Template talk:Under construction

Template-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

I have two changes for my edit request, and I'll explain each below:

change or is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring to ---> or is in the process of large or several expansions, or major restructuring

Just a few mild expansions (like adding detail to existing info, a few sentences in the same section in, etc.) wouldn't be enough significant to much need placing a notice and cautioning other editors, so this is a clarification for that.

change please remove this template. to ---> please remove this template. (you can change the name of the parameter, but this is the one I settled on)

Normally such hiatuses are unlikely in these situations but sometimes may, probably or even could be intended to happen. It isn't great when somebody takes it down because of inactivity and later the editing resumes suddenly (either they may not notice the template disappear, or an error pops up because of a new edit before them and they need to restart the large edit), either way, confusion could occur. Most are not like these types, but it will be handy to have a parameter.

If you oppose one edit but support another, you can still enact one of them. But hopefully you accept my proposal, but if not I'm still okay with that. Thank you, especially if you accept. Dawn Lim (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

for the second change, I meant to type: change please remove this template. to ---> please{{#if:{{{notify|}}}|notify the editor who placed this template before removing|remove}} this template. , sorry did a big typo Dawn Lim (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done with minor alterations. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 12:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

Add a |subsection= when it needs to be used for a subsection instead of a section. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 23:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 14 February 2023

Add support for a parameter value equivalent for =true, and that is =yes. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Diff:

−

|"any parameter"=true

+

|"any parameter"=yes

Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done please sync, then make your edit in the sandbox and verify it is working; when ready reactivate the edit request above. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

hours vs. days

To make this formal: [i originally asked: please change "in several days" back to "in several hours" "in several hours" back to "in several days". Or perhaps better, change to "in a long time" and feel free to link to an essay (wp:howlongisalongtime?) on what that means.] The revised request is: please change "in several hours" to "in several days" or "in a long time". Doncram (talk,contribs) 12:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I was referred to this edit by User:JBW with edit summary "Boldly changing message about removing the template after a while. The idea that it's acceptable to leave this tag in place and then go off and leave it for several days is absurd. If you believe there are good reasons for doing so, please feel welcome to revert and start a discussion about it, in which case I will be grateful if you will let me know.)"]. That edit changed the word "days" to "hours". I personally believe that policy on articles "under construction" is not one size fits all, and naturally depends on the history and breadth of public exposure. The editor referring me to this believed the edit did relate to some discussion somewhere, parts unknown. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The wording is currently "in several hours"; do you mean 'please change "in several hours" back to "in several days" '? However, I do agree that "one size fits all" isn't a helpful approach, and there is a good case for more general wording, such as "in a long time", as you suggest. JBW (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be returned to the original wording, "in several days". "In a long time" leaves too much room for argument. One editor might think that means 8 hours, while others may think it means a month. And trust me, I've had that argument. I do think, as I said in a discussion when this change was made, that there should be two different alternatives, which are served by the inuse and under construction tags. One for when an editor is actively working on an article, the other for when an editor has found a topic they find notable, but might take a couple of days to develop it. That's how I was using it prior to this change.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

EC I was just updating with reply to User:JBW, "Yes, that's what i meant, thanks, struck and replaced. Yeah, I think it's fair to say that it's no longer generally accepted that an article can be left "under construction" for days and days. But saying it's not acceptable to leave for several hours is a change too far. What started me in a discussion and eventually brought me here was someone removing "under construction" on an obscure article that I was fixing, fixing, fixing, until late at night where I live, then didn't edit for a few hours. I believe I was fast asleep. No bot and no reasonable editor oughta be removing the uc tag too quickly when there's just a pause like that, and they especially should not be emboldened to edit-war on basis of "well it has been 3 hours" again and again when the developing editor reverts removals of the UC tag (which happens too). Thanks, I think "in a long time" would be better." --Doncram (talk,contribs) 12:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And now Onel5969's statement they prefer "in several days" over "in a long time", convinces me back to wanting it to be "in several days". Yeah, edit warriors bent on removing UC tag would still be emboldened with "in a long time". Either "in several days" or "in a long time", but "in several days" would be best IMHO. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 12:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Doncram and Onel5969: I have thought about this, and I now agree that "several days" is best. It was certainly a mistake to change it to "hours", so I shall change it back. Thank you, Doncram, for drawing this to my attention. JBW (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 DoneJBW (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)