Template talk:In use

Merging the underlying code of In use and GOCEinuse

The templates {{In use}} and {{GOCEinuse}} are based on the same underlying code, but {{In use}} has been improved a lot while {{GOCEinuse}} has largely remained the same, with some small changes to the text. To help maintenance of both templates, I propose we merge them into one.

Nothing will change if someone uses {{In use}} alone, but if someone uses {{In use|GOCE=any value}}, then the template will output almost the exact same template as {{GOCEinuse}}. Except that now there's an added benefit: improving one codebase will improve both templates.

You can check it out at {{GOCEinuse/testcases}}, since I've also rewritten {{GOCEinuse/sandbox}} (now it's simply a wrapper for {{In use/sandbox}}). Again, it would output almost the same message (I've also incorporated some very minor improvements into the GOCE version of "in use" which benefit both).

It works as tested in the appropriately modified testcases, and has no linter errors. I don't see a reason to keep them separate if the output can remain the same and is still so similar between the two. Thoughts? FaviFake (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

A month without objections by 90 page watchers; I'll assume this has WP:SILENT consensus and apply the TPER tag.

All that's needed to do is replace {{In use}} with {{In use/sandbox}} and {{GOCEinuse}} with {{GOCEinuse/sandbox}}. I can also optionally do the latter myself, but it is important that the former is done first. FaviFake (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

As a GOCE emeritus coordinator, I object to the wording changes and to the notion that {{GOCEinuse}} requires maintenance. The template has seen one unreverted edit in the last five years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Here's a list of the things that have improved since the GOCE template was copypasted from its parent:

1. The size of the icon doesn't match the size of every other template which uses the same icon
2. Edit conflics, the sole reason this template exists in the first place, are not mentioned anywhere. Instead, it says "As a courtesy";
3. It doesn't specify the namespace it's in;
4. The main introductory part of the template isn't bolded;
5. The time is in the format "at 04:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC) (45 days ago) by Jonesey95 (talk · contribs)" instead of the more user-friendly "0 seconds ago by Jonesey95 (talk · contribs), at 20:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)";
6. It calls itself "message" instead of the more accurate term "notice";
7. The link to refresh is eccessively long and also incorrect (it refreshes both the author and the time calculation, not just the time): "(Click here to refresh this time calculation.)." instead of a simple "(refresh)";
8. It says "currently undergoing" instead of "actively undergoing";
9. The link to purge is not next to the time calculation, which is the main thing it refreshes;
10. and i could continue...

All of these issues have already been fixed in {{In use}}, and leaving the two separate will inevitably make this list longer, even if these are fixed manually once.

The wording changes were very minor if I recall correctly, but I could agree to revert some of them. Which wording changes bother you? FaviFake (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The sandbox version shown on the testcases page is less courteous, less friendly, and more generic. It is customized for the Guild of Copy Editors. Have you posted at all on any of the GOCE's talk pages to notify them about this proposal? It's a template that is used by the project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The sandbox version shown on the testcases page is less courteous, less friendly, and more generic.
Makes sense. I've now modified it to add "please" and "Thank you for your patience." Jonesey95 Could you check {{GOCEinuse/testcases}} to see if you prefer this version? The only remaining difference in "courtesy" is the "new" mention of possible edit conflicts. Other than that, it's just as courteous as the GOCE version.

This was meant to be a technical change, not a wording change. I believe what I've now added back was originally from {{in use}} but was removed, and I wanted the GOCE version to keep up with the changes. FaviFake (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Slightly better. If it wasn't meant to be a wording change, why is "The copy editor who added this notice is listed in the page history." missing from the sandbox? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Because that removal is yet another improvent that was made to {{In use}} while the GOCE version didn't benefit from it. As is literally every other change I've made.

There was a reason the courteous words were removed, and I still think they should be removed, but adding back that sentence is too much. It was removed in 2009; it's 2025 and it's gotten much easier to view the edit history. If someone doesn't know what the edit history is, that sentence is not going to help, and if they do, then it's useless anyway. Pretty please? FaviFake (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 I've answered all your questions. What do you think of the modified proposal? FaviFake (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of removing the helpful sentence about who added the template. Our copy editors get user talk page traffic from interested page watchers. This notice likely helps direct those comments to the right place. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Whatever. I've added it back and now the message is almost as long as it was before.

What do you think of the modified proposal now? FaviFake (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

For reference, it looks like this now:

FaviFake (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

That looks better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Shall I mark this edit request as not answered then? I wouldn't want other template editors to wonder whether the consensus is clear. FaviFake (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Just letting you know I intend to do it this week, but it'd be easier if you expressed your stance more clearly :)

(or just implemented it, since you're a TE) FaviFake (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

(And people complain about my use of {{TPER}}...) FaviFake (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I, for one, miss the blue trim and light background of the old version. Would there be a way to customize under the new scheme? Dhtwiki (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course there would, templates such as this one are easily customizable in that regard. :) FaviFake (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki So, do you oppose or support this change? FaviFake (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

You have given a long list of why the present template is inferior as a programmatic construct but have been slow to give us a version with an appearance that is what we are used to. I think that you need to do the latter before I can agree to a change. If the new template is so easily customizable, why didn't you do that in the first place? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki What? The design of my version of {{GOCEinuse}} is completely identical to its current version in articles. I'm not sure what you mean by the blue trim and light background, but neither the trim nor the colour have been changed in article space. The only thing that changed, apart from the text, is the width of the icon.

If you want to make changes that aren't in either version, you should discuss them first, but they're unrelated to this discussion. FaviFake (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@FaviFake: I am looking at the example on this page, which is borderless and with a tan background. The template you link to does appear identical; in fact in appears to be in template space as the default that we link to. However, I don't see that changes more recent than this discussion have been made. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

the example on this page
@Dhtwiki The example on template and talk pages appear differently because of how the template is coded. It now supports other types of pages, so in case it's placed on non-articles, it won't look out-of-place. Rest assured the design on articles is the exact same :) FaviFake (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki So, given that the design would remain exactly the same, would you support this change? The design seems to be the only reason behind your original comment but the confusion should be cleared up now :) FaviFake (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake: I am concerned that the template look and act the same for copy editors, and you are giving assurance on that score. I defer to Jonesey95 on the technical advantages of the merge, and they seem to have raised no objections on that score. Given the foregoing, I am okay with the merge. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure Jonesey95 would've expressed their opposition much more clearly if they disliked the change, so I'll go ahead and consider this small consensus to be enough. FaviFake (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Please get consensus from the WP:GOCE project please before proposing changes. Sohom (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. This editor is fiddling with something that has been stable and working for a long time. WP:GOCE is happy with its template, which is not used by any other projects. Merging opens the template to the risk of being stuck with later modifications without our consent or knowledge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Unrelated challenge for someone who like to fix images

Leaving aside the above for a moment, the positions of the hands on the Ambox clock image do not make sense relative to each other. See the file talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 All fixed, see that talk. FaviFake (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

What links here

What links here lists pages that use Template:Under construction, since the template has a disclaimer that says you can replace this template with {{in use|5 minutes}}. Is it possible to make it only list the pages that use this exact template? Baltalı İlah (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking at What Links here, Baltalı İlah, I can only find a single use of this template in article space as of this writing:

If you have any questions on how to use What Links here, including filtering on the article namespace and also only including transclusions, please see H:WLH. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Got it. I didn't know you could filter out with Hide links. Thanks! Julvsel (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Parameter 1

Hi! Perhaps the description of Parameter 1 could be changed to say that you put the time you will edit the article. When I added 15+ minutes to 1, the message changed to This article is actively undergoing a major edit for 15+ minutes. instead of "for a little while." Robloxguest3 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I have improved the documentation. Please get back to us if you have further concerns, User:Robloxguest3. CapnZapp (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)