Template talk:Underconstruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2008 January 15. The result of the discussion was to keep.

Contents

[edit] Purpose of this template

This template should be added to the top of an article when you are about to engage in a very major editing or expansion of the article, and for that purpose only. Be aware that this template encourages other people to edit during the time that you're working on it as well, and that you may be responsible for resolving edit conflicts. Please remove the template when you are completed with the major editing or expansion that you are conducting. Use this template only if you are in fact planning on actively editing/expanding for some duration; do not use this template if you will not be resuming your editing for a while. --Nlu (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Move templates to their respective articles' Talk pages

Who here would support (and who would object to) changing this article to a talk page-only (or at least primarily talk page) template, since it conveys non-essential information that will not assist any readers and that any editor could easily find out by checking the edit history, or even looking at the page's text? I believe that this would resolve the main complaints regarding its usage that led it to be TfDed (i.e. that it conveys absolutely no useful information and is redundant to Template:Inuse, essentially saying nothing except "you are allowed to edit this article!", which is always assumed anyway), while still satisfying the supporters of it who wish for a clear way to indicate to fellow editors that the article is under heavy reconstruction, but can still be edited. -Silence 02:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that would defeat the purpose of the template, as whoever comes on the page would not see it immediately any more and therefore would not know that the article was under construction. --Nlu (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that's exactly why it would 10000% improve the template: Wikipedia is written for readers, not for editors. Random readers who just happen to stumble onto a page don't need to know that edits are under construction, because they aren't involved in the editing process. Talking to fellow editors is exactly what the Talk pages were INVENTED for!, and a template exclusively designed to tell fellow editors that you want them to edit the page even though you're doing major edits to the page is the perfect example of a template that only merits inclusion on Talk pages (if there). -Silence 08:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
But all users (except blocked ones) are also potential editors, and certainly lots of people edit before they know fully what's going on. We should provide helpful guidance to newbies (and this template does that, in addition to its help to experienced editors), not make it harder to figure out what's going on. --Nlu (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
If your only concern is to ensure that everyone who edits the main page will know the situation even if they neither check the edit history nor the talk page (and any editor who does that while making some edit that would be affected by knowing that information is someone who needs a reprimand anyway, not one who needs an entire template built around his ignorance), then what you should do is simply put tags <!--LIKE THIS--> around the information you want to convey on the top of the page, so anyone who edits the page will see your message and anyone else won't. Either way, a template like this belongs only on the Talk page; it does not benefit readers and is infinitely more trivial and pointless to editors than templates like "inuse", since it essentially says ("YOU AREN'T BANNED FROM EDITING THIS ARTICLE"), as though that's not what any reader would assume anyway, without the giant template.
There. You now have the perfect solution to the entire problem. By moving the template to the Talk page, you can inform most editors of what's going on; by using the hidden-text tags, you can inform editors too lazy to check the Talk page of what's going on of the situation immediately upon their starting to edit the article; and by doing those two things you can avoid the problem of shoving a giant pointless template in the face of every reader who happens to visit a page that uses it. Win-win-win. -Silence 08:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Disagree; it requires the user to go through multiple hurdles to see what's going on. But I doubt that I can convince you on this. --Nlu (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
"Multiple hurdles"? Nonsense. All it requires is that the user do anything beyond simply reading the page; the only user who would only read the page is a reader who has no interest in editing, and those are the specific people who would not in any way benefit from the template. Anyone interested in editing will either (A) check the edit history (and immediately see massive edits going on, but assume that the article is still open for editing since there's no "inuse" on it, which is what all articles are assumed to be, so stating so would be totally redundant); (B) check the Talk page, the only place a template as trivial and redundant as this should ever be put, and also a perfect place where you can explain in detail what all your; we should encourage people to read and use the Talk pages more for such issues, not discourage such much-needed discussion by transforming the entire Wikipedia experience into an endless series of brightly-colored boxes; (C) actually begin editing the article, at which point the <!--hidden message--> will immediately become clear and they will immediately know that the article's undergoing major revisions, but their contributions are still just as welcome as they'd be for any article. So there you have it, all three possible scenarios an editor would face, taken care of, while not shoving the template into the face of readers, who are what Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is written for. Articles are for readers, not for editors; editors work to improve articles for the readers. Everything revolves around what will best serve our readers, not around some sort of infinite cycle of editors editing articles so that editors can edit articles so that... -Silence 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Color scheme

As this template is extremely close in meaning to {{inuse}}, as outlined on the TfD page, it should use the same color scheme. Ashibaka tock 21:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the inuse template is redundant and is not used on any articles. — Wackymacs 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't necessarily mean it's redundant; as it stands, the template is supposed to be transitory and removed as soon as it is no longer needed (as it this template). --Nlu (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be unfamiliar with common Wikipedia templates and unable to figure out how to use Special:Whatlinkshere, so I'll just go ahead and change back the color scheme. Ashibaka tock 22:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, if an edit war is developing, I will block if there's a 3RR violation (whoever does it). But Ashibaka, please lay off personal attacks. --Nlu (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's hard for me to suppress my anger when people just go around putting class="cleanup" on totally random templates as if this were a wiki or something. Ashibaka tock 23:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I have to say I prefer the bluish, no-icon one. The greenish one is too glaring, and the icon doesn't really add anything. --Aquillion 08:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what colors are used, but the fact is that {{inuse}} and its siblings all use this format. If you fiddle with this one you'll have to change those as well, or else I will simply revert you for disturbing a standard color scheme. Ashibaka tock 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
But a point of dispute (and I don't particularly care one way or another) is whether it is in fact a "sibling" of {{inuse}}, and I am not convinced that it is since it serves a different purpose. In any case, guys, please cool off. I will be watching for 3RR violations on both sides, and I am considering filing a WP:RfM and/or protecting the page. --Nlu (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
On the TfD many people regarded it as an exact duplicate of inuse. The main difference, apparently, is that inuse is for when a single user is actively updating an article, whereas underconstruction is for collaborative revamping. I don't think this is important enough to make it match the cleanup color scheme instead of the inuse color scheme. But if anyone wants to change the inuse color scheme I don't care as long as they are both the same. Ashibaka tock 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All articles are under construction

I understand the meaning of the template, but I think maybe we could change

This article is under construction.

to

This article is undergoing a major edit.

in order to give readers a better idea of why the article is unfinished. Ashibaka tock 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Major edits are already covered by {{inuse}}; this template is not intended for them. This template, I think, would be best used to serve the distinct (and separate) purpose of noting under-construction articles that are currently sub-stub, especially ones that would normally qualify for speedy deletion due to lack of content. The template alerts readers to the fact that people are currently expanding the article, and that it therefore should not be speedied (immediately, anyway) for lack of content. Recent talk on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion shows a need for such a template. While {{inuse}} is sometimes abused for that, it isn't always suitable, since it asks others not to edit the article in question; usually, articles that are in the process of being constructed from scratch need all the editing they can get. --Aquillion 08:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The inuse template is hardly used on any articles, it should really be deleted. — Wackymacs 08:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not a good way to tell if the template is being used productively. That template, as well as this one, should be removed as soon as the work is done, so, both should be on relatively few articles at a given time. --Nlu (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
If you think {{inuse}} should be deleted, put it on TfD. Describe it as a dupe of this one, or something. Schaudenfreude ensues. Ashibaka tock 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this wording, then:

This article will soon be expanded.

Or something along those lines. "Under construction" is too vague to explain what's going on. Ashibaka tock 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer "This article is current in the middle of expansion or major revamping." If it will be expanded "soon," this template really shouldn't go on the article. --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Then it's time for someone to clean up the articles that do use this template and haven't been edited in weeks. Also, Aquillion just said that this template isn't for use on articles that have already been written. Ashibaka tock 17:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed a bunch just now. I'm going to try to remove more when I have the time. --Nlu (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed every one that I felt it should be removed from (and also deleted a number that fit CSD, in my opinion). Obviously, this will have to be done periodically. --Nlu (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I have to ask about "Under Construction." My impression, as a relative newbie, is that inuse is to be used when the article is actively being edited, but "Under Construction" is to be used when you are working on an article that needs significant improvement lest it be deleted. "Under Construction" specifically invites other's to work on the article, which implies that it may not be actively edited (the Inuse templates ask people not to edit.) IMHO, this tag is one that should be placed on an article that isn't completed but is being ACTIVELY worked on somebody over a period of days. EG it serves as notice to those speedy deleters who tag things immediately that the person(s) working on the article aren't finished and will be back.Balloonman 09:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
As I argued when this template was proposed for deletion a few months back -- this template, as I see it, is basically when the article is to be expanded or revamped, but that other people are welcome to edit it while that is being done, where {{inuse}} -- which is not one of my favorite templates -- discourages the such. --Nlu (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I personally can't see the use of this template if it is deleted after "6 hours" which is what has happened to it twice on military brats. I think it should be one that goes on a page that alerts deletionist that somebody is actively (if not currently) working on it. And only deleted after 24-48 hours of inactivity. There should be a way to "protect" an article that needs help---I see this coming into play when a bad article needs help, but will take more than one sitting to fix.Balloonman 09:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of this template

According to the original purpose of this template and this comment, this template is meant to indicate active editing such as might occur

  • during a "collaboration of the day" for a wikiproject
  • when a stub is created that might be Speedily Deleted otherwise

It is definitely not meant to discourage other editing (as {{inusefor}} does).

Would it be correct to say that this template is inappropriate if an article will not be edited for many hours or days? Gimmetrow 01:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "new look" and change of meaning

I reverted the new look for two reasons. 1) I don't see what was wrong with the old look 2) The change is not only about "look", it also changes the template to be about quality and reconstruction only. The template is already widely used for many different purposes, so it seems there should be some debate before its meaning is changed. -- cmhTC 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support changing the template to give it a new look. I don't see why not. I like the idea of the cone instead of the clock anyway. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate timespan

When I came across this template it had been sitting there for over a month. If you want to invite people to edit a page, marking it as a stub seems more appropriate to me... IMHO, this template should never be left on for more than a day after the last edit. If you don't intend to check in on it soon, make it a stub if the article is too short or otherwise give it a more appropriate label that doesn't give the appearance that someone will be tending to it soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rygir (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Once an article has reached non-trivial length, is there any protocol regarding removal of this template if another editor places it on an article? While the article text invites others to edit, the overall tone any style may be off-putting to some editors, discouraging them from getting involved, as others have mentioned in prior threads. Is there any reason not to just remove it, and mention it on the talk page as an issue? Buddhipriya 06:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. it protects against attempts to delete it. The convention here seems to be to allow at least a week, not a day. I use it on occasion, and nobody has ever tried to remove it sooner, but thny tend to remove it after 7 days if I appear not to be working on it. DGG (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I think Image:Mercedes benz museum de.jpg would be a more appropiate image for this template, since it is a picture of a construction site and thus implies the page is under construction.--Sefringle 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should the "notready=true" template be shown here?

I added the {{underconstruction|notready=true}} template under the "type {{underconstruction|notready=true}}" and "That will produce the following:" to the article. It should be given as an example, since I wanted to use it, but used the "preview" function to see it before hand. People may not do that, and do multiple edits to a page, which is rather useless (being a person who did that before I got addicted to the "preview" button I can understand) I'm just curious about the community's opinion on that, and just remember, if you don't think it should be there, just remove it. I abide by the "be bold" policy, and hope everyone else will too. Thanks! --HAL2008 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

The following text has been removed from the template :-

"Please don't tag with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days."

The fact that an article is under construction does not exempt it from our deletion criteria and the template should not imply that. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Text changed to Consider not tagging... which avoid the implication that it is a policy to not do so. DGG (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This template is a blatant violation of multiple policies

...including WP:OWN and WP:CSD at the very least. I still strongly believe that this should be deleted for the reasons set out in the TfD debate.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do believe this got TfD' once, and consensus was in favour to keep it. Adding a notice to an article saying its under construction (note where it says something like but you can help) doesn't violate WP:OWN, as its not saying you can't edit the article at all. I don't understand how in any way this violates the CSD criterion, care to elaborate on this matter, please? Qst (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template features needed

I would like to have the ability to date the revision tag went on. Also, it could help if it would reflect the date of the last change and suggest that it be removed if it has been in place for more than a certain period without an edit, say 7 days. Slavlin (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

the template currently says several days--I do not think that is the least realistic, and it should be for 28 days, 4 weeks. DGG (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No, extending it is counterproductive. The underconstruction templates are for when editors are actively engaged in major editing or expansion of an article. It should not be in place for a considerable period of time. If the article is not actively being edited, then it shouldn't be there. Tagging an article as under construction discourages other editors from contributing to the article. They assume it is actively being edited and so they shouldn't bother. If the article is not actively being edited, there are better suited templates (ex: {{incomplete}}, {{expand}}). -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)