Template talk:Under construction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Purpose of this template

This template should be added to the top of an article when you are about to engage in a very major editing or expansion of the article, and for that purpose only. Be aware that this template encourages other people to edit during the time that you're working on it as well, and that you may be responsible for resolving edit conflicts. Please remove the template when you are completed with the major editing or expansion that you are conducting. Use this template only if you are in fact planning on actively editing/expanding for some duration; do not use this template if you will not be resuming your editing for a while. --Nlu (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Move templates to their respective articles' Talk pages

Who here would support (and who would object to) changing this article to a talk page-only (or at least primarily talk page) template, since it conveys non-essential information that will not assist any readers and that any editor could easily find out by checking the edit history, or even looking at the page's text? I believe that this would resolve the main complaints regarding its usage that led it to be TfDed (i.e. that it conveys absolutely no useful information and is redundant to Template:Inuse, essentially saying nothing except "you are allowed to edit this article!", which is always assumed anyway), while still satisfying the supporters of it who wish for a clear way to indicate to fellow editors that the article is under heavy reconstruction, but can still be edited. -Silence 02:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that would defeat the purpose of the template, as whoever comes on the page would not see it immediately any more and therefore would not know that the article was under construction. --Nlu (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly why it would 10000% improve the template: Wikipedia is written for readers, not for editors. Random readers who just happen to stumble onto a page don't need to know that edits are under construction, because they aren't involved in the editing process. Talking to fellow editors is exactly what the Talk pages were INVENTED for!, and a template exclusively designed to tell fellow editors that you want them to edit the page even though you're doing major edits to the page is the perfect example of a template that only merits inclusion on Talk pages (if there). -Silence 08:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

But all users (except blocked ones) are also potential editors, and certainly lots of people edit before they know fully what's going on. We should provide helpful guidance to newbies (and this template does that, in addition to its help to experienced editors), not make it harder to figure out what's going on. --Nlu (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If your only concern is to ensure that everyone who edits the main page will know the situation even if they neither check the edit history nor the talk page (and any editor who does that while making some edit that would be affected by knowing that information is someone who needs a reprimand anyway, not one who needs an entire template built around his ignorance), then what you should do is simply put tags <!--LIKE THIS--> around the information you want to convey on the top of the page, so anyone who edits the page will see your message and anyone else won't. Either way, a template like this belongs only on the Talk page; it does not benefit readers and is infinitely more trivial and pointless to editors than templates like "inuse", since it essentially says ("YOU AREN'T BANNED FROM EDITING THIS ARTICLE"), as though that's not what any reader would assume anyway, without the giant template.

There. You now have the perfect solution to the entire problem. By moving the template to the Talk page, you can inform most editors of what's going on; by using the hidden-text tags, you can inform editors too lazy to check the Talk page of what's going on of the situation immediately upon their starting to edit the article; and by doing those two things you can avoid the problem of shoving a giant pointless template in the face of every reader who happens to visit a page that uses it. Win-win-win. -Silence 08:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree; it requires the user to go through multiple hurdles to see what's going on. But I doubt that I can convince you on this. --Nlu (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Multiple hurdles"? Nonsense. All it requires is that the user do anything beyond simply reading the page; the only user who would only read the page is a reader who has no interest in editing, and those are the specific people who would not in any way benefit from the template. Anyone interested in editing will either (A) check the edit history (and immediately see massive edits going on, but assume that the article is still open for editing since there's no "inuse" on it, which is what all articles are assumed to be, so stating so would be totally redundant); (B) check the Talk page, the only place a template as trivial and redundant as this should ever be put, and also a perfect place where you can explain in detail what all your; we should encourage people to read and use the Talk pages more for such issues, not discourage such much-needed discussion by transforming the entire Wikipedia experience into an endless series of brightly-colored boxes; (C) actually begin editing the article, at which point the <!--hidden message--> will immediately become clear and they will immediately know that the article's undergoing major revisions, but their contributions are still just as welcome as they'd be for any article. So there you have it, all three possible scenarios an editor would face, taken care of, while not shoving the template into the face of readers, who are what Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is written for. Articles are for readers, not for editors; editors work to improve articles for the readers. Everything revolves around what will best serve our readers, not around some sort of infinite cycle of editors editing articles so that editors can edit articles so that... -Silence 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Color scheme

As this template is extremely close in meaning to {{inuse}}, as outlined on the TfD page, it should use the same color scheme. Ashibaka tock 21:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the inuse template is redundant and is not used on any articles. — Wackymacs 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean it's redundant; as it stands, the template is supposed to be transitory and removed as soon as it is no longer needed (as it this template). --Nlu (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be unfamiliar with common Wikipedia templates and unable to figure out how to use Special:Whatlinkshere, so I'll just go ahead and change back the color scheme. Ashibaka tock 22:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, if an edit war is developing, I will block if there's a 3RR violation (whoever does it). But Ashibaka, please lay off personal attacks. --Nlu (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's hard for me to suppress my anger when people just go around putting {{{1}}} on totally random templates as if this were a wiki or something. Ashibaka tock 23:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I have to say I prefer the bluish, no-icon one. The greenish one is too glaring, and the icon doesn't really add anything. --Aquillion 08:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what colors are used, but the fact is that {{inuse}} and its siblings all use this format. If you fiddle with this one you'll have to change those as well, or else I will simply revert you for disturbing a standard color scheme. Ashibaka tock 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

But a point of dispute (and I don't particularly care one way or another) is whether it is in fact a "sibling" of {{inuse}}, and I am not convinced that it is since it serves a different purpose. In any case, guys, please cool off. I will be watching for 3RR violations on both sides, and I am considering filing a WP:RfM and/or protecting the page. --Nlu (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

On the TfD many people regarded it as an exact duplicate of inuse. The main difference, apparently, is that inuse is for when a single user is actively updating an article, whereas underconstruction is for collaborative revamping. I don't think this is important enough to make it match the cleanup color scheme instead of the inuse color scheme. But if anyone wants to change the inuse color scheme I don't care as long as they are both the same. Ashibaka tock 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of this template

According to the original purpose of this template and this comment, this template is meant to indicate active editing such as might occur

• during a "collaboration of the day" for a wikiproject
• when a stub is created that might be Speedily Deleted otherwise

It is definitely not meant to discourage other editing (as {{inusefor}} does).

Would it be correct to say that this template is inappropriate if an article will not be edited for many hours or days? Gimmetrow 01:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

All articles are under construction

I understand the meaning of the template, but I think maybe we could change

This article is under construction.

to

This article is undergoing a major edit.

in order to give readers a better idea of why the article is unfinished. Ashibaka tock 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Major edits are already covered by {{inuse}}; this template is not intended for them. This template, I think, would be best used to serve the distinct (and separate) purpose of noting under-construction articles that are currently sub-stub, especially ones that would normally qualify for speedy deletion due to lack of content. The template alerts readers to the fact that people are currently expanding the article, and that it therefore should not be speedied (immediately, anyway) for lack of content. Recent talk on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion shows a need for such a template. While {{inuse}} is sometimes abused for that, it isn't always suitable, since it asks others not to edit the article in question; usually, articles that are in the process of being constructed from scratch need all the editing they can get. --Aquillion 08:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The inuse template is hardly used on any articles, it should really be deleted. — Wackymacs 08:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not a good way to tell if the template is being used productively. That template, as well as this one, should be removed as soon as the work is done, so, both should be on relatively few articles at a given time. --Nlu (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think {{inuse}} should be deleted, put it on TfD. Describe it as a dupe of this one, or something. Schaudenfreude ensues. Ashibaka tock 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this wording, then:

This article will soon be expanded.

Or something along those lines. "Under construction" is too vague to explain what's going on. Ashibaka tock 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer "This article is current in the middle of expansion or major revamping." If it will be expanded "soon," this template really shouldn't go on the article. --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it's time for someone to clean up the articles that do use this template and haven't been edited in weeks. Also, Aquillion just said that this template isn't for use on articles that have already been written. Ashibaka tock 17:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed a bunch just now. I'm going to try to remove more when I have the time. --Nlu (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed every one that I felt it should be removed from (and also deleted a number that fit CSD, in my opinion). Obviously, this will have to be done periodically. --Nlu (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have to ask about "Under Construction." My impression, as a relative newbie, is that inuse is to be used when the article is actively being edited, but "Under Construction" is to be used when you are working on an article that needs significant improvement lest it be deleted. "Under Construction" specifically invites other's to work on the article, which implies that it may not be actively edited (the Inuse templates ask people not to edit.) IMHO, this tag is one that should be placed on an article that isn't completed but is being ACTIVELY worked on somebody over a period of days. EG it serves as notice to those speedy deleters who tag things immediately that the person(s) working on the article aren't finished and will be back.Balloonman 09:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As I argued when this template was proposed for deletion a few months back -- this template, as I see it, is basically when the article is to be expanded or revamped, but that other people are welcome to edit it while that is being done, where {{inuse}} -- which is not one of my favorite templates -- discourages the such. --Nlu (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally can't see the use of this template if it is deleted after "6 hours" which is what has happened to it twice on military brats. I think it should be one that goes on a page that alerts deletionist that somebody is actively (if not currently) working on it. And only deleted after 24-48 hours of inactivity. There should be a way to "protect" an article that needs help---I see this coming into play when a bad article needs help, but will take more than one sitting to fix.Balloonman 09:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"new look" and change of meaning

I reverted the new look for two reasons. 1) I don't see what was wrong with the old look 2) The change is not only about "look", it also changes the template to be about quality and reconstruction only. The template is already widely used for many different purposes, so it seems there should be some debate before its meaning is changed. -- cmh^TC 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support changing the template to give it a new look. I don't see why not. I like the idea of the cone instead of the clock anyway. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

I think Image:Mercedes benz museum de.jpg would be a more appropiate image for this template, since it is a picture of a construction site and thus implies the page is under construction.--Sefringle 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the "notready=true" template be shown here?

I added the {{underconstruction|notready=true}} template under the "type {{underconstruction|notready=true}}" and "That will produce the following:" to the article. It should be given as an example, since I wanted to use it, but used the "preview" function to see it before hand. People may not do that, and do multiple edits to a page, which is rather useless (being a person who did that before I got addicted to the "preview" button I can understand) I'm just curious about the community's opinion on that, and just remember, if you don't think it should be there, just remove it. I abide by the "be bold" policy, and hope everyone else will too. Thanks! --HAL2008 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate timespan

When I came across this template it had been sitting there for over a month. If you want to invite people to edit a page, marking it as a stub seems more appropriate to me... IMHO, this template should never be left on for more than a day after the last edit. If you don't intend to check in on it soon, make it a stub if the article is too short or otherwise give it a more appropriate label that doesn't give the appearance that someone will be tending to it soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rygir (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Once an article has reached non-trivial length, is there any protocol regarding removal of this template if another editor places it on an article? While the article text invites others to edit, the overall tone any style may be off-putting to some editors, discouraging them from getting involved, as others have mentioned in prior threads. Is there any reason not to just remove it, and mention it on the talk page as an issue? Buddhipriya 06:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. it protects against attempts to delete it. The convention here seems to be to allow at least a week, not a day. I use it on occasion, and nobody has ever tried to remove it sooner, but thny tend to remove it after 7 days if I appear not to be working on it. DGG (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed

The following text has been removed from the template :-

"Please don't tag with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days."

The fact that an article is under construction does not exempt it from our deletion criteria and the template should not imply that. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Text changed to Consider not tagging... which avoid the implication that it is a policy to not do so. DGG (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This template is a blatant violation of multiple policies

...including WP:OWN and WP:CSD at the very least. I still strongly believe that this should be deleted for the reasons set out in the TfD debate.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do believe this got TfD' once, and consensus was in favour to keep it. Adding a notice to an article saying its under construction (note where it says something like but you can help) doesn't violate WP:OWN, as its not saying you can't edit the article at all. I don't understand how in any way this violates the CSD criterion, care to elaborate on this matter, please? Qst (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Template features needed

I would like to have the ability to date the revision tag went on. Also, it could help if it would reflect the date of the last change and suggest that it be removed if it has been in place for more than a certain period without an edit, say 7 days. Slavlin (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

the template currently says several days--I do not think that is the least realistic, and it should be for 28 days, 4 weeks. DGG (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, extending it is counterproductive. The underconstruction templates are for when editors are actively engaged in major editing or expansion of an article. It should not be in place for a considerable period of time. If the article is not actively being edited, then it shouldn't be there. Tagging an article as under construction discourages other editors from contributing to the article. They assume it is actively being edited and so they shouldn't bother. If the article is not actively being edited, there are better suited templates (ex: {{incomplete}}, {{expand}}). -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:45, 28 April 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) 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording

So rather than edit war about this, let's bring the wording discussion in here.

Old version:

Current version:

Issues:

1. There's no absolute requirement to use the words "under construction" in the template body. Quite aside from the horrible Web 1.0 flashbacks it brings, this is clear enough from the wording in the old body.
2. Tags don't generally have header text.
3. There's just no real need to go talking about section edits. Not all users will have section editing enabled, or know what it means, and it's not necessarily a good thing to not be getting edit conflicts if an article's undergoing rapid change either (because the editor who put the tag down is going to find the article changing from underneath him).

This should be rolled back to the previous consensus version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe we can stop the reverts going on by changing the wording like so.

--Ludwigs2 17:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current wording? --.:Alex:. 18:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

nothing that I can see, except that people keep mucking with it. I thought I'd offer a compromise. --Ludwigs2 22:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

7 day removal proposal

At both Wikipedia:Deletion of pages under construction and the above discussions, there seems to be general agreement that this template should be removed from the article page after seven days. Because people may be forgetting that the placed this template on an article, the template has been residing on articles for months. Removal this template from an article page after seven days can be done by bot via a Wikipedia:Bot requests. The template can be coded with a posting date and the bot then can look for those Underconstruction postings that are greater than seven days. Before proceeding, I think we need a clear consensus that Template:Underconstruction may be removed after seven days. Please post your thoughts below as to whether Template:Underconstruction may be removed from an article page after seven days. After five days of discussion, an admin may close this discussion. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support I support the 7-day proposal. The 7-day period should apply to articles in which no edits have been made, or that have had only minimal editing. If no editing at all takes place, a bot will likely remove the tag. But if one or more minor edits are made (whether or not marked as such), and no major edits are made, it can be removed manually by an editor aware of the tag's existence. In this case, a major edit is one that truly improves the article. Also, if the creator states that s/he wishes to have more time to expand the page beyond a "construction" phase, s/he should do so on the article's discussion page, and this request shall be respected. Sebwite (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I happen to know that an 'underconstruction' template has been on Buddhism for at least a couple of months (because I put it there). this isn't a mistake: the page is a huge page, with a lot of contention, and editing has been ongoing all this time on a subpage. if this is adopted, there should be some simple way simple yo extend the template (maybe as little as changing the date parameter). it shouldn't require a talk-page debate - if someone is there to update the template, they are still working on the page, yah? --Ludwigs2 20:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, and as stated on WP:DPC, such a template can remain for a long time, provided that work is continually done to make true improvements, even if it involves adding only a few more productive sentences each time. What you are doing is okay.

Some pages, such as lists, may take a long time to costruct in full. I have created some of these lists myself, and have had the {{construction}} tag remain on them for months at a time until the list is complete. Also, building these lists in article space is acceptable. This encourages others to work on the lists too. Sebwite (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My bot, JL-Bot, already removes the various underconstruction templates from articles that have not been edited in seven days. It has been operating for the past year. For actively edited articles, it should probably be left to an editor. While a bot could track when the template was edited and removing it after a specific time even if the article is being edited, it couldn't distinguish between cases where the template was forgotten and cases where the editing is taking an extended time. If the article is actively being edited, then the editors are the best judges of whether the template belongs or not. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that JL-Bot is already doing exactly what this proposal is advocating, it seems like a completely moot point, unless someone has any objection to what JL-Bot is doing.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Placed by parameter

Is the placedby parameter suppose to appear in the template? I remember previously before the new design that the name appeared in the template, but after it was redesigned it didn't appear, yet the parameter was still available. Answer?--SRX 15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've tried to clean up the code so that it's more obvious. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Usage on new article with little content

In my newpage patrolling, I see too many editors using this template to prevent non-notable new articles from being deleted. That is certainly not this template's purpose. I have made a bold addition to the template indicating that the sandbox should be used instead of this template for new articles with little content. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Icon choice

This is getting ridiculous. We've had three icons recently. Please let's decide this properly instead of edit warring over it.

1. The original icon
2. The second proposal
3. The most recent proposal

I'd go for File:Under construction icon-blue.svg, because I agree that it's both high-quality and perfectly fitting (it is literally an "under construction" sign as used in UK roadworks). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I chose it because when I saw the construction sign, it seemed to me as though it had been made for this template (I don't think it was, but I'm sure you know what I mean). The connotations of the actual construction image make more sense than tools, and the blue perfectly matches the blue line of the template (on article pages). --.:Alex:. 15:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

With no opposition to this, I've made the switch. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No content articles

Gaah, use of this template on no-content articles is abuse of the template and gaming CSD criteria. The creator of article should provide at least one sentence to identify the subject of the article. —Magic.Wiki (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

the subject will sometimes be perfectly clear from the title, & it will even sometimes be clear that its a suitable topic for an article. We should encourage people to start even this modestly to at least show their intentions. On encountering this, the appropriate thing is to remind the editor to actually get to work. 13:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

bug re NAMESPACE being null for mainspace

The template used to say; IF NAMESPACE = Article write "This article or section is in the middle of an expansion..." then all the conditions for talk page, project, etc, then a 'default' of "This page is in the middle of an expansion".

However, the NAMESPACE variable does not return the value "Article" for articles; it returns a null string. See Help:Namespace#List_of_namespaces.

This mean that, when the template was used on articles, it just said "This page is in the middle of an expansion" instead of "This article or section is in the middle of an expansion".

--  Chzz  ►  06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Template wording

The last sentence of the template currently reads: "Please consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page has not been edited in several days, the page has no content at all or it otherwise fails to meet our inclusion criteria" (emphasis mine). Is there another reason to delete a page than failing to meet the inclusion criteria? I would say that this sentence applies to any page, not just ones under construction – if it meets the inclusion criteria, it by definition shouldn't be deleted. I think the last sentence should therefore be reworded to indicate that the page should only be tagged in cases like copyright violations, attack pages and the like. Jafeluv (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

New template parameter

I've added an 'altimage' parameter to this template, largely to cut down on any proliferation of slightly modified cut-and-paste copies of it (eq Template:Dylan under construction). - TB (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning for Talk and User namespace use

This template often ends up on Talk pages and User pages where it should not be used. It makes maintenance of Category:Pages actively undergoing construction a little more difficult. We should set up the template to warn of incorrect use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical issue possibly from a called template.

Hi. While editing a user subpage which I was building an article on, I noticed that the {{underconstruction}} template appears to contain a minor error, causing it to display 'This page was last edited by xxx 1 seconds' time', instead of 1 second ago. It rectfies if refreshed, as I've had another Wikipedian examine it and confirm what it's doing. Can this be checked, either in this template or with one of the sub-templates it's calling? Thanks. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tested this and it checks out - {{time ago}} gives a decent value, but both {{underconstruction}} and {{Last edited by}} give the odd "last edited by USER 1 seconds' time." No idea what's going on there... Shimgray | talk | 18:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Add de:Baustelle

Please add de:Baustelle in the Template --Labant (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry de:Vorlage:Baustelle is the right lemma --Labant (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - see here. Since it's in the template's doc page, any user may edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:34, 18 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) 10:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Documentation, template}}

Looks like a typo, or am I wrong?--72.173.160.58 (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Using the template when the preparing a merge in my userspace?

I am trying to reorganize mastitis and related articles and would like to alert potential editors of this fact. The 4-way merge and reorganization is in an early stage in User:Richiez/Drafts and will likely take another week if everything goes smooth. Is there some template I could put on top of page alert other editors? Richiez (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 April 2015

There is no {{nbsp}} template. Replace all instances of {{nbsp}} with {{spaces}} or the "&nbsp;" HTML entity.

 — Quicksilver^{T @} 15:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There is, and has been since June 2006. Since the spaces are just non-breaking to avoid them being stripped away by the #if function, though, rather than to keep certain words together, I replaced them with normal spaces before the #if. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

Please append the actual template with this message:

If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.

This will sync things up with the message on the {{in use}} template.

Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

To editor Checkingfax:  Done. Happy holidays! Paine  05:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Feature request

Hello! One feature that I think would be of value is a switch that turns off the statement "If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template." As an example, I'm working on a document here. On the one hand I don't want people using it as a guideline yet, but on the other hand it's going to take months to complete, and I don't want anyone removing the template. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

To editor Cyphoidbomb: Sounds as if the {{New page}} template is a better choice. Happy holidays! Paine  20:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion, though that template seems a little more article-specific, what with the "inclusion guidelines" language. The thing I was working on was more of a guideline page. Thanks though! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right – that was the wrong template to suggest. In fact, because this UC template changes to reflect the type of page it's on, "help" for Helpspace, "project" for WP projectspace, and so on, it is the best template to use. If the job takes several months, then either work on it in your user space or use this template and the Inuse template as needed. If it has been several days, then sneak in and make a dummy edit to resync the timer in the template. There is good reason for this functionality, so it should not be turned off.  Paine  05:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"new page" template

Should the "new page" template be removed from the See also section? Seems to have been redirected/removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

*bump* This still has not been addressed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Now resolved.

As a friendly note, it might be more efficient to try to resolve these things yourself instead of posting on a template talk page. In my opinion, template talk pages should generally be reserved for long-term matters about the template's functionality rather than doc trivialities. Template talk pages often infrequently visited, so they are not an efficient way to carry out discussions of small changes like this (they can be useful in certain circumstances, with edit requests and the occasional template-specific RfC).

In case you weren't sure how you resolve this without being familiar with the template, I'll outline my own process (as someone who was not aware of this template until recently):

I clicked the see also link to {{newpage}}. Finding that is a redirect to this template, I located the link that appears at the top of the page when redirects are followed:

I followed the above link to arrive at the redirect's page. Once there, I looked at the edit history The edit history showed that Template:Newpage was moved to Template:New page, and a double redirect was fixed later on. At this point I suspect that Template:Newpage was moved and then merged with this template. I followed the link to Template:New page and repeated the same redirect tracing process above to end up at the direct redirect. Once there, I then look at its edit history. Here I find the prize: the TfD discussion where the aforementioned merge occurred.

Understanding the situation to my satisfaction, I remove the link because it no longer serves a useful purpose, being a template that was merged with this one.

When I write that out in paragraph form, it sounds a bit long, but it's actually fairly efficient and probably takes a similar amount of time as posting two comments on the talk page. Of course one has to take care to avoid falling down unrelated rabbitholes. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 July 2019

Could the template integrate my recent edit in the sandbox? This would allow tracking use of |placedby=, which is useful for tracking cross-namespace links. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Not working

This template doesn't work. Whenever I see it, it says that the article in question was edited a few seconds ago -- almost always less than 10. But the article was never edited that recently. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

article or section

This phrasing and usage is awkward.

Adhering to a more standard approach would mean:

• "article" is the default†
• either have an unnamed parameter {{Under construction|section}} or a parameter named section {{Under construction|section=yes}} to switch from article to section. If you opt for the first alternative, the template should support other options, such as {{Under construction|category}}, {{Under construction|template}} etc†
• †) however, the ideal implementation detects the namespace (so "article" is not a static default but what the template outputs in article space and so on)
• I wouldn't object to removing the ability to phrase it "article or section" but if you must retain that, make it {{Under construction|articleorsection}}
• standardize parameter names: either a parameter called |contributor note= gives the text "Contributor note: ..." or a parameter called |comment= gives the text "Comment: ..."

Feel free to reuse the code from countless already-standardized templates to implement these changes.

CapnZapp (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

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

{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=In use}}

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...} 17:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

automatic removal

This template is automatically removed by a bot after 8 days, per documentation.

Have we discussed doing the same for {{In use}} and {{In creation}}? Of course, the time limit would be measured in hours, not days. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

It might be helpful to add a hatnote distinguishing this from the {{uc:string}} magic word. Srey Sros^talk 16:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Add it to /doc if you like. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I didn't realize that the documentation wasn't protected. Srey Sros^talk 01:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

I have two changes for my edit request, and I'll explain each below:

change or is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring to ---> or is in the process of large or several expansions, or major restructuring

Just a few mild expansions (like adding detail to existing info, a few sentences in the same section in, etc.) wouldn't be enough significant to much need placing a notice and cautioning other editors, so this is a clarification for that.

change please remove this template. to ---> please remove this template. (you can change the name of the parameter, but this is the one I settled on)

Normally such hiatuses are unlikely in these situations but sometimes may, probably or even could be intended to happen. It isn't great when somebody takes it down because of inactivity and later the editing resumes suddenly (either they may not notice the template disappear, or an error pops up because of a new edit before them and they need to restart the large edit), either way, confusion could occur. Most are not like these types, but it will be handy to have a parameter.

If you oppose one edit but support another, you can still enact one of them. But hopefully you accept my proposal, but if not I'm still okay with that. Thank you, especially if you accept. Dawn Lim (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

for the second change, I meant to type: change please remove this template. to ---> please{{#if:{{{notify|}}}|notify the editor who placed this template before removing|remove}} this template. , sorry did a big typo Dawn Lim (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done with minor alterations. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 12:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

Add a |subsection= when it needs to be used for a subsection instead of a section. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 23:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 14 February 2023

Add support for a parameter value equivalent for =true, and that is =yes. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Diff:

−

|"any parameter"=true

+

|"any parameter"=yes

Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done please sync, then make your edit in the sandbox and verify it is working; when ready reactivate the edit request above. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

hours vs. days

To make this formal: [i originally asked: please change "in several days" back to "in several hours" "in several hours" back to "in several days". Or perhaps better, change to "in a long time" and feel free to link to an essay (wp:howlongisalongtime?) on what that means.] The revised request is: please change "in several hours" to "in several days" or "in a long time". Doncram (talk,contribs) 12:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I was referred to this edit by User:JBW with edit summary "Boldly changing message about removing the template after a while. The idea that it's acceptable to leave this tag in place and then go off and leave it for several days is absurd. If you believe there are good reasons for doing so, please feel welcome to revert and start a discussion about it, in which case I will be grateful if you will let me know.)"]. That edit changed the word "days" to "hours". I personally believe that policy on articles "under construction" is not one size fits all, and naturally depends on the history and breadth of public exposure. The editor referring me to this believed the edit did relate to some discussion somewhere, parts unknown. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The wording is currently "in several hours"; do you mean 'please change "in several hours" back to "in several days" '? However, I do agree that "one size fits all" isn't a helpful approach, and there is a good case for more general wording, such as "in a long time", as you suggest. JBW (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be returned to the original wording, "in several days". "In a long time" leaves too much room for argument. One editor might think that means 8 hours, while others may think it means a month. And trust me, I've had that argument. I do think, as I said in a discussion when this change was made, that there should be two different alternatives, which are served by the inuse and under construction tags. One for when an editor is actively working on an article, the other for when an editor has found a topic they find notable, but might take a couple of days to develop it. That's how I was using it prior to this change.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

EC I was just updating with reply to User:JBW, "Yes, that's what i meant, thanks, struck and replaced. Yeah, I think it's fair to say that it's no longer generally accepted that an article can be left "under construction" for days and days. But saying it's not acceptable to leave for several hours is a change too far. What started me in a discussion and eventually brought me here was someone removing "under construction" on an obscure article that I was fixing, fixing, fixing, until late at night where I live, then didn't edit for a few hours. I believe I was fast asleep. No bot and no reasonable editor oughta be removing the uc tag too quickly when there's just a pause like that, and they especially should not be emboldened to edit-war on basis of "well it has been 3 hours" again and again when the developing editor reverts removals of the UC tag (which happens too). Thanks, I think "in a long time" would be better." --Doncram (talk,contribs) 12:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And now Onel5969's statement they prefer "in several days" over "in a long time", convinces me back to wanting it to be "in several days". Yeah, edit warriors bent on removing UC tag would still be emboldened with "in a long time". Either "in several days" or "in a long time", but "in several days" would be best IMHO. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 12:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Doncram and Onel5969: I have thought about this, and I now agree that "several days" is best. It was certainly a mistake to change it to "hours", so I shall change it back. Thank you, Doncram, for drawing this to my attention. JBW (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 DoneJBW (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not make it 'several weeks' or 'several months', or just remove the deadline altogether?

When this template was created, back in 2005, it stated: 'This article is actively undergoing construction. However, you are welcome to assist in it's construction by editing it as well. If it appears that active construction has stopped, please remove this message. The person who added this notice will be listed in its edit history should you wish to contact him or her.' @​@​@​ Infogiraffic (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Infogiraffic I think the idea of changing it to "several months" is horrendous. Are you serious? On the other hand I think that your suggestion of removing any explicit mention of any time scale is the best that anyone has suggested. Doncram is right in saying that a "one size fits all" approach is unhelpful, and tying the template to any specific time frame amounts to trying to impose one size to git all. The text quoted above from the original version, "If it appears that active construction has stopped", allows flexibility depending on parricular circumstances. JBW (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I also think that "several months" is not the way to go. However, I also believe that a short time frame should be indicated, else you'll have some editors saying that several hours have gone by, so they remove the tag, claiming that "active construction" has stopped. Speaking from own experience in creating non-stub articles, and from the time I spent in NPP, I think that "several days" is an appropriate timeframe. That being said, even when an article takes several days to create, it's rarely more than a day between edits. Not saying that the end of constructive editing is a bad idea, just I think a suggested time delimiter will reduce arguments. Perhaps changing "several days" to two days? But that makes it more specific.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, yes. My pet projects are not easily put in, I would say narrow, time frames like a few days or even a few weeks. However, I can imagine the added value of Onel5969's perspective as well. What if we were to create a similar template named something like 'Under extensive construction' or 'Under construction ()? The current template could then include a time delimiter like three days and the new template could be given a deadline like 30 days... Infogiraffic (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)