Template talk:In use
Latest comment: 8 hours ago by Jonesey95 in topic Edit request 2 September 2025
 | Template:In use is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the In use template. |
|
 | This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4. |
Template-protected edit request on 8 April 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
WP:INUSE makes it clear that mutual exclusion is a matter of courtesy, not policy, and that the presence of this template does not strictly prohibit other editors from editing the page while it's up. This template has legitimate applications, but also has the potential to be used for WP:OWN / WP:STONEWALL purposes by editors who wish to maintain their content during a dispute. I suggest that we change the wording of the template from "please do not edit this page while this message is displayed" to "please be mindful of others editing while this message is displayed". DefaultFree (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}}template. Two hours is a short period of time, and edit conflicts can be a pain. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)- Getting into examples of why I think this would be useful could be veering into discussing specific instances of editor conduct, which I'm not sure is appropriate here. Yes, two hours is short, and edit conflicts can be a pain. But I have recently seen this template used during a content dispute to protect one editor's vision for an article over others, with individual {{in use}} editing sessions lasting upwards of 10 hours, and with reversion and gnashing of teeth when other editors try to make constructive, non-conflicting edits during that time. I think it would be good to change the wording to reflect actual Wikipedia policy, and to note that it is not appropriate to use this tag as a strategic device during content disputes. I recognize the utility of this tag in many (most) instances, and am proposing it be improved, not removed. DefaultFree (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - DF seems to be referring to me, but I am not using the template for the purposes he accuses me of. Any editor can review my changes and see that I am actively progressing the articles while they are so tagged. Adding a dozen reliable sources, then using those sources both to expand the articles and support material currently referenced to primary and/or less reliable sources. I remind DF that "Patience is a virtue." Skyerise (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to adjudicate any individual editor's behavior in this thread; I don't really think the specifics matter on this particular talk page. My point here is that the template text creates the impression that other editors are required to refrain from editing while {{in use}}, and that this apparent requirement makes the template tempting to use during disputes. If we change the language to match the reality of policy (i.e. that it's a suggestion made among mutually courteous editors in the interest of reducing edit conflicts, in spite of the fact that policy allows anyone to constructively edit any article at any time), then it will still be 100% effective at its intended purpose, without accidentally becoming useful as a consensus-bending device. DefaultFree (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I object to the latter characterization as a "consensus-bending device" - in the particular instance there was a spate of non-consensus removals with nary a post on the talk page. You imply that there was a consensus to bend, but consensus comes from discussion, not drive-by editing. If anything, I used the proper tool to slow down and put a halt to consensus-void edits (complete with edit-warring from those drive-by editors and the wrong editor getting blocked) while improving the article, rather than the other way around. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Working towards consensus during a conflict can certainly be done on the talk page, but it's not the only way. See WP:CONSENSUS, particularly WP:EDITCON. Reverting and immediately slapping an {{in use}} on the page at the first sign of disagreement before the other editor can respond with a compromise, and forcing everything to go to the talk page instead, shuts down one avenue of consensus building. This template is meant to reduce edit conflicts, not as a
tool to slow down and put a halt to consensus-void edits
. DefaultFree (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)- If an editor is reverting repeatedly, there obviously (by definition) isn't any WP:EDITCON, nor any likelihood of a consensus arising without discussion. I'd think that would be obvious. And technically any removal is a revert of one or more previous editors, so it is the initial remover who breaks WP:3RR first, because their very first edit is technically a revert. Skyerise (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Working towards consensus during a conflict can certainly be done on the talk page, but it's not the only way. See WP:CONSENSUS, particularly WP:EDITCON. Reverting and immediately slapping an {{in use}} on the page at the first sign of disagreement before the other editor can respond with a compromise, and forcing everything to go to the talk page instead, shuts down one avenue of consensus building. This template is meant to reduce edit conflicts, not as a
- Well, I object to the latter characterization as a "consensus-bending device" - in the particular instance there was a spate of non-consensus removals with nary a post on the talk page. You imply that there was a consensus to bend, but consensus comes from discussion, not drive-by editing. If anything, I used the proper tool to slow down and put a halt to consensus-void edits (complete with edit-warring from those drive-by editors and the wrong editor getting blocked) while improving the article, rather than the other way around. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to adjudicate any individual editor's behavior in this thread; I don't really think the specifics matter on this particular talk page. My point here is that the template text creates the impression that other editors are required to refrain from editing while {{in use}}, and that this apparent requirement makes the template tempting to use during disputes. If we change the language to match the reality of policy (i.e. that it's a suggestion made among mutually courteous editors in the interest of reducing edit conflicts, in spite of the fact that policy allows anyone to constructively edit any article at any time), then it will still be 100% effective at its intended purpose, without accidentally becoming useful as a consensus-bending device. DefaultFree (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Edit request 28 May 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a =reason param to provide explanation why the in use parameter is being used on the page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 18 July 2024 unnatural wording
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
| − | for a | + | for a little while |
To my ear, "short while" sounds wrong. It is missing from Wiktionary. According to Google Ngrams, the usage of "little while" is more than 4 times more common than "short while" and "short while" was even rarer historically: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=for+a+little+while%2Cfor+a+short+while&year_start=1700&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 . {{in use section}} needs the same fix. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Edit request 2 September 2025
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace with {{In use/sandbox}}, which has a few minor improvements and no linter errors:
- "please" was used 3 times and many terms were repeated often
- it didn't use standard pb, which is used for templates with more than one paragraph
- clarify purge link (wasn't even grammatically correct) and put important timestamp info first
it's mainly a copyedit, nothing else changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaviFake (talk • contribs)
- It appears that the rendering will change if
|1=and|2=are used. Are there testcases? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)- Jonesey95 There wasn't a change in functionality, only in the wording used; I've now created them: {{In use/testcases}} FaviFake (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Jonesey95 There wasn't a change in functionality, only in the wording used; I've now created them: {{In use/testcases}} FaviFake (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)