I see no reason not to. Anything that has the
potential for transcluding
vandalism all over hell and back, and isn't currently being worked on by an
editor who has requested unprotection, should be protected. Common sense.
cs
On Dec 15, 2007 1:58 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com > wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Andrew Gray
<shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Casey Brown
<cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com > wrote:
> It's been fixed, it was caused by vandalism to this template:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mojo_title which put the
> "Image:Vagina-anatomy1" at the top of all pages with that
template.
> The template in question is now protected
and the user blocked.
Mmm. I pre-emptively blocked a second template, too.
I wonder if it might be worth reminding the mailing-list about
transcluded template vandalism and the importance of protecting
heavily used templates...
...for what it's worth, we have over a thousand templates transcluded
more than 2,800 times - even allowing for duplication and for some not
being "reader-facing", that's still a heck of a lot. Is there any
reason I shouldn't roll through protecting the high-use ones?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l