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

Diff:

Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

Why not make it 'several weeks' or 'several months', or just remove the deadline altogether?

When this template was created, back in 2005, it stated: 'This article is actively undergoing construction. However, you are welcome to assist in it's construction by editing it as well. If it appears that active construction has stopped, please remove this message. The person who added this notice will be listed in its edit history should you wish to contact him or her.' @​@​@​ Infogiraffic (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infogiraffic I think the idea of changing it to "several months" is horrendous. Are you serious? On the other hand I think that your suggestion of removing any explicit mention of any time scale is the best that anyone has suggested. Doncram is right in saying that a "one size fits all" approach is unhelpful, and tying the template to any specific time frame amounts to trying to impose one size to git all. The text quoted above from the original version, "If it appears that active construction has stopped", allows flexibility depending on parricular circumstances. JBW (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that "several months" is not the way to go. However, I also believe that a short time frame should be indicated, else you'll have some editors saying that several hours have gone by, so they remove the tag, claiming that "active construction" has stopped. Speaking from own experience in creating non-stub articles, and from the time I spent in NPP, I think that "several days" is an appropriate timeframe. That being said, even when an article takes several days to create, it's rarely more than a day between edits. Not saying that the end of constructive editing is a bad idea, just I think a suggested time delimiter will reduce arguments. Perhaps changing "several days" to two days? But that makes it more specific.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, yes. My pet projects are not easily put in, I would say narrow, time frames like a few days or even a few weeks. However, I can imagine the added value of Onel5969's perspective as well. What if we were to create a similar template named something like 'Under extensive construction' or 'Under construction ()? The current template could then include a time delimiter like three days and the new template could be given a deadline like 30 days... Infogiraffic (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description of suggested change: The implied scope of the template is misleading regarding new pages. If a mainspace page requires this template because it is in a state of "being created", new page review norms point to the page requiring removal from mainspace instead. The remaining verbiage seems sufficient for all other use cases in draftspace as well as mainspace.

(I've also supplied a minor copy-editing tweak in my diff.)

Diff:

CE-less diff:

Remsense留 00:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Also note {{in creation}} exists. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In other templates, the example of the template would be shown above the documentation, not in the documentation.

Changes to be made on the template page:[edit]

Move the beginning of the includeonly tag to start right before the last #ifeq. (insert between the }}{{)

Changes to be made on the doc page[edit]

Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and you beat me to part 2! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]