Forum:CT Archive/Inuse abuse

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.

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)

For

 * 1) Imperialles 04:13, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Loneshark1138 Incom.svg (Comlink Active) 00:49, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png 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  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&#39;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)

Against

 * 1) I must say that I'm against this proposal. If I place the 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  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  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 10:10, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) *A couple of things:
 * 3) **"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.
 * 4) **"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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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&mdash;whether or not I'm using the inuse tag&mdash;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  Jedi symbol.svg ( We seed the stars ) 14:04, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

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