Thread:Superluigi6/@comment-24253146-20150905215355/@comment-23880286-20150907201842

Owenbretts wrote:

I agree with Luigi it makes it much easier to protect against vandals because that seems to be the things that gets vandalized the most. If the content of the page gets vandalized, protect the page. It only needs autoconfirmed protection anyway. And usually only temporary. The pages usually need the same protection as the templates anyway.

Why do we need to be consistend with other wiki, why cant we be different. It's best to be consistent if the being different doesn't bring any advantages. If it did, we could be different. All arguments for this system are pretty weak. The only reason you support it is most likely because you are used to it.

Its not a bad system its very simple infact because when you want to edit a template it takes you straigh to scource mode and that is the best place to edit templates. An example of a weak argument that supports this system. Firstly, it's debatable. You can edit templates in visual/classic rich-text mode as well. At least, this type of templates. Which is evidence that they were not meant to be used this way. If you have a template that can be edited in visual/rich-text mode it should not be a template. There's a reason source editor is used automatically, because you're not supposed to be able to do it a different way.

Secondly, change your preferences if you like source mode better.

Either way I still think a vote is neccessary becuaes this would be a big change because there are just as much template pages as thier are regular pages and we would have to change and delete them all. What's your point? It may take a while to do, yes. A lot of templates will be deleted, yes. But what does it have to do with how big the change is? The size of the change depends on the effect, not on how long it takes to do, or how much has to be deleted to do it. And the effect is pretty small.