Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Expand/testcases

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand/testcases

Sandbox for deprecated template. No longer needed since the template isn't used anymore. Was kept at last MFD due to being in userspace at the time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same reasoning given in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/Expand testcases. To recap, I moved this page to my userspace when {{Expand}} was initially hard-deleted in order to preserve the edit history because it helps document the code in {{Expand/sandbox}} and I (and others) often reuse test cases and other template code when working on other templates. {{Expand}} was later restored and switched to soft deletion with {{Deleted template}} (which I also did work on) in order to avoid errors with old page revisions. I then moved this code back to its original ___location, a subpage of {{Expand}}. I also preserved {{Expand/sandbox}} in the same way for the same reasons. I honestly don't understand why TenPoundHammer continues to obsess over the test cases code for {{Expand}} (and before that, the deletion of {{Expand}} itself), but this is getting beyond ridiculous. This is what, the 3rd? 4th? time you've now nominated this code for deletion, TenPoundHammer? Just like the past XfDs, this MFD is silly and the nomination reasons given in this MFD are 1. not valid reasons for deletion; 2. not entirely true. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fourth? Where are the others? I only see this as the second. Tell me what this needs to be preserved for. Because you haven't given an actual reason, just a bunch of circular logic. "I want to keep it because it's code that I want to keep." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Subpages of templates, specifically including but not limited to test cases and sandboxes are never deleted per your reasoning as "unused". As long as the parent template exists, be it actively used or "depreciated", the subpages are kept. Test cases and sandboxes are often quite helpful in determining how a template works and/or has evolved. In some cases, such as with protected templates, such sandboxes absolutely must remain remain for attribution purposes, ala Wikipedia:Merge and delete. With the sandbox and test cases for {{Expand}} specifically, these were also in-use during the RFC I note below. There is also the possibility that a "depreciated" template such as {{Expand}} may once again become actively used, and before that would happen, both the sandbox and test cases subpages would be used.

Extended content

As for your claim of circular logic...now that sounds familiar. Let's break this down and see if WP:STICK really does apply here...

You nominated a widely used template for TFD because you personally didn't like it, which about half the editors on Wikipedia like and the other half (including a number of FA editors?) dislike. After a no consensus close, you DRV it.

It ends up at TFD again after all the noise you continued to make, which this time was improperly closed as delete instead of a clear no-consensus close, while we had an RFC going on over how to improve the usage and presentation of the template. The template then went back to DRV again and this too was inappropriately closed as endorse, with reasoning which among other things contains some seriously faulty logic "[...] First, if we exclude all participants in the TfD who !voted in favour of their position at this DRV [...]".

...and during this entire time you were bulk removing {{Expand}} from literally 1000s upon 1000s of articles, often without explicitly indicating this in the edit summary.

But wait...as noted above, you didn't stop there. Despite stuff such as this and even this in my talk page archives, you MFD'd this same code while it was in my userspace and now that it has been returned to the template namespace, you've MFD'd it again.

It is pretty clear to me that you don't like {{Expand}}, but MFDing the test cases code is just plain ridiculous (and here again you thought I was "inactive", just like last time). --Tothwolf (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filibustering helps you not in the least. And I love how you pin the entire deprecation of {{expand}} on me, as if I personally told everyone to !vote according to my will and/or persuaded those who disagreed with me. You act like I'm the Lord of Wikipedia who willed it that {{expand}} be deprecated just because I hated it. Audacious much? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filibustering... Hrm...
IRC> [lots of chatting]
IRC> TenPoundHammer joins #Wikipedia-en
IRC> [silence]
IRC> TenPoundHammer: Are there any admins here? Plz delete [...]
IRC> TenPoundHammer: [...]
IRC> TenPoundHammer: Anyone? Please speedy [...] because [...]
IRC> TenPoundHammer leaves #Wikipedia-en
IRC> [chatting resumes]
(note: not a real log, but pretty close to what people see)
...yep. Filibustering.
Narcissistic much? --Tothwolf (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know damn well I haven't done that in quite some time. I haven't even been on IRC that much in the past year, and it certainly wasn't to ask for deletion. And the only time I did was when it was something simple, like a G6 that had been in the speedy queue for way too long. Are you going to keep throwing ad hominem attacks, or are you done for now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, I've not been on IRC in quite awhile myself (actually, I guess since even before you-know-who was finally blocked [yikes, over a year now?]) so I honestly wouldn't know if you'd done that recently. I do know you used to be seen there quite a lot ;P ...and while I wouldn't call any of what I mentioned an "ad hominem attack" (I was being brutally honest), maybe I was being a little mean here...but dammit, TenPoundHammer, you really can tend to get on people's nerves after awhile. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the section above since it wasn't all that helpful and I was being mean to Ten Pound Hammer. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I've collapsed the section above, just so others can understand some of what I said, this sort of removal is the type of removal which I was referring to, and here are but a few of the discussions related to removing {{Expand}} which TenPoundHammer initiated:

I've also modified {{Deleted template}} [1] to exclude /sandbox and /testcases subpages within the Template: namespace from Category:Pages containing deleted templates so TenPoundHammer can now stop obsessing over them. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tothwolf. The deprecation of a template does not mean that all subpages of that template should be automatically deleted, so I don't think TPH has put forth convincing reasons for deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.