Template talk:Flux

Shouldn't this be merged with current? &mdash; mark &#9998; 22:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * cool, a new template! 165.230.149.169 22:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not really new; it's a few months old. I think they're slightly different templates (flux is for temporary use on articles receiving a very large number of edits) but share some similarities.  I might be amenable to a merge.  JYolkowski // talk 22:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see some slight differences, but I would think that's only a reason to amend current rather than maintain another template that's largely redundant. Note that the creator of the more commonly used current specifically designed it for "current event articles that will likely experience numerous edits in a short period of time" (see Template talk:Current). &mdash; mark &#9998; 22:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've decided to be bold and merge the two. We'll see how that turns out...  JYolkowski // talk 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Thanks for fixing it! &mdash; mark &#9998; 23:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems that there is a strong desire to keep the current template in a state that doesn't really fufil it's original purpose. Therefore I've taken the best ideas that were rv'd from that template and combined them here.

To be clear: this only intended for, and is only useful for, those mad million-edits-an-hour artices eg the London bombings, 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake. Dan100 (Talk) 10:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * And possibly any current event article that does have numerous sections, yes? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

As such, this is a prime potential vandalism target, and should likely be protected... +sj +  20:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Protected
Vandalized twice in one hour by different IPs... and not likely to need updating frequently. +sj +  20:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's not recommend section editing
Section editing doesn't solve any edit collision problems; in fact, if I recall, it actually introduced some nasty race conditions. I don't think we should be recommending it for heavily-edited pages. --Doradus 19:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)