Template talk:In use

message: Can anyone explain to me why we have these elaborate instructions for the "creation of spoken wikipedia file" special case?
I do understand that it can be a bitch to start voice recording and then accidentally have the page update midway, so I understand the need for page stability.
But wouldn't it be far simpler to tell such editors to use the WP:Permanent link to the current version? For example, as of this writing, this link leads to the current version, except further changes will not modify it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_use&oldid=1011137392 In other words, a frozen copy of the version that just happens to be current as of this time. (Simply visit page history and click the current/topmost link to reach the current version's permanent link)
I don't see the need to ask other editors to avoid further improvements to articles just because I need a "stable" version for voice recording. And since I'm asked to remove this template right after finishing up, it's not that my recorded version will reflect the latest version for any length of time anyway. But please educate me if I'm missing something. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see #Making this template more noticeable above. Why use an easily broken system that requires editor compliance - and updates every two hours! - when we could instead instruct voice recording Wikipedians to use instructions that cannot be disrupted (accidentally or otherwise)? CapnZapp (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs to be "frozen"? 

message: There's a discussion over at Template talk:Under construction#automatic removal that involves this template. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  bot removal? 

message: WP:INUSE makes it clear that mutual exclusion is a matter of courtesy, not policy, and that the presence of this template does not strictly prohibit other editors from editing the page while it's up.  This template has legitimate applications, but also has the potential to be used for WP:OWN / WP:STONEWALL purposes by editors who wish to maintain their content during a dispute.  I suggest that we change the wording of the template from "please do not edit this page while this message is displayed" to "please be mindful of others editing while this message is displayed". DefaultFree (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Two hours is a short period of time, and edit conflicts can be a pain. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting into examples of why I think this would be useful could be veering into discussing specific instances of editor conduct, which I'm not sure is appropriate here.  Yes, two hours is short, and edit conflicts can be a pain.  But I have recently seen this template used during a content dispute to protect one editor's vision for an article over others, with individual  editing sessions lasting upwards of 10 hours, and with reversion and gnashing of teeth when other editors try to make constructive, non-conflicting edits during that time.  I think it would be good to change the wording to reflect actual Wikipedia policy, and to note that it is not appropriate to use this tag as a strategic device during content disputes.  I recognize the utility of this tag in many (most) instances, and am proposing it be improved, not removed. DefaultFree (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 8 April 2024 

message: Add a  param to provide explanation why the in use parameter is being used on the page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 28 May 2024