> From: "Timothy Hunt" <games@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > It's a performance issue. With the number of hits that Wikipedia and > other Wikimedia wikis get, it's a significant hit. Nested > transclusion, for our purposes, shouldn't be an issue. > > Also, Wikipedia *does* use nested transclusion, fairly frequently. Fair enough... with one additional caveat, that we need admins to manage: Refer to this Wikpedia page, which explains that these templates (and other--maybe all others) should be Protected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:High-risk_templates I have learned that the wiki (re)builds a page one time, upon editing, rather than "on the fly" as I suspected. I am sure this is a good idea, for transaction management... BUT it exposes the wiki to a potential denial of service attack, if a vandal were to (say) change the Fluxx tag to something vulgar: every page which calls it (probably most if not all User pages) will be regenerated. At our (current) population, that's no big deal. Should we multiply (ahem--our JOBS as Rabbits ;) ) then we might be setting ourselves up to be attacked easily. That said, I doubt our numbers will ever hit those of Wikipedia, so our concerns are a bit smaller scale than theirs. But it's easy--nay, trivial--to Protect every Template page, given how rarely they will change once created. Hmmm... do you have to Unprotect every template that inherits a meta-template (called "base" in my past post; now I know the real term), if you change the meta-template? Seems like you would... but maybe the wiki code is "smart" enough to sort of quasi-Unprotect children of a meta-template, just for the one rewrite instance. Then, all THOSE children will push rewqirtes on affected User pages (which won't, generally, be Protected). Lots to learn about this stuff... I haven't even found a meta-template from which to start swiping code, yet, and I'm already ears-deep in wiki theory. :) David