Template talk:In use

needs to be "frozen"?

Can anyone explain to me why we have these elaborate instructions for the "creation of spoken wikipedia file" special case?

I do understand that it can be a bitch to start voice recording and then accidentally have the page update midway, so I understand the need for page stability.

But wouldn't it be far simpler to tell such editors to use the WP:Permanent link to the current version? For example, as of this writing, this link leads to the current version, except further changes will not modify it: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:In_use&oldid=1011137392 In other words, a frozen copy of the version that just happens to be current as of this time. (Simply visit page history and click the current/topmost link to reach the current version's permanent link)

I don't see the need to ask other editors to avoid further improvements to articles just because I need a "stable" version for voice recording. And since I'm asked to remove this template right after finishing up, it's not that my recorded version will reflect the latest version for any length of time anyway. But please educate me if I'm missing something. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Also see #Making this template more noticeable above. Why use an easily broken system that requires editor compliance - and updates every two hours! - when we could instead instruct voice recording Wikipedians to use instructions that cannot be disrupted (accidentally or otherwise)? CapnZapp (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No replies. I have replaced the laborious instructions above with the simpler advice to utilize the Help:Permanent link functionality instead. CapnZapp (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 April 2024

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)

Edit request 28 May 2024

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

−

for a short while

+

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)