental body and not information related to other non governmental organizations operating in the Gaza strip and the West Bank or information relating to the Jewish/Israeli settlements/organizations in the West Bank. When a final peace agreement would be reached between the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel which would put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the PNA would become the official body governing a Palestinian sovereign state which will extend over MOST or ALL of the Palestinian territories (depending on the final agreement reached), therefore, in my opinion it would definitely be more correct to either use the name "Palestinian Authority" OR "Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people". TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will ask your clarification - do you agree to name this template "Palestinian National Authority topics", and perhaps in the future (when relevant) create another template "State of Palestine topics" (per my suggestion above)?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wasn't going to comment, but Gnome's conspicuously POV-influenced !vote is just ridiculous. Is "Palestinian territories" going to be used much now? Template:State of Palestine topics might be better now. Although I don't see why simple Template:Palestinian topics can't be used. Nightw 19:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A "Template:State of Palestine topics" content will be very limited - only three of the wikilinked articles in the current template are related to SoP. Japinderum (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will take some time to build a list of articles, but it is inevitable. UNICEF also changes the Palestinian designation to "State of Palestine" [13].Greyshark09 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Government, Security, and Politics sections deal with mostly with the Palestinian National Authority, but otherwise this template deals mostly with the Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent the Palestinian people. How about renaming this but with no prejudge against spiting a Palestinian National Authority template off from this one? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought about your oppose some more and I'm confused. How would naming this to "Palestinian Territories" cause it to include non governmental organizations? All the other Category:Country and territory topics templates use the name of their respective Countries or territories yet they don't have non governmental organizations listed.

• Comment I just made a change to the template. I added "PNA" to links that deal with the PNA rather then the Palestinian territories or people in general. This, aside from making it more organized and making it clearer as to what these articles deal with, might also serve as a compromise for some of the arguments to split this, especially Oncenawhile's, and might address TheCuriousGnome's concerns. In the process I had to replace "Palestinian National Authority" with "Palestinian territories" in the header, because otherwise the "PNA"'s I added would be confusing, but most of these articles deal with the Palestinian territories or people in general rather then the PNA specifically anyway. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That change was reverted not because of an objection but because of no consensus. The discussion had gotten rather stuck so I was trying to implement a possible comprise using WP:BRD. If there would have been objections the objector would have reverted and then the objection could have been discussed, and if no one objected to it we would have had a new consensus, but the "no consensus" revert sabotaged that. Anyway here's my version, anyone object to it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or this version which includes "Palestinian National Authority" in the herder. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support generally, in case my comment above wasn't clear. It'd be better to just go with {{Palestinian topics}} though. Nightw 01:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the other Category:Country and territory topics templates uses a Demonym. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to summarize, that's five supports to two opposes and one of those opposes contradicts the Palestinian Territories article. Considering that the request is just to make this work like every other Category:Country and territory topics templates, I think this can be moved, in order for this one to differ so much from the others I would think there would need to be quite a bit more opposition. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - to summarize there is no consensus for move, because 4 users support (Cs, Emmette,Japinderum,BDD), another one offers weak support (Nightw), and 3 users oppose (Grey, Onceanawhile, Gnome). In addition, it seems everything now converges into SoP, so the proposal seems like a last year's snow.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Onceanawhile never said opposed the move, he said that he supported splitting the template. Your oppose is based on the fringe view that "Palestinian territories" is a vauge and dubious ther, which has been rejected by 6 editors (including me). That leaves one valid oppose.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You sound desperately obsessed over-excited, which doesn't help you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said "your assertion" instead of "fringe view" that was a bit uncivil of me, but "You sound desperately obsessed, which doesn't help you" is a blatant personal attack, how could you possibly think that it was an appropriate or constrictive thing to say? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i should have said "overexcited" instead of "obsessed". But considering our long relationship, i felt much more friendly with yourself to use some slang words.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You sound desperately over-excited, which doesn't help you." is still a personal attack, inappropriate, and unconstructive. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "everything now converges into SoP" - quite untrue if in everything you include PLO or oPt. Only some PNA institutions may merge into SoP, it still not clear what/how/when. The "Palestinian territories" continue to be under Israel occupation, so there are many separate articles about them, distinct from the political-related SoP and PNA. Japinderum (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clearly political template.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Country and territory topics templates, it's scope is most certainty not limited to politics and government. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The political template is {{Politics of Palestine}}, this is a country/territory topics template, so it should have the name of a territory, not an administrative origination. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Template:Palestine topics. Given the level of support for both the original proposal and the compromise option Template:Palestine topics, there is a consensus here that the current title is unnecessarily wordy. Equally, there is a rough consensus (this time including those who opposed the original request, as well as those who support the compromise option) that including the word "state" in the new template title is unnecessary. This consensus takes no position on whether the word "state" is or is not NPOV; template names are utilitarian in nature, as several commenters suggested, so the omission of the word "state" might merely be done in the interest of brevity, a spirit in accord with the original RM request itself. As Neljack points out, it is entirely possible to create anew separately "a Template:State of Palestine on the model of the Template:State of Israel". This renaming leaves that possibility available, and the discussion of that possibility would need to take place independently of this RM. Xoloz (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people → template:State of Palestine topics – Per outcome of previous discussion and in order to be in line with "template:state topics", but not to overlap template:Palestinian diaspora, it is proposed to rename this one to template:State of Palestine topics. Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC) GreyShark (dibra) 19:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - i don't have a strong opinion in favor of this "topics" title, but the current title is certainly unacceptable.GreyShark (dibra) 19:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - can someone notify all previous participants of the above discussion? I'm short of time...GreyShark (dibra) 19:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to invite all those participating on Palestine status discussion at Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_11#Palestine_2 - @Night w:, @Zntrip:, @Timothy Titus:, @Kahastok:, @Grioghair:, @Orange Tuesday: - you are welcome to comment here.GreyShark (dibra) 18:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The existing name is totally inadequate, far too wordy, and implies that the topics are all PNA-related (which is not true). The proposed new title is far more descriptive, easier to handle, and matches similar templates in the same 'family'. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 04:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree with Timothy Titus. State of Palestine would better cover this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: There were a lot of participants in the previous RM discussion, but not many this time. I hope that a relisting will bring more input, to give a better chance that the outcome will represent a broad-enough consensus to be stable.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Palestine topics already redirects here, and is probably the most WP:CONCISE, simple way of putting it. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed this discussion on WP:CENT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is no Palestinian State, so that name would make no sense. Palestine topics makes more sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are fully entitled to your view, and I am sure we all respect your opinion, but do be aware that your comment above is far more WP:POV than any proposal on this page. The bland and unqualified statement "there is no Palestinian State" simply won't hold water in an encyclopaedia that has a State of Palestine article, or in a world where the great majority (70%) of the world's nations recognise the existence of the state you deny. With respect, what we need here is legitimate discussion, leading to consensus, not more personal POV. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 15:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose I can support BDD's suggestion, but "State of Palestine" has conspicuous neutrality problems, to the point where I wonder why it was even proposed at all. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral about new name but per GreyShark, the old name is insane. BDD seems to have a good compromise name and it seems like that's equivalent wording to the equivalent Israeli template - {{Israel topics}}. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose since the present name is of (at least reasonable) NPOV, while the proposed one isn't. Bandy boy (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The proposed name is NPOV, it is the name of a widely recognised state with UN observer status. Opposition to this seems to be based on POV opposition to that state. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the move doesn't seem to violate NPOV at all. APerson (talk!) 14:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Template:Palestine topics. Oppose - anything with "State of Palestine" comes with baggage and shouldn't be used without contextual disclaimers, which is exactly what State of Palestine does (quite well, I think). I'd be comfortable with a move to "Template:Palestine topics" which I think provides a much better (shorter) title without going anywhere near anything problematic. There are also plenty of subjects in that template which, while relating to Palestine in general, don't necessarily relate to the State of Palestine. In answer to Tim, I don't "oppose" the State of Palestine in any way, shape or form (quite the opposite) and I don't think anyone who opposes this on technical grounds should be tagged as such. Stalwart111 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Timothy Titus. Also I don't think State of Palestine would be POV as this is the name that most of the world uses for the political entity that this template is about. Kaldari (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's not. Part of it relates to the State of Palestine (including the link to State of Palestine) but a good portion of the template relates to history, culture and media which would be covered regardless of the political recognition given the the SoP. There's nothing wrong with a template that specifically covers the politics and functionality of the SoP but this template isn't it. This relates to Palestine topics in general, which is why Template:Palestine topics is a good title. Stalwart111 05:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Template:Palestine topics. Weak Support Existing title is undeniably over wordy. The proposed title is accurate and reflects the status of Palestine as a UN observer state, but {{Palestine topics}} would be more concise, which should be the objective, and it infers recognition of Palestine as a state while remaining POV neutral. As a parallel example: {{Republic of China (Taiwan) topics}} (equally emotive) redirects to the shorter {{Taiwan topics}}. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 04:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I like the "Palestine topics" suggestion. By the way, the last paragraph in the lead of State of Palestine article is must-read for this request. I encourage all, especially those who oppose the term "State of Palestine" to read it. I'm not endorsing the term but pointing out relevant information to make a decision. Regardless, the scope of the template seems to be more than just "State of Palestine" as User:Stalwart111 points out, so "Palestine topics" seem to nicely side-step the NPOV issues while also being more accurate. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other benefit, of course, is that it allows Template:State of Palestine to be kept free for a template specifically related to the State of Palestine and directly related topics. Stalwart111 05:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose: While I acknowledge that "State of Palestine" has sufficient international backing that it doesn't violate NPOV, I think that "Palestine topics" is more NPOV and thus preferable. Strongly agree that current title is inaccurate and overly wordy. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote then is more of a weak support because you're just proposing Palestine topics, however Palestine wouldn't be as precise as State of Palestine. KazanElia (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I do not support a move to "State of Palestine," but my objections aren't strong ones; therefore, this is a weak oppose. Furthermore, per User:Stalwart111 above, "Palestine topics" has the advantage over "State of Palestine topics" that it refers to the region before the existence or recognition of the state. In fact, if this were a category, I'd make "State of Palestine" a subcat to "Palestine." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: current title is too long and the proposed title is reasonable. There is nothing that violates POV with the proposed title: the article State of Palestine already exists and the template deals exactly with that. KazanElia (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Template:Palestine topics. This clearly describes the scope of the templates, and avoids any NPOV issues which might arise from adding the supetfluous word "state". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Template:Palestine topics. In my view there should be both a Template:Palestine topics and a Template:State of Palestine, just as there is both a Template:Israel topics and a Template:State of Israel. This template is the equivalent of Template:Israel topics, so it should be called Template:Palestine topics. I would however encourage the creation of a Template:State of Palestine on the model of the Template:State of Israel. Neljack (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Facepalm and move to either {{Palestine topics}} (as others suggested), {{Palestine stuff box thing}}, {{So you wanna know more about Palestine, eh?}}, {{Knock knock! Who's there? Palestine!}} or any number of other perfectly valid template names. A template's name isn't nearly as important as what the template actually has in it, much like the naming of a function, so my suggestion would be to go with whatever will piss off the fewest number of people who will actually see the template name (i.e., article editors) and result in the number of future requested moves on this template hitting 0. If that means picking a "none of the above" answer, then that's probably the best course of action. Just sayin'. --slakr^\ talk / 07:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.