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@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@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@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l