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 of the debate was no consensus; no change. Keep existing policy. Graestan^(Talk) 00:30, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

The way the {{Inuse}} template is currently being employed is not acceptable. Articles are tagged for weeks at a time, actively discouraging new edits, which goes against the very nature of our site. I therefore propose the following:

• Limit the usage to a maximum of two days in a row. The template was originally intended to help avoid edit conflicts over shorter periods of time.
• Abolish the "nom=y" variation. If these authors really want to ensure their work stays untouched, they can use the watchlist like everyone else. (Stricken as no one agreed)

I am aware that the template is a big convenience for prolific FA authors, but it is not OK to use it to plant your flag on an article, declaring that for the next couple of weeks, only you get to have a say. If you intend to significantly alter an article over a long period of time, use a subpage.

It's time to kill this trend that is distracting us from our true purpose: being a free encyclopedia. --Imperialles 03:55, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: This CT is meant to impose limitations on the Inuse template, which is meant to discourage edit conflicts, but is currently being used for something else entirely. Editors are free to use the preferable {{Wip}} template when making substantial changes to an article over longer periods of time. --Imperialles 15:11, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

ForEdit

1. Imperialles 04:13, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
2. Loneshark1138 ^{(Comlink Active)} 00:49, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
3. 2-day limit only. I do not support the elimination of the nom=y variation. There is nothing wrong with using that, as the 2-day limit will still apply. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 05:11, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
4. Makes perfect sense to me. It seemed like a short-term thing anyway, such as putting it up, making several edits that night, taking it down, then reusing it again the next day. Once the {{Inuse}} was off Trench's article... it was time to fix some grammar and prose. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 06:12, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
5. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 06:20, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
6. Bella'Mia 06:57, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
7. {{Inuse}} is for when an article is actively undergoing a major edit (ie being edited at the very moment it's added to an article), not when you plan on making sporadic edits at some later point. {{Wip}} is more appropriate for that. -- I need a name (Complain here) 10:19, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
8. I just wanna say that it was never my intention to abuse this, I was not aware I was doing wrong. I am sorry.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 14:27, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
   • Don't worry about it, and keep in mind this is merely a suggestion. You weren't doing anything wrong. --Imperialles 14:29, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
9. Alright then, I'm convinced. As long as WIP is being used in that capacity, there's relly no reason to have two templates for one thing. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 14:50, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
10. For what it's worth, I'd definitely be in support of abolishing the baffling nom=y thing, which I think is probably more objectionable than "inuse abuse." Like, you're going to have to monitor edits to the article during and after the FAN process (assuming you want to maintain its quality), so - if the article's finished - what's the difference between the pre- and post-nom period? But yeah, I still agree with the proposal. No-one edits continuously for two days. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 22:52, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
11. The template itself is counter to the spirit of a wiki, but since I know eliminating it completely is out of the question, this will have to do. jSarek 23:40, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
12. Entirely per Trak, INAN, and Jujiggum. That is how I have always utilized those two templates. Also, we need to kill the editnotice that appears on articles tagged {{Wip}}, as that should be only for articles tagged {{Inuse}} (but that may be a discussion for a separate thread). —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 20:24, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • I was actually the one who requested that notice from Grunny when an article that I was working on was edited because the person didn't notice the {{Wip}} tag. I think that the notice could be reworded a bit, but it shouldn't be removed. It simply lets others know that there is someone working on the article. Cylka^-talk- 20:37, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
      • The point I'm trying to make is that {{Wip}} shouldn't prohibit editing by others; it's merely an notice meant to inform readers that the article is a work in progress and that its content may change significantly in the near future. Only {{Inuse}} should prohibit editing, and it only takes a few seconds to switch from one template to the other when you start or finish a major edit or series of edits. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 20:57, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
13. Agreement! Stopping editors from touching articles for days at a time is shambolic, untenable, and beyond the pale! As for the nom=y shenanigans, it's as Imp says: nominators can just check the history from when they last touched it. Thefourdotelipsis 00:36, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
14. Per the {{Wip}} argument. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 13:14, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
15. ASDF1239^-DISCUSSION- 04:18, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

    CT-1987 13:26, April 28, 2010 (UTC)--I'm for it because I believe that if you are going to be making edits for a prolonged period, then you should use a subpage. Discouraging others from making edits for several days is against the very nature of this wiki. (Vote struck per policy: Fewer than 50 mainspace edits -- Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:27, April 28, 2010 (UTC))

AgainstEdit

1. I must say that I'm against this proposal. If I place the {{inuse}} template, that means that I'm absolutely, 100% sure, that I'm going to work on the article until I consider it to be up to GA/FA standards. It may take some time, but I'm going to do it my way, and any additions by other users will most likely be reverted. This way, I find {{inuse}} useful for notifying regular editors about my intentions, since most newcomers tend to ignore the template anyway. I'm not claiming any authority over the article in question, but this is how things work here. I don't think that it's such a big deal, actually, there are usually only about 20 articles tagged with the template out of 75 000+ total. Besides, subpages have their own disadvantages. There may be a lot of information stacked up on a subpage for months, but what's the point if regular visitors still see only a skimpy article in the main namespace? I'm not saying that the template should stay up infinitely, but two days just doesn't cut it. BTW, Imp, it would've been nice if you'd waited for the results of this CT before you started removing the templates. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 10:10, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
   • A couple of things:
     • "I'm not claiming any authority over the article in question, but this is how things work here." Yes you are, and no they do not. You yourself said that you would revert most changes to the article, based on some arcane belief that it is "yours". This is a wiki. All contributions are welcome, barring vandalism and extremely low quality contributions. Placing a template on an article does not give you the right to lord over it as you please.
     • "it would've been nice if you'd waited for the results of this CT before you started removing the templates." I removed articles that had not been edited for over a week by the Inuse-tagger. This is completely within my rights (or any other user's, for that matter). This CT is to further restrict usage of the template, and has nothing to do with my patrolling of the In use category.

   --Imperialles 10:19, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

2. Per Qui-Gon basically, I find the template useful. I could understand us putting a limit say of no edits for a week means the template is removed but just putting a limit of two days just doesn't cut it, especially if a person takes longer than two days to write the article but is regularly editing it in that time. I really don't see the issue with this considering how few articles are inuse at any given time. We already regularly go through and remove the template if there's no edits for two weeks or so, that's enough. Grunny (talk) 10:16, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

   Strongly per Qui-Gon and Grunny, and especially per the "two days doesn't cut it." I agree that if no edits were made for a week, then it could be removed, but allowing the inuse tag up for only two days at a time regardless of how many edits are made is ridiculous. Besides, if I am writing a major article—whether or not I'm using the inuse tag—I don't necessarily just instantly revert any edits made by other users to the article. I don't stake a claim over the article as if it belongs to me; instead, if I find that an edit or edits have been made, regardless of whether or not the inuse tag is up, I'll check them out before I revert them. And, if they're good edits to the article, then I won't revert them, simple as that. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 14:04, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

   • You are staking a claim by placing a template on the article that actively discourages new edits for longer period of time. --Imperialles 14:14, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
     • Then I suppose we will have to remove all personal projects from all WookieeProjects, because those would also technically be "staking a claim" on articles. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here—especially seeing as many users just ignore the template anyway—per what I said above. Just because I have a tag on it, doesn't mean I instantly revert edits to the article. And if a user really wants to make an edit, but notices the tag, then he/she can ask on the article talk page or ask me directly on my talk page about making the edit. Either way, this whole "staking a claim" on articles thought line is getting pretty ridiculous. If we don't want anybody "staking a claim," then we shouldn't even allow FAs or GAs, as those are typically written by one user, who, by definition, must have "claimed" the article for themselves in order to write it up, elseways they wouldn't be able to truly call themselves the "nominator." Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 14:22, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
       • Don't exaggerate. If you disagree that placing a tag with your name on it asking other people not to edit an article for weeks at a time constitutes laying a claim to that article, I am clearly wasting my time debating this issue with you. --Imperialles 14:27, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
         • The point is that claiming personal projects on WookieeProjects is also claiming an article, and that deciding to write an article for FA or GA also involves claiming an article, and so I don't see how using the Inuse tag is any different. Besides, you clearly have not read my first post. I said: "I agree that if no edits were made for a week, then it could be removed, but allowing the inuse tag up for only two days at a time regardless of how many edits are made is ridiculous." I clearly do not think that "asking other people not to edit an article for weeks at a time" is OK. If you aren't willing to even listen to what I am saying, then I am clearly wasting my time arguing with you. The point is that limiting allowed usage of the inuse tag to two days based on the idea that you're "claiming an article" is ridiculous, especially when we already have other processes on the site (WookieeProjects and FAN/GAN) that require you to "claim" articles, sometimes for months on end, if the FAN/GAN process takes that long. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 14:35, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
           • I understand the points you're making. You could make your FA argument, sure, but I feel there is a difference between writing and maintaining an article, and actually placing a template on it basically stating "only my edits are welcome". The purpose of this CT is to codify some sort of limitation on usage of the template. If I understand you correctly, we merely disagree on the timeframe. For the record, I feel two days is very generous. There is no reason why people can't simply use {{Wip}}. --Imperialles 14:40, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
             • Point taken. So just to make sure I'm on the same page here: the Inuse template would only be used (for the most part) when you plan on making a bunch of consecutive edits to an article in a short period of time, say the given two days. And WIP would then be used whenever you plan on working on an article for a more extended period of time (in other words, it would basically take the place of what most users have been using the Inuse tag for)? Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 14:46, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
               • Correct. That is the original intention of the templates, as well. --Imperialles 14:47, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
3. Per the above. Nayayen—TALK 14:11, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
4. JangFett ^(Talk) 14:37, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
5. Per QuiGon and Grunny. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 15:09, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
6. I could agree with putting a two day limit on the {{Inuse}} template and using {{Wip}} in its place. However, I don't agree with abolishing the "nom=y" variation. It is a way to let others know that someone has worked on an article extensively and is planning on nominating it in the near future. Cylka^-talk- 19:41, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
7. I'll admit to being an "abuser," and I wouldn't be fooling anyone by claiming that I'm not. I'm also not going to defend that behavior, as its perpetuated by a certain lack of focus and time, at least in my case, which isn't alright. But the two day limit is restricting—I feel like our current week guideline is sufficient. I would even be okay with cutting it down to five days, but two isn't okay. And I'm very against the abolishment of the "nom-y" template. It protects the quality of articles that are completed and ready to be FANed/GANed, but can't be due to recent restrictions on those respective pages. I could understand doing away with it if those restrictions didn't exist, but as it stands, they do. It's more important that thetemplate remain in place to protect article quality than be aboloshed to restore accesibility to other users. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 21:57, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
8. While I do agree that yes, Wip should be utilized for edits over the span of several weeks (or months), I just don't see the point of making Inuse this strict. Per Grunny, the removal of the tag after a week is fine; it just needs to be enforced more. CC7567 ^(talk) 23:19, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
9. We could stand to move the nom=y function to the WIP template, but there's no reason to make inuse this strict. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 00:15, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
10. Strongly per most of Jon's arguments (except I'm voting on the other side). I will agree that wip should be used if edits are to be placed over extended periods of time, but there really isn't much of a need to put such a strict policy in place. Inuse tags should be removed if there isn't much activity going on, but to have a definite timer on it is simply unnecessary. Also, I'd like to see some improvements to the wip template, such as the ability to fill in your username. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 06:24, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
11. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 00:38, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
12. I use the thing and have not run into any significant problems with it.—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 05:05, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
13. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 07:30, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
14. It's obvious if and when someone is a problem about it. Deal with them, don't make baloney rules that only cause more problems between people in general. Graestan^(Talk) 01:02, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
15. Per Grae. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 13:16, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
16. Completely per Grae. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 20:18, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

A bit info about current Inuse tags as of my writing time: From the 30 current articles in the category (one is a template message page), there are/is (if I counted correctly):

• 3 articles with the last content edit today
• 5 articles with the last content edit yesterday
• 3 articles with the last content edit two days ago
• 5 articles with the last content edit three days ago
• 1 article with the last content edit four days ago
• 1 article with the last content edit five days ago
• 1 article with the last content edit six days ago
• 6 articles with the last content edit between one and two weeks ago
• 5 articles with the last content edit about two weeks ago or longer

I didn't count reverts or reinsertion of inuse templates here. While I also think the current situation isn't the most perfect one, I wouldn't call this abuse. This, this or this is abuse, this situation is at most a bad time management, writer's block or things with more importance by the users. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 11:33, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the category yesterday. --Imperialles 12:25, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

INAN says to use {{Wip}} when it isn't likely that you will be editing the article at the same time as other people might be trying to. Has anyone even looked at that template? The small print (literally and metaphorically) is the same: As a courtesy, please avoid making minor edits to this page while this message is displayed, in order to avoid edit conflicts. Nayayen—TALK 14:12, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

• If this does pass, I think we should change the "wip" template by removing the as a courtesy, please avoid making minor edits to this page while this message is displayed, in order to avoid edit conflicts bit. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 20:25, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
• I need to clarify something. If the "for" vote is only for both options presented, then I'll have to change my vote. I fully support the 2-day limit. But I do not support the elimination of the nom=y variation. There is nothing wrong with using that, since the 2-day limit would still apply. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 20:37, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed that point from the CT, seeing as only I supported it. --Imperialles 21:50, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • I still find something to be unclear. If this policy is implemented, that would mean that the nom=y variation would be rendered useless, regardless if that is the policy's intention or not. This particular feature was implemented out of a concern that the pending nominations of users—who already had three FANs up—would be "stolen" and nominated instead by someone who did no work at all, and also to protect nominations that are already close to being FAN or GAN quality. Any sort of restriction on the Inuse tag would thereby remove this feature, as nominators will be unable to keep the nom=y Inuse tag up for any amount of time longer than two days. I'd therefore like to ask if there is an alternative way to allow users to utilize the nom=y variation—perhaps with a different template than Inuse—so that it will not be affected by this policy in the case that it's passed. CC7567 ^(talk) 22:32, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • Feel free to port it to its own template. I am going to TC it eventually, anyway, regardless of the outcome of this CT. --Imperialles 23:08, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Not sure if it's a good idea, but if I didn't miscalculate, we could add code to the template that automatically hides it when the article hasn't been edited for one week.

{{#ifexpr:{{#time:Ymd|-1 week}}<{{#time:Ymd|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}|<insert inuse code here>}}

• This coding should do it (partially stolen from Template:FeaturedOn). Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 20:29, April 24, 2010 (UTC)