This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result was a pointless debate motivated by JMAS's selfishness rather than the good of the site. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 22:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The issueEdit

I'd like to address an issue with the {{inuse}} tag. Besides the "catch phrase", the first line of the template states This article is actively undergoing a major edit. Yet this tag gets placed in articles that subsequently get left untouched for half a day up to days and even weeks (example). Then when another user makes and edit to the page after it has sat untouched for an extended period of time, they get slammed for it. I think there should be more specific guidelines as to the time frame that tag can remain in place.

Suggestions/commentsEdit

• Since the tag states actively undergoing... the tag should become void if left in place when the article is no longer being actively edited. And that's even if a person is working on it at home, then goes to work for 8 hours where they are unable to actively work on it, and planning to continue work on it at home. They should remove the tag for that time they are away from home.
  • The timeframe is fairly irrelevant if you explicitly agree to leave a particular page alone. Lying is disruptive. Disruption is blockable. The end. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh...the inuse tag isn't necessarily about making just one edit. If I'm working on an article that is a work in progress (and I know there's now a more suitable tag for that, but still) I don't want people coming along and changing and chopping things that I may well want to change and chop myself. Is it really all that big a deal to go and ask someone if they're still using an article, rather than removing something which explicitly tells you not to? -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Per AdmirableAckbar, the inuse tag is mainly used to prevent annoying edit conflicts while working on a page and it's (in my experience) usually about more than one edit. It's not that hard to ask the person if they're editing at the moment and if you just want to change a minor thing you can also ask the person that's editing the article to do it for you. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Ridiculous and unnecessary. The in-use tag is meant for a project on-going for days, weeks, or longer. Per Culator. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No it's not. The template is specifically designed to discourage people editing the article while someone is actively making a major edit, so as to avoid edit conflicts. Slapping the template on an article because you intend on editing it at some point and then going to bed is clearly not an active edit and is an abuse of the template. The only time it should be up for days or weeks is if you're spending virtually every waking minute working on the edit. -- I need a name (Complain here) 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• The real issue here isn't the use of the template anyway. It's JMAS trying to retroactively justify doing something stupid. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 19:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What it boils down to is this: I wasn't specific enough on my talk page. I should have spelled it out more clearly that I meant I wouldn't touch the article while it was being actively edited. Maybe some pictures might have helped too. You of course blocked me immediately. This CT is not because I got blocked. I was in the process of trying to CREATE this CT when I discovered you blocked me. - JMAS 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And why must we have a CT for every tiny little matter? Why can common sense not prevail? -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Because common sense says that an article is not being actively edited when it sits untouched for 7 days, or 4 days or even 24 hours. - JMAS 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Because common sense dictates that when someone requests that you don't edit an article, rather than editing it, you ask them if they're done. Because common sense dictates that rather than making a big hullaballoo and making a CT, you, again, ask. And, btw, your example above is extremely flawed—the inuse tag on that article is accompanied by a {{Wip}}. You can hardly expect people to finish writing a good article in 3 hours. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
          • The WIP tag was not originally there. And it does mean the article is in a state of being worked on over a longer time. And people should respect that tag by not going in and doing their own overhaul on the article while it is up. But making minor corrections or 1 sentence edits does not go against the purpose of the WIP tag. But the INUSE tag, while it can be used in tandem with the WIP tag, should not be left up on the page when it is not being actively worked on whereas the WIP tag can remain in place. I am not trying to disagree that I was impatient in only waiting close to 4 hours. But that is why I wanted to start this CT so there would be an established time frame for what constitutes a span of time someone can feasibly be actively editing an article. - JMAS 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Wtf. This is another one of those CT's which makes me want to pull my damn hair out. What is so goddamn hard about going to the talk pages and saying "Hey, I know you're working on this article, but what do you think about picture X being inserted here? Or information Y being placed here?" Honestly. How about everyone try to talk it out and work together on articles, even articles that have the {{Inuse}} tag on it, instead of getting into stadium sized pissing contests fueled by their own godforsaken egos. I have used the Inuse tag ever since I first started writing huge articles and FAs (so, let's see…uh, about a year now!) and it's never been a problem because everyone has always respected (to some degree) the other editors of this site. For whatever the reason, that respect for "your fellow editor" has become meaningless over the last month or so—I'd even hazard to say that it started back in the fall of 2007 with a string of CTs just like this one. This type of CT is another waste of resources and time on Wookieepedia, and it this type of personally motivated political BS that has driven my to take a long-needed break from this site. Anyways, that's my two cents; if this were four months ago, I would have firmly believed that "common sense and respect for your fellow editor" would guide everyone, however…now…I could barely expect even that to happen. Greyman^(Paratus) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In-use tag becomes invalid after ... of inactivityEdit

4 hoursEdit

1. 4 hours is enough to make one edit. - TopAce ^(Talk) 18:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
   • I have made many edits which have taken over 4 hours without taking a break. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
     • Yes, but after you save a change, the timer resets. I suppose that's the way it is supposed to work if we implement this - TopAce ^(Talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

8 hoursEdit

1. JMAS 18:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Four is probably enough, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Din's Fire 997 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)