Template talk:Flux
Shouldn't this be merged with {{current}}? — mark ✎ 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). — mark ✎ 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! — mark ✎ 23:28, 14 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). — mark ✎ 22:17, 13 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[edit]
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[edit]
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)