Template talk:In use

Modified

Template modified per discussion on my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wording

Current wording is:

This template page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. Please remove it, or replace it with {{Underconstruction}}, between editing sessions.

The third sentence, as currently worded, counsels the reader to remove or replace the page, which I do not believe is what is intended.

Ideally the message should be two paragraphs: paragraph one discusses the page, and why anyone other than the person who placed the template in the page should not edit it. Paragraph two is advice to the person who placed the template in the page in the first place, recommending to them that they remove or replace the template between editing sessions. This second paragraph should perhaps be in a smaller, italicized font.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting this: would it be possible to change it from

This template page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. Please remove it, or replace it with {{Underconstruction}}, between editing sessions.

...to

This template page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed.
If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Underconstruction}} between editing sessions.

? This would fix the pronoun confusion and make it clear who this specific sentence is aimed at. Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. How does it look now? — Edokter • Talk • 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks great -- thanks!--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking cats in certain spaces

I've cleaned up Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit a bit but it's notable that most of the pages now left there are sandboxes in the user space. Would it be possible to exclude such pages from the category? Le Deluge (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Only by explicitly adding |category=no to the template in those sandboxes. — Edokter • Talk • 15:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of a modification of the template, using something like {{Main other}} - the documentation for that uses only-categorise-if-in-mainspace as one of its examples. Alternatively, if you wanted something more complicated you could use {{Namespace detect}} but I don't think it needs to be that fancy. But I don't have edit rights, so it would be up to someone else to do it. Le Deluge (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This tempalte already uses namespace detection to display certain text, but it cannot detect if a given page is a sandbox. Whether all namespaces should be categorized, I leave to others. — Edokter • Talk • 18:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a reasonable bet that any sandboxes will be in user space, so excluding sandboxes can be achieved by not categorising articles in user space. Just look at Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit to see what I mean. Le Deluge (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. I'll have a look. — Edokter • Talk • 20:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. User and User_talk pages are no longer categorized. — Edokter • Talk • 20:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Much better - cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edited time?

Is there a compelling reason that we shouldn't add a last edited timestamp to this template? Is see adding something like

 This page was [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|diff=cur}} last edited] {{#if: {{REVISIONUSER}} | by [[{{ns:2}}:{{REVISIONUSER}}|{{REVISIONUSER}}]] {{toolbar|1=[[Special:Contributions/{{REVISIONUSER}}|contribs]]|2=[[Special:Log/{{REVISIONUSER}}|logs]]}} }} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} {{time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}].

before "Please remove..."

Comments? Is the username important here, or just the time? Should "hasn't been edited" remain linked?—C45207 | Talk 10:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the general idea very much. Including the username is not important; linking "hasn't been edited" is also not important, as you just told them right there the last time the page was edited. So, in the interest of simplicity, I'd leave both of those bits out.--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How does the above look?—C45207 | Talk 06:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with the last edited time which I think has to do with time zones. Necessarily this is hard to reproduce in a permanent form, but an article (Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics) that was last edited at 07:39 UTC 19 June 2010 07.39 UTC (8.39 BST, my time) was, when I saw it at 08.41 BST, as labelled as being "24 hours ago" when obviously it was only a couple of minutes ago. I frequently see on {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} it telling me that my last edit was "in one minute's time" and so on, which is obviously absurd. I think therefore there is a rollover error somewhere in the code for computing the delta times. Right now I don't have time to investigate this; I merely note it. It's not a particularly new problem. Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, when I look at Template:Inuse, it tells me "This page was last revised at 07:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC) (2 months ago)", whereas that time is not two months ago. Is it getting the two datetimes for each part of the message from different places? The last edit on that page (i.e. the template itself) was indeed 2 months ago, on 12 April 2010, but not this is not what is shown. And indeed, it was not at 07:45 (which is the time I viewed the page) but at 02:12 (both times UTC). It seems it picks up the current time somehow. But this may be a special case, of course, being that it's the templates "transclusion" (well, elaboration) on its own page; but that still doesn't explain the inconsistency in the absolute reported time and the delta time. Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The "last revised" time is certainly incorrect, as it is actually the current time. It seems that it never would have worked properly. I can only guess that no one ever noticed because this template isn't supposed to remain on a page for that long. I have placed a corrected version at Template:In use/sandbox. Anomie⚔ 12:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories

{{editprotected}} Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit and Category:Articles actively undergoing construction have been renamed somewhere, but the deletion summary doesn't tell the new name and I can't find it from CfD logs either. The links to the categories should probably be either corrected or removed in the documentation, and the category fixed in the template itself. Same goes for other templates as well. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. — RockMFR 23:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking bots

I heard from some editors that the {{inuse}} template blocks bots (in addition to sensible editors)... do we know what exactly bots are looking at to make this determination? My intent is to duplicate the functionality for the copyeditors' blocking banner, {{GOCEinuse}}. If it is just adding Category:Pages_actively_undergoing_a_major_edit, then we can do that quite easily... Any input much appreciated. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't block all bots, just bots that are coded to pay attention to the template. How it does so depends on the bot. AnomieBOT's OrphanReferenceFixer, for example, looks for Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit. Other bots might look for transclusion of the template (using the API's prop=templates), or for "{{in use}}" and the like in the wikitext. Anomie⚔ 13:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. We'll consider using a standardized message in the inuse tag while copyediting; I think this is the smoothest integration. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 15:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

automated bot removal?

If interested, I have a bot that removes the {{current}} tag from pages where the page hasn't been edited for a while (12 hours, configurable). I can make that work for this template. If interested, discuss here and give me a talkback or other note on my talk page- I won't watch this template. tedder (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Already handled by JL-Bot. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki link request

Hello, the name of the template in Dutch is "meebezig". Could someone insert the interwiki link to "nl:sjabloon:meebezig". Thank you. --Ziko (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to add it yourself at the bottom of Template:In use/doc. Anomie⚔ 13:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Debresser (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)