Template talk:In use

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)

Edit request 2 September 2025

Replace with {{In use/sandbox}}, which has a few minor improvements and no linter errors:

• "please" was used 3 times and many terms were repeated often
• it didn't use standard pb, which is used for templates with more than one paragraph
• clarify purge link (wasn't even grammatically correct) and put important timestamp info first

it's mainly a copyedit, nothing else changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaviFake (talk • contribs)

It appears that the rendering will change if |1= and |2= are used. Are there testcases? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Jonesey95 There wasn't a change in functionality, only in the wording used; I've now created them: {{In use/testcases}} FaviFake (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)