Template talk:Under construction

Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2025

This section:

If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.

... should be shortened. The first part of this sentence contradicts the second sentence of the template ("You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. ") by saying that you should only add {In use} if you're the one who added the template. The "during active editing" part is also repeated twice. and "Click on the link" is uncommon and a waste of valuable space.

Also, the comma in ", and is not yet ready for use" should be removed as it is ungrammatical (see Floppy disk to see how it looks). I propose this revised version:

−

If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{tlx|in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.

+

If you are actively editing this {{#if:{{{nosection|}}}|article|article or section}}, you can replace this template with {{tlx|in use|5 minutes}}.

Alternatively, you can drop the parameter example completely. There are no other parameters in the docs (beside a "section" to replace "This article"). --FaviFake (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I noticed a similar edit was requested by Victuallers in § Edit request 18 June 2024. This should show there's a weak consensus to radically change the bottom sentence. FaviFake (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Template:Under construction/sandbox FaviFake (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 7 September 2025

The first sentence is a bit awkward: "This page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring." A cleaner alternative: "This page or section is undergoing significant expansion or restructuring." 46.175.99.33 (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree, it's confusing. I like your version. I added the tper template since nobody objected. --FaviFake (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Template:Under construction/sandbox FaviFake (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hello... I have noticed that this specific template is among the only one(s) among thousands of maintenance templates used on this site that foregrounds/permits the prominent display of the identity of the user who added it .. This is not in line/incongruent with the standards the rest of the templates and rest of the site, which prioritizes impersonality, neutrality and something called "NPOV".. Unlike other maintenance templates that emphasize impersonal collaboration, this one visibly identifies the individual user editing the page, which may conflict with the project’s general principle of neutral and anonymous authorship. I think to be in more line with the site's standards, these construction templates and any others like them that exist (that break the illusion of impersonality), should be amended/modified to remove any visible user handles (like the field one can place to indicate they are editing, and the "last edited by" thing at the bottom of this template ) or made invisible to regular/logged out users via CSS.. thank you Kirby9717 (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Foregrounding/permitting the prominent display of the identity of the user who added it is a feature, not a bug. CapnZapp (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

5 minutes?

Over at Template talk:In use#What links here someone found this template's mention of {{In use}} troublesome. While I could straighten that out relatively quickly, it got me noticing the what to me looks like a strange phrasing of this template, specifically the If you are actively editing this article or section, you can replace this template with {{in use|5 minutes}} bit.

I then found previous discussions here and here, and... I did not see any actual discussion.

What I would have thought was the reasonable action would be to move the "hey, this other template exists" advice out of the actual template message, and into the documentation where IMHO it belongs.

If we must keep the message in the actual template, I don't see how a very very short time span of 5 minutes could help anyone. To me, that "advice" just sets up frustration, where someone removes the templates a few minutes after being placed, before anyone could reasonable be expected to complete a "major" edit. By the way, the template defaults to two hours (where "defaults" is a strong word, there is no built-in time constraints, and the template itself only says "for a little while" or alternatively "for a significant time"; but the documentation pretty clearly suggests two hours as a reasonable cut-off time) so why isn't the message conformant to this? Also, at least to me, it's relatively clear the intended usage of in use includes the time parameter, like so: {{In use|time=~~~~~}}.

To be clear: in order of preference, I would like to suggest either

1. removing the "If you are actively editing..." bit entirely (from the template text, we can then always suggest it in the documentation)
2. keeping the "If you are actively editing..." bit but dropping any definite time suggestions and adding best practice usage: "..., you can replace this template with {{in use|time=~~~~~}}."
3. keeping the text mostly unchanged but at the very least replace the current "advice" with something practical: "..., you can replace this template with {{in use|two hours}}."

Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

4. Another (very neutral) phrasing is "If you added this notice, you might want to replace it with {{In use}} during active editing sessions."

Not only does this safeguard the template against changes in recommendations, it also mirrors the message on {{In use}}. I'll add an edit request for this phrasing unless somebody minds (or expresses support for any of options 1-3 above). CapnZapp (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

5. (Hopefully) the final, and perhaps most to the point phrasing, would be "Please replace this template with {{In use}} while it is actively undergoing a major edit." CapnZapp (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @FaviFake, Victuallers, Rusty4321, Remsense, JBW, Onel5969, Infogiraffic, and Doncram as well as @Pppery, Chaotic Enby, Firefangledfeathers, and Paine Ellsworth. CapnZapp (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Support options 4 and 5 as both the most direct and the most intuitive, instead of putting the burden on an editor to figure out the expected timing in advance. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer option 1, remove it entirely. This kind of advice belongs in the template's documentation in my opinion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 May 2026

Please see § 5 minutes? and then replace

<br />''If you are actively editing this {{#if:{{{nosection|}}}|article|article or section}}, you can replace this template with {{tlx|in use|5 minutes}}.''

with

<br />''Please '''replace''' this template with {{tl|In use}} while it is actively undergoing a [[Wikipedia:Edit lock|major edit]].''

Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Temporarily pausing this as there has been a !vote for another option in the discussion above since the edit request. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

MSGJ, I gave editors roughly 30 days to chime in before making the effort that is this edit request, so I expect you to actively take the lead and resolve this, or withdraw your objections. CapnZapp (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

That is a highly surprising and unreasonable request. Suggest to reflect on this and consider rewording your comment — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

undergoing construction vs a major edit

The documentation used these phrases as if they were defined concepts with clear definitions, which of course they don't. I copyedited the text, feel free to improve or comment upon. CapnZapp (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

• Please add a nomination for deletion as shown below: Teterev53 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

{{Template for discussion/dated|action=|page=Under construction|otherpage=|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 May 19#Template:Under construction|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}}

• Should be {{subst:tfd}} (replacing transcluded template in this edit...). —George Ho (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 July 2026

Add a blank |alt= parameter to the icon so that screen readers do not attempt to read it, per MOS:BLANKALT (the icon is in the public domain). The caption parameter can be removed, because it has no effect here anyways.

−

| image = {{#if:{{{altimage|}}}|{{{altimage|}}}|[[File:Ambox warning blue construction.svg|50x40px|link=|page is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping]]}}

+

| image = {{#if:{{{altimage|}}}|{{{altimage|}}}|[[File:Ambox warning blue construction.svg|50x40px|link=|alt=]]}}

{{Lemondoge|Talk|Contributions}} 18:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done --MikeVitale 19:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 4 August 2026

Description of suggested change:

Please see § 5 minutes? and then replace

<br />''If you are actively editing this {{#if:{{{nosection|}}}|article|article or section}}, you can replace this template with {{tlx|in use|5 minutes}}.''

with

<br />''Please '''replace''' this template with {{tl|In use}} while it is actively undergoing a [[Wikipedia:Edit lock|major edit]].''

Note the last edit request was declined/stopped because of a late !vote. Ample time have passed with no elaboration, so I will in good faith resume my request with the option hashed out back in May.

Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I didn't reply back when you pinged me, but I don't love this new wording because it sounds more mandatory than it actually is. This is just supposed to be a suggestion, editors can edit an article for hours without replacing the template if they want to.

I've developed a new compromise solution in the sandbox which I think should satisfy everyone's concerns.

• The wording comes from option 4, which Chaotic Enby (and I think you as well) supported, but I just removed "If you added this notice," because everyone can change it to {{In use}}, not just the editor placing the template.
• Per MSGJ, while I didn't remove that sentence, the wording is now in a smaller font so it's less prominent. I also did this to make it consistent with the design of {{In use}}, since they're supposed to be swapped and compatible with each other.
• Since you mentioned mirroring the message on In use, I've tweaked the wording and the template in general to be more siimilar to {{In use}}, since that template was updated more recently.
  You can check the output at {{Under construction/testcases}}. What do you think?

FaviFake (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

First off, thank you for engaging. Secondly, please offer your sympathies for me, weirdly trapped in some kind of parallel Wiki universe where people don't respond during the normal consensus-forming cycle; instead only popping up AFTER giving ample time for objections, and thus moving forward reasonably thinking nobody is objecting.... (In other words: when does the point come where it is too late to stop an edit request, where your objections are simply disregarded for not being applied in time? How much time do you actually need to provide for comments before starting an edit request process? Is it even worth wasting all this give-people-the-chance-to-engage time - if people simply won't engage until you do pull the trigger on the edit request, why not change our procedures from "please form a consensus before making the request" to "just barge ahead with your edit requests; people won't generally bother to object until you do"... he said exasperatedly).

I agree the previous phrasing contains the word "can" which signals optionality and... sorry, I can't do this: My chief aim is to get rid of the IMO ridiculous 5 minute suggestion and I *really* don't want to get distracted *again*. So could we consider just fulfilling the edit request, and only then discuss other aspects? Just because this edit request goes through does not forbid further improvements. That is, please reserve misgivings *during* the edit request process to only cases where you prefer the original phrasing and want to outright stop the edit request, as opposed to finetuning it further. Please. You can always start a new discussion right after we finally get rid of the ludicrous idea an editor - any editor - could conceivably ever get any serious editing done in a mere 5 minutes in such a way that it is even worth first applying {{in use}}. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Trust me, I know that feeling very well and initially I really didn't want to oppose your TPER, but I just thought it was worse. I think I forgot to follow the discussion where you pinged me, and then months later I watchlisted this template for a completely different reason, and this discussion popped up in my watchlist for the first time.

The reason I'm opposing your edit request is precisely because it doesn't only get rid of the IMO ridiculous 5 minute suggestion, but it also makes a much more significant change in the wording of the sentence. Obviously I fully support removing the absurd 5min time, but I don't support the rest of the rewording, such as the stronger invitation to replace the template or the link to an almost-empty page.

But rather than straight-up opposing, which is what so many people do for TPERs, I actually tried to accomplish what you and others wanted in a working compromise solution that also satisfies me and some concerns in the discussion I had missed.

I don't think you need more consensus for this new version, as I simply incorporated suggestions from the previous discussions into a concrete sandbox version. if you like this version (or want to tweak it a little), we can just proceed. there's enough consensus already. All the changes can be seen in t {{Under construction/testcases}}. FaviFake (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so you are clear you won't let the edit request go through. So I'll try a minimal tweak in the hopes that makes it acceptable, remaining laser focused on getting this request through before discussing other aspects.

Please replace

<br />''If you are actively editing this {{#if:{{{nosection|}}}|article|article or section}}, you can replace this template with {{tlx|in use|5 minutes}}.''

with

<br />''If you are actively editing this {{#if:{{{nosection|}}}|article|article or section}}, you can replace this template with {{tl|in use}}.''

I believe in good faith this will satisfy the sole opposer User:FaviFake, who wrote I fully support removing the absurd 5min time, but I don't support the rest of the rewording. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Support this new version. FaviFake (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Should {{Edit lock templates}} be added to the /docs of the templates it features?

Apparently this is controversial, so I'm opening a discussion on the most watchlisted template. Should {{Edit lock templates}} be added to the /docs of the templates it features, without making any other changes to their documentations?

Edit lock templates

{{In use}} links talk edit	The {{In use}} tags can be used to alert people that you are in the process of making a larger edit. The article remains open to editing, but courteous users should leave it alone until you're done.
{{In use section}} links talk edit	This version is placed at the top of a section you are actively editing for a short period of time. The tag is intended to inform people that someone is currently working on a section of the article, thereby reducing edit conflicts.
{{GOCE in use}} links talk edit	The {{GOCE in use}} template is for pages actively undergoing a major edit by the Guild of Copy Editors. Typically, a copy editor who wishes to notify other potential editors that an article is being copy-edited will place the template on the article in order to reduce potential edit conflicts.
{{Being created}} links talk edit	The {{Being created}} template is used by editors who have made an article and will be adding content within a matter of minutes or hours.
{{Being translated}} links talk edit	{{Being translated}} is the same as {{in use}}, but it's used when an article is in the process of being translated from another Wikipedia language into the English one. Again, it should only be used while you are improving the article.
{{Under construction}} links talk edit	This template is for articles actively undergoing construction, i.e., continuous improvements spread out over hours, days, or longer. The intent is to signal to other editors that while they may edit the article, they should be a little more forgiving than usual.
{{List under construction}} links talk edit	This template is for lists that have been created but not completed to the creator's intention of completion. Since many lists are very long and creation in a single session is impractical, this template allows the page to be placed in main namespace while it is still being constructed.
{{Recently revised}} links talk edit	The {{Recently revised}} template can be a helpful tool for bringing a page up to Good article or Featured article status through a secondary review. It is not meant to be placed on a page long-term and should not remain on a given page for more than several days.
{{Being closed}} links talk edit	If a formal page discussion or a formal XfD discussion is actively being closed, add {{Being closed}} to the top so editors know they shouldn't comment.
{{Being archived}} links talk edit	If a talk page is actively being archived, add {{Being archived}} to the top so the archival doesn't clobber edits.
{{Being rewritten}} links talk edit	This template is used at the top of an article's talk page to indicate that the article is being rewritten in a sandbox or subpage.

Above is what it looks like. Please !vote clearly. FaviFake (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Template talk:Edit lock templates, Template talk:In use, Template talk:GOCEinuse, Template talk:In use section, Template talk:Being created, Template talk:Being translated, Template talk:List under construction, Template talk:Recently revised, Template talk:Being closed and Template talk:Being archived. FaviFake (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Support – I was not aware of the many templates similar to {{uc}} or {{inuse}} before today, so i think it would be helpful to have a visual version of every similar template, collapsed at the bottom like most other template navboxes like {{PAM templates}} and {{AfD templates}}. For example, if someone wanted to translate or create an article they might come here without knowing that {{being created}} and {{being translated}} exist as well and are more useful. FaviFake (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per MOS:SEEALSO. See also sections, whether in articles or template documentation, contain bulleted lists. Just link to Wikipedia:Edit lock, which is a more natural place to list templates like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Another problem: This template transcludes {{being archived}}, which adds NOEDITSECTION, making this very page hide its section edit links. I was unable to figure out a way to disable NOEDITSECTION when this template is transcluded. The template should not be deployed until this shortcoming can be addressed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Good catch!  I fixed it and updated its doc. FaviFake (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This talk page still does not have edit links for the sections. I expanded its contents here, and {{Being archived}} still contains NOEDITSECTION. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh my god, I edited the wrong line hahahaha. Fixed and can confirm that the edit links appear. I didn't notice it earlier because I use scripts to override those magic words. FaviFake (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the controversy? Is there prior discussion elsewhere? CapnZapp (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The template was added into the See also section of a bunch of template /doc pages without prior discussion, and it is a huge box of example message boxes, replacing the normal bulleted lists that are supposed to be present in See also sections. I objected to these undiscussed changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

without prior discussion
Also known as "boldly", which is why we're here. FaviFake (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

If you're going to make bold edits that go against long-established practice and against the guidelines in MOS, don't be surprised if you are reverted and asked to discuss. You have received many messages over the last year and a half about your problematic bold edits on your user talk page, so none of this should be a surprise unless you have memory issues (in which case blanking your user talk page is an even worse practice for you than it already was). – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Wait, I thought you said the MOS didn't apply in template space! Or am I misremembering? FaviFake (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Nope, misreading. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure? Because one could reasonably come to the conclusion that you might be intentionally brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict. FaviFake (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hooray, wikilawyering! I hope that you can see the difference between guidance that is widely ignored in certain places and guidance that is universally, or nearly universally, followed. In this case, MOS:SEEALSO is universally, or nearly universally, followed in template documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay so this is clearly a beef between two editors that belong on one of your user talks. Bowing out. CapnZapp (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

No it's not...? If two people can't agree on something that affects the wiki itself, then other editors should chime in to help reach a consensus. What goes into a public template documentation should not be decided on a user talk page. FaviFake (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)