Difference between revisions of "User talk:Iduan"
(→BNP: corrected my statement, Iduan didn't revert a talk page edit.) |
(archiving) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Your template ideas== | ==Your template ideas== | ||
Revision as of 19:27, March 22, 2009
| ||||||||||||||||
Your template ideasIduan, what do you need from me to support your proposed changes? I'm pretty good with templates but by no means an expert; I tinker where others pioneer (with an occasional exceptional insight like {{age}} I may say). --Ed Poor Talk 16:44, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Oh thanks very much Ed- and I think you're better than you think you are - great job on the age template. Template's aren't measured by their code, but by their usefulness. As to the proposal, as you might have seen the proposal is a little complicated technically, but it's actually a very minor proposal with a minor scope. I've pretty much worked my Officeholder template to allow all subpage to be protected by cascading (which, again, as you probably know, is where a page is automatically protected because it appears (by transclusion - like how template show up on other page) on another page that is protected). Now, since all of the sub-pages are protected, I'm saying that there's no need to individually protect them. The reason for this is that if the pages are individually protected, it becomes excessively difficult to unprotect the sub-pages, because not only would the sub-pages have to be unprotected, but the page itself would have to be unprotected. Now, that doesn't seem to hard, but then when you're talking about making one minor change throughout each sub-page, then it's a lot of extra work. If my proposal were passed - the only page that would need to be unprotected is the first, over-arching page. So I'm saying that if a template sub-page is set up to be protected by cascading, then it shouldn't be protected individually (see what I mean about a small scope? ;) ). I'd appreciate any support or feedback you can give me, thanks again Ed!-IDuan 16:57, 21 March 2009 (EDT) BNPWhy revert? he said it. JosephHKL 19:59, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
|