UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Template Protection

A UESPWiki – Sua fonte de The Elder Scrolls desde 1995
Semi Protection
This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Template Protection

I just added semi protection to a few templates and was looking further down the list to see if there were any others that should probably be protected. Given that (currently), even an important template like Template:Place Summary is way down in 50th place on the Most Linked Templates list... wouldn't it just be easier to stop anon edits on all templates?

I'm still not sure which way I'd go if there was a vote on disallowing anon edits to everything, but surely with templates that are used on hundreds of pages at a time, it would be a good idea to stop just anybody editing? It it possible to add semi-protection to an entire namespace, and are there any reasons why it shouldn't be done? –rpehTCE 15:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Protecting namespaces can be setup in the wiki's config via the $wgNamespaceProtection setting. Currently only the MediaWiki namespace is protected this way. I can't think of any good reason why Template shouldn't be protected from anonymous edits. -- Daveh 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Except protecting the entire namespace would mean that /Doc subpages would get protected, too, even though one of the reasons for separating the /Doc content is to make it easier for anyone to improve the documentation, fix categories, etc. Furthermore, new templates shouldn't need to be created that often (especially once we fix the trail template insanity), so it's not as if adding protection manually is a daily task. Finally, we haven't had too many problems with anon edits of templates -- in fact, IIRC, we started template protection in part because editing templates used to have a DoS-type effect, but since we fixed the job rate, that's no longer an issue. So I think protecting the whole namespace would be overkill. --NepheleTalk 16:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I take the point, but turn it around: the only reason it's a problem is if a brand new editor wants to edit a template but can't wait 7 (?) days yet it's not important enough to mention somewhere else. In other words: why would an anon ever need to edit a template? –rpehTCE 16:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, having thought about it... I don't even accept the point. Why would an anonymous edit want to edit our template documentation? Any edit somebody wants to suggest can be made on a talk page. The change to sub-pages for documentation was made for performance reasons anyway; not permissions. I simply cannot see any reason why we should let anons edit templates. –rpehTCE 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
But why not ask the reverse? Why is it needed that we block anonymous user from editing the templates? Nephele mentions that templates are less vulnerable than they used to be, and even then, how many times were they vandalised?
In the end it will make little difference, I think. In that case it would be best to have as few protected pages as possible, to promote the openness of the wiki. --Timenn-<talk> 19:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't like protecting too many pages either, but there's a difference between a template and a content page. If somebody vandalises a content page, just that one page is vandalized. If somebody vandalizes the NewLine template, over 2,000 pages are vandalized. Protecting the namespace would just be easier than protecting individual templates, which I still think we ought to do. Or am I being paranoid? –rpehTCE 07:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)