Template talk:In use/Archive 1

Comment

great! exactly what I was in need for! Optim 19:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Looks great. I have two suggestions. Firstly I think that anyone using this should put a signed, dated message in the talk page (using ~~~~) to identify themselves. Second, I think there should be a page (perhaps in the Wikipedia namespace) to which this box links, to provide further explanations and to allow dead boxes to be found and removed, perhaps after a specified time period. Andrewa 20:12, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Edit conflict could be used for the link checking. It doesn't have too many links pointing to it. I agree about the username, but it's difficult in practice -- just adding a sig after the box is ugly, and getting it into the box is non-trivial (the sig macro is not parsed when using transclusion). The name is always in the page history anyway.—Eloquence

great idea, Eloquence! —Noldoaran (Talk) 21:32, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

There needs to be a date in that box or next to it. Too laborious to search the history for when it was included. Personally I would always include something saying "The edit is expected to be done by 12/31/03" so that if it's 2005 and another wikipedian sees this, they can feel free to attack. Tempshill 23:58, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

PS: I didn't intend to merely complain about this -- thanks, this actually is a good idea. Tempshill 00:14, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Point taken. As I said, it's a bit tricky to include this message in a visually appealing way. But I hope that we will eventually expand the MediaWiki namespace to support parameters, so we can do neat stuff like that. In the meantime, I think going with the history will be enough, because I do not expect this problem (messages left in place) to happen very often. I might be proven wrong, of course.—Eloquence

What a terrible idea. When did an article become the sole possession of a single editor? RickK 06:11, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can see definite disadvantages to it. People putting it on during an edit war to stop their version being reverted for example, or leaving it for hours, if not days, and going mad when someone removes it. If it's just a few minutes, then perhaps that's ok, but I think encouraging people to edit offline or use the preview button is a better solution. Angela. 06:21, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some of those concerns are easily adressed. Have a guideline that only a page with no significant dispute be eligible for this msg. Frex talk pages should always be fair game for the msg while archiving. I remember trying to archive a page despite some half a dozen edit conflicts with the user who originally requested the archiving (I won't say who, but you are free to speculate), and the file was 'bout 90k at that. Also have a clear guideline that complying with the request is a purely a courtesy, and not even a at the level of a recommendation. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:55, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

90kb talk page. Hmmm. Now where could that be? ;) I think if those points are made clear then this notice shouldn't cause any problems. Angela. 13:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually it was Talk:Jesus. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 11:45, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Rick. This is not about making articles the possession of an editor, it is about the times when someone is about to make major changes or rearrangements in an article, and wants to avoid the tedious and annoying edit conflict tool -- for himself and for anyone else working on the article. I'm sure you are familiar with that problem.

Many wikis implement this technically, by either showing a warning message or locking articles that have been recently opened for editing. I consider it better to use a "soft" solution that can be ignored when needed.

We should perhaps make clear somewhere the appropriate time limit for using this message, and that it can be ignored in cases of controversial edits.—Eloquence

A good idea, despite the real reservations expressed. Recently, I've been adding a note to talk pages and a link to the rewrite in progress in my user namespace when undertaking major rewrites. I do this to invite contributions to the rewrite as much as a notification. So far, nobody seems to respond, although I've been working in the relatively uncontroversial area of "high culture", which may explain that. I like the idea of putting something on the actual article page, but feel it might be good to add an invitation to communicate with the poster so as to possibly contribute to the rewrite? If an article is so controversial that such an invitation might cause problems, then the notice probably shouldn't be there in the first place. Bmills 11:56, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why it is here

I created the inuse message because there were times when I needed a few minutes to finish an update to an article and didn't want someone else changing it while I was working on it. Take a look, for example, at List of television stations in USA by Call Sign and if I'm putting all of the entries for, say, California in from the current list by states, that's going to take a while. If someone else comes in and changes the list (for Colorado for example) while I'm doing an edit as well, then my work is wasted or at least I have to now go in and re-edit to include their changes, since the list is in alphabetical order. In this sort of circumstance I don't really want to put a few entries in, save it, then put more in, and so on, I'd prefer to put all of them in as one batch. I'm less likely to items out if I do it that way. (Yes, I wrote that last sentence with the intentionally missing word to see if someone would notice.)

Someone else came along and seriously improved the appearance of the message. It is intended for a temporary warning that a change which takes several minutes to do is in progress. If there was a way to have it automatically time-stamped with the time it was saved so someone could know if it had been there 'too long' and thus know it should be considered no longer in effect, that would have been a good idea. Perhaps it needs a time limit, say, 30 minutes to an hour at most. Or it needs to have the time it was posted added. I think I'll fix it to do that. -- Paul Rfc1394 17:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As noted above, I have since added four new items, so there is now {{msg:inuse30}} at Template:Inuse30 for 30 minutes, {{msg:inuse60}} at Template:Inuse60 for one hour, {{msg:inuse90}} at Template:Inuse90 for 90 minutes, and {{msg:inuse120}} at Template:Inuse120 for two hours, if you only want a short delay message. -- Paul Rfc1394 19:41, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would think that a more generally useful message would not include predictions of how long the article will be occupied with it. Instead, it would simply say that the message will be removed when the dust settles. Mkmcconn 20:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Jengod reverted with the message

Reverted to the lurid, and there more effective, green

There has been no evidence at all that the non-lurid version has been ineffective. Why would people ignore the message if it is simply in bold font, but decide "oh no I really had better not edit the article" if it has dotted red box around it. It doesn't make sense to me.

I can't imagine what an impression a first-time reader of Wikipedia gets if they see such a fragrant use of colour. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The use of color is valuable in distiguishing administrative notices from running text. The very purpose of the inuse alert, it seems to me, is to prevent confusion. Another use of color, albeit not so lurid, is {{vfd}}. Could we perhaps settle on a less lurid green, or something generally less blantant, will retaining some color and the box? jengod 08:20, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Well I guess at the heart of my gripe is the idea of having admin notices on the article page at all, but more people want them than don't, so I should learn to live with it. Yes a more neutral colour scheme, like the current vfd one (although there is discontent about even that at MediaWiki_talk:VfD), would be a good way of compromising. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why this instead of comments?

Having the article in the midst of a major edit is not of note to any reader but only to editors. People should be using html comments (like this <!--Please do not edit this page, it is in the midst of a major rewrite--> ), which do not show up to readers, but are visible as soon as someone clicks "edit this page." moink 19:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd had the same idea, but I realized that it wouldn't work with section edits. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 16:19, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

As for me, a reader, I like to see an article undergoing a major edit. It encourages me to check back in a few hours or days to find our what has changed. In essence, it works as an attractor. Metacarpus 13:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed redundancy

In the course of creating a List of redundant expressions, I encountered a redundant expression in our Inuse boxes: currently undergoing. (If a thing is undergoing a process, of course it is current.) --NathanHawking 21:17, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I've restored the intent using the phrase "actively undergoing" - makes it clear someone is working on the page right now. -- Netoholic @ 02:42, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

I think "actively" is OK for the page which does not specify a time, but is redundant for the messages which specify a time, e.g., "actively undergoing a major edit for the next 5 minutes." Specifying the time implies activity, don't you think? --NathanHawking 17:20, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't see why "currently undergoing" is wrong usage at all. I can't find any authoritative source that decrees it to be bad grammar or redundant – list of redundant expressions is your unsourced, original research, usage guide (reference points 4 and 10) and is flawed in many respects. Indeed, in searching for this, a number of grammar institutions use both phrases. I don't think that this minor insignificant redundant redundancy is bad at all, since it communicates the intent very well. -- Netoholic @

Whatever. It's not complicated. For some reason, I doubt any fact will convince you otherwise, but here goes:

• Currently: presently elapsing [1]
• Undergoing: ... the present participle, which is formed by adding the suffix "-ing" to a verb, and [2]

It's redundant. Make your own decision as to whether it's "bad" or "good." I would delete it as unnecessary, especially when the context delimits the time to minutes. But since you wrote those two words, you are attached to both of them.

I notice you've tracked me over to the List of redundant expressions page. I deal with your "unsourced" stuff over there. --NathanHawking 21:42, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Category:In use

I removed this from the template, because I really don't see the point of it. Articles are only going to be in use for a short time, and noone's going to go looking for them in a category. Much better to reduce load on the server a little, and just use the "What links here" link to see where this is being used. -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Yeah, now that the template is linked to from the period at the end of the notice, we really don't have to worry about the subst: issue. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 16:24, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

See also

• Template:Reorganizing, for category, list, template, article series, etc. work

Cleanup

By the by, I cleaned out a few old "{{inuse" templates in articles which hadn't been edited in a while, (but not "talk" pages and others). Actually surprised at so few leftover tags. Anyway, I was just using the template myself, briefly - I think it's a useful editing tool. Thanks to its creators. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New template

It sometimes doesn't make sense to paste "This article will be used for 15 minutes". From when? Therefore, I've made this new template: Inuseuntil. Deryck C. 07:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This should be automatic

This should really be an automatic feature of the software, not a template. (Not that it should show a big notice at the top of a page, but that it should show a big notice when you go to edit a page that is in use.) Other wikis already have this, like MoinMoin wiki. Here's my proposal: Bug 2438 - Omegatron 01:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The flag should show up only when the editor of the page asks so in order to prevent crashes due to people clicking the edit button without saving page. Deryck C. 00:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Crashes? - Omegatron 02:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I press the edit button in order to view the source code. The server received a signal that I'm editing the page. However, next, I press the "back" button on my firefox without pressing the save page button. The server computer doesn't know that I've finished using the page and keeps displaying the in-use flag. Misleading will thus occur. Deryck C. 06:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't give the full description here, I guess. My design included a time-out feature if the article was never edited. Here are all the details I included in the original feature request. You can read through the bug report to see other people's comments:

When someone presses edit, a flag should be flipped so that if someone else presses edit they get a simple notice at the top of the page that it MAY be in use and when the edit button was pressed. This will not prevent anyone from editing, it will just suggest that they wait a bit. Exactly like an inuse template, but automatic.

When Person A presses "Edit", the flag is flipped. If Person B then presses "Edit" they will see "Another user may be editing this page. The Edit button was pressed at 15:23, May 30, 2005. You might want to wait a few minutes to avoid edit conflicts." Every time Person A presses "Show preview", the message will be updated and the timer will be reset. (Refreshing Person B's screen at this point will show "Another user may be editing this page. The Show preview button was last pressed at 15:26, May 30, 2005." instead.) If Person A never saves their page, the notice will disappear when the timer runs out. The timer runs out after x minutes since the last button press by Person A.

It should not indicate a potential conflict if you are editing two different sections. — Omegatron 19:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

In my experience I'll only do the followings:

1. Press "edit page" to view source and leave it there forever
2. Press "edit page" and do a minor edit for 15 secs and save page
3. Press "edit page" and do a major edit for at least 15 mins before I press preview or save.

Therefore, as you can see, your proposed system will deliver a major conflict into my usage. Deryck C. 06:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Press "edit page" to view source and leave it there forever
   • The "inuse flag" will be turned on when you press edit. If you press another link on the page, it will be turned off. If you close the window or press the back button (so the server never sees any other changes), the timer will run down, and after the timer is done the inuse flag will be turned back off. Note that anyone can still edit the page; they are just told that someone pressed the edit button a few minutes ago.
2. Press "edit page" and do a minor edit for 15 secs and save page
   • The inuse flag will be on while you are editing, notifying other people that the article is in use. When you press submit the inuse flag will turn off. This is exactly what it is supposed to do.
3. Press "edit page" and do a major edit for at least 15 mins before I press preview or save.
   • The inuse flag will be on while you are editing, notifying other people that the article is in use. Since you aren't doing anything as far as the server can tell, the timer will run down, and after the timer is done the "inuse flag" will be turned back off. If someone edits it after the timer has run down, they won't know that it's in use, so you will get an edit conflict. If you wanted to avoid edit conflicts, you would push the preview button once in a while. — Omegatron 13:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

But it's a complete wastage of time pressing the preview button when I know what it'll appear like. Deryck C. 15:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Generally, I strongly support coded solutions to facilitate social interactions. Here, I think, we still need to retain a human element.

I don't see edit conflicts as problematic, most of the time. When I press Save, if I get an EC, I just cancel out and reopen the page for editing and stick my text in wherever. Of course, I always use an external editor for important edits -- so even if my entire system crashes when I push the little button, I can always go get a bite while I reboot and recover the text from the scratch file I saved into.

There is one family of operations I really don't like to have interrupted -- archiving, or other whole-page activities where it is crucial that all edits be preserved. I won't leave the page open for editing; I'll copy out the old text, make some kind of edit to generate a permalink -- usually, to blank the page and replace it with a terse archving notice -- and edit again, inserting a link to the archival point in history and whatever comment should remain after archival.

If there is considerable rag-picking to do during archival (or a giant page merge, or similar whole-page stuff), then it may take me quite awhile to finish and release the page into the wild again. I will almost certainly forget to keep tapping the Preview button under the proposed scheme.

Better -- in theory -- to have page protection available to every registered user -- on a graduated basis of course, like everything else. — Xiong熊talk* 21:38, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

Doing all that work to fix an edit conflict doesn't bother you at all?? For me it's as bad as a crash that destroys everything I was just writing. You almost have to write it all over again.

That's a strange theory. Page protection available to everyone would be a nightmare.

Pressing preview once every 15 minutes is hardly torture. If you enjoy edit conflicts, you are free to not push preview as much as you want. If you want to make a huge edit without pressing preview ever, you can even put an {{inuse}} tag on the top of the page. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this idea. — Omegatron 23:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes! That's what I mean. Why can't the "possible edit conflict" tag be MANUAL? If the tag will only show up BY EDITOR'S REQUEST it (the whole idea) would be much simpler. Deryck C. 13:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well no one's taking away your ability to put an inuse tag. This is for the rest of us who don't want to clutter up the history by putting an inuse tag every time we make an edit. — Omegatron 13:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we propose a double-system? (as follows)

1. When a user presses the edit button, the flag gets activated. Within 15 minutes, when another user presses the edit button, a flag pops up and it reads something like: "Another user maybe editing the page now. You may wish to postpone your edits to avoid possible edit conflicts".
2. In case the inuse tag is up, another flag shows up whenever the edit button is pressed: (in large fonts) "Another user has marked this page in-use by him or her for a major edit. As a courtesy, please postpone your edits to avoid edit conflicts." Deryck C. 03:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Remember to take it down...

I've just gone through the pages using this template, and about 20 of them were stale and hadn't been editted in days or even months. 2 actually seemed to be being actively editted. So uh... try to remember to take this template down when you're done with your major edit. If it stays up long after you've moved on, it can discourage people from editting the article. --W.marsh 17:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, WM. TheJabberwʘck 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

All right, time to talk about this. Here's the original image from December 2005:

It was changed on April 20 to .

On May 13, it was reverted to the original image. Later the same day, it was replaced with .

Thoughts? TheJabberwʘck 01:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with either of the two newer ones (the blue clock or the cone). I don't like the green clock; it's pixelated and ugly, in my opinion. TheJabberwʘck 02:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the cone! [3] moink 02:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The green clock is a disaster, but then that's why I changed it in the first place. I don't see how a pixelated 1990s image is 'better' than, well, just about anything. ericg ✈ 21:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging good use of template

I made an edit to this template today to add some text (see revision). It was reverted with the suggestion that the changes did not assume good faith. I disagree with the revert for the following reasons:

1. Assuming good faith doesn't mean not explaining how this template can be properly used.
2. The template is often misused by editors (presumably acting in good faith) who leave long term locks on pages
3. Editors leave this template on pages presumably because they do not understand that here at WP we do not lightly ask others not to edit, and because they believe the text of the default template authorizes them to have sole control of the article
4. Because the encyclopedia has relevant guidelines and policies, it seems appropriate to provide links to these (as many other templates do) for the information of the adding editor and to encourage them to remove the template when appropriate.
5. The information is also of use to others who come across the template on a page and can then decide whether to go ahead and edit or not, or even remove the tag if it has been forgotten.

Bad faith means "deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia". And there was no hint of that in my original message. However, I have tried to soften them and have replaced them. It would be appreciated if you would edit the text to improve it if you should feel it is required. -- cmh 00:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of times, this template is either forgotten and stays up indefinently, or worse yet people really do use it to "reserve" an article for them suposedly to edit exclusively for weeks at a time. That's simply not what this template is for... so I've been trying to go through and remove it if it's clearly not being used as intended. Like you I think they're acting in good faith... they just really probably don't understand the implications of article ownership and leaving this tag up for a long time.

That said, mentioning WP:OWN in the template might be a bit too preachy, but I like the current version and think it might avoid some misunderstandings. I don't think you were assuming bad faith though. --W.marsh 00:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"...Articles don't have owners, and leaving this template on discourages others from editing, which is bad."

That kind of rhetoric is incendiary at best, and is irreconcilable with the notion of civility. You have assumed that the tag is being placed as a sign of possession. Underhanded insults of this sort do not go unnoticed.

Yes, I will concede I left tags on pages for extended periods; that happened when I first started using the tag. At the moment, I am unaware of any tools to sort entries on my watchlist based on tags. Nowadays, {{inuse}} is placed in the summary; that way, I can tell which pages need to be attended to.

The only problem I have here is with the language. If in doubt, ask. Folajimi 01:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Rest assured I was trying to be educational as I ran through the list of forgotten pages with the template. Now that you point it out, the edit summary I used on the article you had the template on was indeed pompous and overstated. I wasn't trying to be uncivil... but succeeded by typing quickly and not carefully reading things over. I apologize. -- cmh 01:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Inuse

Template:Inuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. W.marsh 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

For those who haven't seen the discussion there, we came to the conclusion that misuse of the template, and inconvenience for editors who find it left in place after editing is finished, could probably be reduced by adding a little bit of text to the template itself and the nonincluded part of the page describing its use. So how does this look:

This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. As a courtesy, please do not edit this article while this message is displayed. The person who added this notice will be listed in its edit history should you wish to contact him or her. This message is intended to help reduce edit conflicts; if the article has not been edited in the past two hours, this template has probably been left in place accidentally, and may be removed.

And, in the Usage section, changing the phrasing to:

The Inuse template message is placed at the top of a page you are actively editing for a short period of time. The tag is intended to inform people that someone is currently working on the article, thereby reducing edit conflicts. Please do not leave it in place for more than the few hours at most that should be necessary, as doing so may unnecessarily discourage others from contributing to the article.

What do people think? --Robth^Talk 00:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me obviously, though I think perhaps it should read "help reduce edit conflicts over a single edit session;" just for clarification, I think the edit session wording that's there now is useful. --W.marsh 00:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"...over a single edit session" sounds good. I replaced the second part of the small text message on the theory that it was more intended for users of the template, who would presumably be likely to see a similar message in the usage section or on the WP:LOCK page. I'm not against it staying in, though. --Robth^Talk 00:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, User:TheJC/Inuse looks nice and concise. It doesn't include the two hour part, perhaps that really just needs to be in the instructions? --W.marsh 00:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway the main thing is that no one objects to the change. Language can be handled much later. --W.marsh 00:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict, fittingly enough) I like the rephrase of the large text on that version; I would, however, like to see something about feeling free to remove it in the inclusion. As I see it, the template and its instructions can be divided into the "outward facing" elements and the "inward facing" elements. The "outward facing" part is the included template, which is likely to be seen by casual readers and editors wandering by the article; it should contain instructions that will be of use for them if they want to make changes to the article, or if they wonder if they can remove the template. The "inward facing" part is the WP:LOCK page and the instructions on this Template page, which are likely to be seen by people who are placing the template; these should contain instructions on how to use the template, for the benefit of those putting it in place. --Robth^Talk 00:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement regarding the language as well as the "outward facing" and "inward facing" elements. While I was looking through Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit I came accross {{Sectioninuse}} which I've never seen before and don't even know if anyone uses.

I like TheJC's version (I'm looking at this one right now. I like the preservation of the subtext as we got it to last week. The key points for me in the subtext are instructions to the current editor to remove after their editing session, and also a link to WP:OWN that can be referenced if the editor really is trying to camp on the article. I also strongly like the general "if it hasn't been touched in a while" rather than trying to determine a specific length of time. Most of the cases of inuse "left on" are pretty obvious. -- cmh 01:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, I think the reference to WP:OWN is more of an "inward facing" thing, which a problem editor can be directed to on this template page if needed. That said, my preference isn't so strong that I'd be greatly upset if we end up keeping that in the included bit. A general instead of specific time reference sounds good to me, as long as it seems relative clear that we mean "a while" in the sense of hours, not weeks (and thinking about it, the "one editing session" thing pretty much takes care of that). --Robth^Talk 01:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have implimented the suggestions above. It's still open to discussion of course, but I thought being bold and putting up a good compromise of various versions would spur things along. Thoughts? --W.marsh 02:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it. --Robth^Talk 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed the tfd. I'm not sure whether mentioning WP:OWN in the template is a good idea... I wouldn't really object personally if that got removed. But it's good to remember that a template doesn't over-ride that policy. Thanks for everyone's participation in the tfd, by the way. I never imagined it would be so productive. --W.marsh 13:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Sectioninuse

Template:Sectioninuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 01:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC) TfD nomination - Sectioninuse

The problem with unzoned times

Regarding the last example on the template page:

{{inuse||for=|until 12:00 PM}}

But 12:00 PM which time zone? Ideally, that time would be expressed in UTC) to reduce confusion to the worldwide audience. Also note a preference in many nations for 24-hour time format (e.g. 15:30 UTC instead of 3:30 PM UTC). Dl2000 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Fixed (WP:BOLD). Λυδαcιτγ 05:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Longer inuse welcoming help

I was recently editing a page (List of Honorverse characters) which is undergoing a slow (days, likely week long) process of being wikified. I thought that since the process has started, the standard wikify template is no longer applicable, but neither is the inuse one. What do you think of creating a template that would say something along these lines: 'Since date this article is being edited to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of style; specifically blah blah blah is being done. There is still blah blah to be done, with current number of editors it is likely it will take days/week until the edit is completed. Please help to make it faster if you can.'--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in Template:Underconstruction. -- cmh 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

is it OK to add that to the page, either in the text or as a see also: : does it go on wiki or mediawiki? DGG 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

How about that? -- cmh^TC 20:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sections

We need to be able to state that a section is in use, since different sections can be edited at the same time without causing edit conflicts. It's quite a reasonable proposition that on a large article undergoing collaborative editing (Paul McCartney) folks will want to "lock" certain sections not the entire article.

Either this template needs to be modified to say "and sections", or I'll undelete and modify {{Sectioninuse}}. Which would be best? --kingboyk 14:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "This entire [page type] is actively undergoing..." for this template and reactivate/create {{Inuse-section}} for sections, beginning "This section is actively undergoing..."...?  (Incidentally, might the word "actively" be superfluous here...?)  Regards, David Kernow 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about {{Inuse-section}}. Thanks for the tip!

I think "actively" isn't superfluous here because it means "right now" as opposed to over, say, a period of days or weeks. --kingboyk 17:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Too big

The template looks to big, I am taking out one line so as to make it less prominant. Please discuss. frummer 09:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

I have proposed this article for deletion. Please review the front page to find out why. --UnicornTwilight (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your use of a {{prod}} tag had the effect of causing all pages using this template to be tagged for proposed deletion. When you saved the page, it clearly said in big red letters that PROD should not be used on a template, and you shou7kd have removed. I have now done so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

{{editprotected}} svg version now available (Image:Crystal Clear app clock.svg). Please replace the png version with the svg version. Thanks -- penubag  (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to;  Done seresin ( ¡? ) 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

---

TfD nomination of Template:Inuse

Template:Inuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — UnicornTwilight (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category

If anyone is interested, i am proposing the renaming of the categories for this and its related templates. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 28#Actively undergoing. Simply south (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambox--->mbox

{{editprotected}}
Not all pages used by this are articles. Therefore, this should be changed to this template so it detects what page it is on and shows it. See {{underconstruction}} for what i mean. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done – {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing user pages with this template

Do user pages undergoing major edits really need to be categorized? How about adding the following to the template...

{{#ifeq:{{SUBJECTSPACE}}|User||[[Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}

-OR-

{{#switch:{{SUBJECTSPACE}}
|Image|Portal|Template=[[Category:{{SUBJECTSPACE}}s actively undergoing a major edit|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Help|MediaWiki|User=[[Category:{{SUBJECTSPACE}} pages actively undergoing a major edit|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Category=[[Category:Categories actively undergoing a major edit|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Wikipedia=[[Category:Project pages actively undergoing a major edit|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|[[Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}

Just a thought anyway. LA (T) @ 09:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

+ 'or section'?

There's discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 31#Template:Inuse-section about adding "or section" after "this article" (and "this user page", etc.) to this template; if that's done it looks like there'll be a rough consensus to delete {{Inuse-section}} as redundant. Better yet, a section=yes parameter could be added (I can do the former myself, the latter I would want to leave to someone more experienced with templates). Is there any objection to doing this? delldot ∇. 00:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Last modified

In the TfD discussion for Underconstruction I came up with a way to {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} so tell how long ago a page has been edited. This can be used to automatically categories old instances of this template or to notify how long ago the last edit was made. For example this page was last edited 819508 minutes ago, although this is a buggy being off by whatever the timezone is set to. — Dispenser 18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It will also be off by however long the page has been in the cache. While bug 15980 can be fixed, that can't really be without giving up caching. Is User:JL-Bot doing that bad a job of removing stale templates? Anomie⚔ 19:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I notice that Template:Wait redirects to here. I'd like to suggest something new to that with the below code:

{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|45px]]}}}'''Wait! Are you here because {{{1|of my editing}}}?
(copied and pasted from Accounting4Taste's talkpage) Stereotyper (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)