Template talk:In use/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Misuse of Template

This template is being misused by users creating new articles. This template does NOT replace the use of the sandbox. New articles should not be created until they are ready to be public. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 03:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

Change "this page was last revised" to "this page was last edited" L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Making this template more noticeable

Like the user in comments above, I have found that other contributors simply ignore the template because they didn't see it. When advised of a transgression, one very cooperative editor said he simply did not notice it. Can we make the template stand out more? I think I solved the problem as you can see on this page. I added a big, bold SEE ABOVE at the bottom of the template, centered and set off with a line space. It is a positive statement, but I don't believe it is WP:Tendentious in any way. Can we make that a part of this template? I think this is a special case that can't be cited as precedent for other templates. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I know this comment is years old but I would like to request something similar be done about making the template more visible when it is applied to a page, or a further notice coming up (like a dialog pop-up) when someone disregards the notice and attempts to edit anyways. It has happened multiple times to me that someone comes in and makes changes while I'm still editing and then I have to go fix what they did (often times it's a poorly written or unsourced change) and then do my edits all over again. It's a serious hassle. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Use/mention distinction on user talk and other talk pages

This template appears on a number of user talk pages, where one user is telling another about this template. See, for example, User_talk:Alexb102072#I appreciate your edits, but. My first thought was that such indications should use

{{Tlx|In use}}, displaying as {{In use}}

rather than using this template itself, and I thought that all such "uses" of this template should be changed to "mentions" of this template. But now I see two valid possibilities.

I think Template:In_use/doc should provide clear instructions saying something like one of these:

1. This template is only for pages actively being edited. To mention the template on a talk page, don't use this template directly, but reference it with markup such as {{Tlx|In use}}, which displays as {{In use}}
2. It is acceptable to use this template on User talk and other talk pages to discuss this template and tell editors to look for it.

What do others think? —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's not reasonable to post this template on a talk page when what is wanted is a link to the template. However, there is no need to document that obvious situation because someone would either understand that (from the wording displayed by the template) or they would not be helped by documentation. There are lots of templates that could and probably are misused. Fixing them is not feasible and the best procedure is probably to forget about it. However, if there are a couple of cases where it would make a difference, just edit the page and make the template call a link with tlx or tl. A quick look at "what links here" suggests some people have the template as a joke, and others have it as a reminder of what they could use along with how it is displayed. The user talk page you linked to was last edited in January 2018 and it would not be useful to "fix" that now. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue seems to be "how do you tell if the noticed is stale or not" if the page is a talk page that is constantly being updated.

Proposed "fix" going forward: Make {{#time:H:i, j F Y|{{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}} (UTC) the default value for |time= (the current default is no value) and add a |suppresstime= parameter. Have a bot go back and add |suppresstime=yes to the 250-260 or so existing uses prior to the change so it won't be a "breaking change." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"Last updated" timer unnecessary?

Since one can check the history to see if a page has been updated, should the elapsed time since the last page edit be removed? JsfasdF252 (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Having the last-edited time is useful because it saves effort. More useful would be to have |time= default to the time the template was placed, see my comment of 27 November in the section immediately above this one in addition to the time it was last updated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Add purge link to "previously edited"

I've added a purge link in the template's sandbox to make it clear that the "time since edit" is only an estimate. Thoughts on its inclusion in the template (not sure of the best wording)? (ping Mikeblas per discussion on Discord) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! My only nit is that it's a little bumpy to read ... maybe parenthesis around the "cached estimate, update" part? Or make it a full sentence: (This estimate is cached, <link>update</link>), or ... ? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikeblas great, I've updated the template. Feel free to change around the wording a bit, if you feel like something else would be better. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

LGTM! Thanks!1!! -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Last edited 0 seconds ago

Resolved

Can some one fix this. e.g. At 09:30 UTC it says "This page was last revised at 08:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC) (0 seconds ago)". It always says 0 seconds ago. --Pontificalibus 09:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Or at least remove "This page was last revised at {{#time:H:i, j F Y|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}} (UTC) ({{time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}})." until it can be fixed.--Pontificalibus 10:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: I took a look at a few transclusions and I couldn't see any problem. The message seemed to be correct in all cases. When you first use the template of course it will say 0 seconds. But when you refresh the page (there is also an "update" link) then the number will update. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a user-specific problem then. As I said in my example above it still said "0 seconds" 42 minutes later. I've looked at some more and it varies 1 says 0 seconds, 2 bizarrely says "(23 days ago) (UTC+0) (15 days ago)" but 3 correctly says 4 months...--Pontificalibus 15:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This is still a problem -- for me, at least. Refreshing the page doesn't do anything. Purging the page works, but I can't imagine too many users know about how to do that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. The template output is always cached, so this will always be the time as of last purge, not the actual time. For that reason I agree relative times should never really be used in templates. That said, note the template does suggest purging. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

Template:In use has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=Under construction}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2021

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Template:In use → Template:Currently editing – The proposed name might be more descriptive JsfasdF252 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. "In use" is descriptive enough, and has been at this title for years. "Currently editing" is not more descriptive, and is ungrammatical: a user is currently editing while an article is currently being edited, and that's not the title anyone would use. No such user (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per No such user. Didn't we just get done with a snowed merge discussion, and now this? It might be better to talk about the ideas before making a formal proposal. BilCat (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - better as-is.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel like that In Use is a better name than Currently Editing. Plus, In use have been the name for years already. - ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 02:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comments - I don't see any reason {{Currently editing}} couldn't be a redirect to the current title. Tags often have a wide variety of redirects to permutations of the actual title. But I thought I'd ask first. BilCat (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support the current title is clearer, "In use" can mean anything like a template that is being used etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• In use seems better to me, as it more naturally conveys the issue at play. Currently editing sounds like a status for a user, In use is what you see on a door so you don't enter. We're all currently editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just because "in use" is easier to remember when applying the template. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above Wretchskull (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone said above. Starzoner (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.