Template talk:GOCEinuse

proposals for improving template

1. Remove "several" regarding hours and just pick an amount. 3 or 24 or whatever. Since we already say please and consider, we don't need to add more weaseling.

2. Also, direct interested, held-up potential editors to list their edits on the article talk page (rather than directing them to GOC project page).

TCO (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wording

The present wording to me looks a bit too self serving. I would simplify "Thanks for your patience and cooperation while we improve the quality of Wikipedia" to "Thank you for your patience". Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 11:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made the change, since there were no objections. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Timing on tag

I think something is off on the timestamp of the tag. The problem is not in the actual timestamp of the last edit but in parenthesis after the timestamp which never seems to update correctly. Like I checked an article that I had put the tag on a few hours before and the parenthesis after the timestamp said "1 second ago". Hope someone can fix this problem or let me know if it just me. Karthanitesh (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You have to WP:PURGE or WP:NULLEDIT the page to see an accurate time stamp. The template can't be programmed to fix this on its own. It is a shortcoming throughout WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you. If that is the case, why is the parenthesis part necessary? People can determine whether it has been 24 hours by looking at the rest of the timestamp. Not a criticism but a suggestion. Similarly, we could add a purge link to the template so that way users can click and update the timestamp. Karthanitesh (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a decent idea. I have updated the template to try to explain it better. Take a look at it now, in (for example) Expulsion of Chileans from Bolivia and Peru in 1879. Feedback is welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Works really well for me. Thanks for editing it! -Karthanitesh (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Any way to incorporate {Bots}?

It would be useful to piggyback {{Bots|deny=AWB,JWB}} (or similar) either literally or effectively along with this template. A/The? solution might be to hardcode AWB to recognize this template (and aliases) directly, but it would be easier & faster to softcode it here, if possible. The only way I can think of is to require a careful combination of safe/WP:SUBSTing {{GOCEinuse}} & {{Bots}}, but that would probably be a breaking change. Does anyone know another way?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: It looks like this feature is already hard-coded into AWB based on the 22nd section of this page (I can't link to it properly since the section title includes a <nowiki>-ed template). Might be worth a test to see if it's working if you have AWB privileges. TitanAndromeda 01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, AWB stops processing and gives the user a popup that says 'This page has the "Inuse" tag, consider skipping it', so that *is* good. But I think (5+ months ago now...) I was looking/hoping for AWB to have a reaction similar to when it encounters {{Bots|deny=AWB}}, where AWB auto-skips the page, and continues processing without requiring user input. It's not a big deal though.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding On the skip criteria page, you can set it up so the {{inuse}} causes you to skip the page automatically, as you suggest. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Behavior on Wikipedia namespace pages

I updated this template in order to prevent the template from adding WP:GOCE/T to its hidden category for pages that have it transcluded for more than 24 hours. It suppresses that feature if it's transcluded on a page in the Wikipedia namespace.

I tested the change out on the template's sandbox and on Wikipedia:Sandbox before implementing it, but if my change has caused any problems please revert them and let me know. TitanAndromeda 01:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Good idea! After looking at the population of the category, I changed your approach slightly, using {{main other}} in order to limit the "staleness check" to main (article) space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, even better! TitanAndromeda 03:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Text in bold

Is it necessary for the word "article" to appear in bold in the template? It doesn't feel necessary. What do others think? Toccata quarta (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The word "article" changes to "section" when |section=yes is set. The bolding is not strictly necessary, but I don't see the harm in it. I would not object to be bolding being removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Wording and format change related to this template

See Template talk:In use#Merging the underlying code of In use and GOCEinuse for a discussion related to this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I keep forgetting to do this! Thanks FaviFake (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a means of contesting usage or reporting abuse?

The template documentation says that this tag does not give its deployers ownership over articles. But it seems that some deployers use this tag for days, on articles that might otherwise be edited many times per day, because they are about popular topics that are undergoing rapid change. So these editors are unilaterally inhibiting the ordinary functioning of Wikipedia.

Is there an avenue for contesting use of this template — to complain about "over-ownership of", or "squatting on", articles? Mgnbar (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

As with all article-related disputes, start at the article's talk page. If that doesn't work, try the editor's talk page. The template displays the message "Please remove {{GOCEinuse}} from this page as this page has not been edited for at least 24 hours" when a page has not been edited for more than 24 hours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Reversion of change to /doc

I have reverted the addition of a garish new template from this template's documentation. Feel free to discuss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake, your continued reverts to the documentation page and failure to communicate on this talk page are disruptive. Please revert your edits until consensus is reached that your change is wanted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I replied at my talk page. FaviFake (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It would be better to reply here, since you delete the contents of your talk page regularly instead of archiving, and per WP:TALKFORK. Thanks for undoing your edit. Feel free to continue discussion here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I would have replied here if you didn't post a 3RR violation warning to my talk page threatening a block, instead of trying to discuss here without avoiding my pings. FaviFake (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I did both. The place to discuss this template is this talk page. The place to discuss your disruptive editing is on your talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Under construction § Should {{Edit lock templates}} be added to the /docs of the templates it features?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Under construction § Should {{Edit lock templates}} be added to the /docs of the templates it features?. FaviFake (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC) FaviFake (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)