Wikipedia talk:History merging

Template for parallel versions

Hello! I've created Template:Parallel version to standardize the text placed on parallel versions of pages, since I was unable to find a template that fit that purpose. I wanted a link to the template placed in the "Parallel versions" section of the guide, but I deferred to requesting it on this talk page since I'd rather ask here first given the chance that the edit might be contested because I'm not an administrator. Please tell me if there's anything of concern that might prevent the addition of a link to that template on the section, or for general concerns regarding the template. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 14:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chlod: Thanks, sounds good. Feel free to add it to this project page in whatever way you like. Graham87 08:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Is merging sandbox edits to the main article possible?

I've been doing large article transformations in my sandbox but when I put teh content into the main article as with The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Die Hard, among others, the edit history just shows me making one huge edit to the article and not the hundreds I've done in my sandbox. And if I delete the sandbox pages those edits are gone. Is it possible to merge my history in there or is it not possible with completely different articles? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:Darkwarriorblake: Although it technically is possible, an administrator is unlikely to histmerge hundreds of edits to your sandbox onto an article. This massively inflates the article revision count and makes it harder to navigate page edit history without good reason, as it is not required to retain edit summaries when copying edits, only the authors of the edit/s (and if you are the sole author, additional attribution is no longer required). If you really wanted to retain all of the revision information and edit summaries for those sandbox edits, moving the sandbox to draftspace and redirecting it to the article would work better. Since draftspace redirects are not deleted, the history is preserved and you can link to the draft's history (e.g. using Special:PageHistory) when making the "one big edit" on the article. Chlod (say hi!) 20:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Chlod Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake and Chlod: Indeed, though to be honest I don't think moving user sandbox history to draftspace is really necessary, as it's not really what draftspace is for (it's more for working on new articles or article rescues) and userspace redirects are just as safe from deletion as those in draftspace. This is especially true in your case, where I see per your edit stats that you rewrite each article in a user subpage (which is the best way for attribution). The only minor attribution problem I can think of from having a sandbox in userspace would occur if your username is changed, but that's relatively uncommon and it's usually easy to figure out the intended page. Graham87 07:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not likely to change my username at this point. Thanks for the info Graham87! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Can't cut and paste or copy and paste anymore

Recently, I lost the ability to archive my old messages and add templates to the backs of articles. When I scan messages and templates and what not, to move and remove them, once I get to the blank pages I want to add them to, the icon that usually contains the "paste" command isn't there anymore. And from what I've read, this isn't just a problem on Wikipedia. Reddit users have also been having this problem. -------User:DanTD (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@DanTD: This is completely the wrong place for this question; ttry the technical village pump. Graham87 03:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves → Wikipedia:History merging – The primary shortcut that I and many other people use to link to this page, WP:HISTMERGE, almost has an EGG-like quality wherein the reader is suddenly pointed to a subpage of the administrators guide, and instructions for how to fix cut/paste pagemoves. Granted, the lead does a good job of explaining why history mergers (and splits) are necessary and still serves as a useful jumping-off point (and much better than the related CWW section); my issue is largely with the title, as it is just not intuitive (even for me, who has been using HISTMERGE for ages now). I am open to suggestion or thoughts on alternate new destinations; I'm more concerned about a more-accurate/helpful title. Primefac (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 07:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support at least reverting the bold move back in November 2015 that made this into a subpage in the first place. Looking at that previous November 2015 version when it was moved, the "Instructions for tagging a page for history merging" section had already existed back then, giving instructions to non-admins about the {{History merge}} and {{Db-copypaste}} tags. I really do not have a preference whether to move the page back to the original Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves title or the Wikipedia:History merging redirect. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: So far there is support for this move; however I am relisting this RM to generate more community input as this is a big one, and also to distinguish which title would be better, Wikipedia:History merging or Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves or something else. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 07:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Current is unwieldy. The proposed is concise. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge to proposed title. Chlod (say hi!) 14:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

same name

this article same name merge Amirusman6700 (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Amirusman6700, please be more specific. Primefac (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on improving the page

Some thoughts about how to improve the explanation to make it easier to understand were raised in this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

A new section has been added, just threw it together with what I thought were the main issues I see on a regular basis. More than happy to have feedback or even an overhaul if necessary, but I figured this was a good way to get the ball rolling. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Primefac. I also added a paragraph about a month ago if anyone would like to double check it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"can be a pain"

Pppery, I get that the phab ticket has been closed and the same-timestamp issue has been fixed, but I'm not really sure what you mean by ...doing so can easily be a pain - why is it a pain? What are the steps to resolve? Can we just say "the bug has been fixed and it's now possible"? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not Pppery,but I agree that separating edits (especially really old ones) using Special:MergeHistory would be a rather tedious process ... if I understand correctly it'd involve moving all the edits up to a certain point to another title and then moving the edits you weren't trying to separate back, so only the separated edit is moved and nothing else. A revision move feature would be infinitely easier and I for one would be much more inclined to use it. Graham87 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, for what it's worth I'm not doubting that it is a pain (having not needed to split same-timestamp revisions since this fix), just saying that the wording isn't exactly what I would expect. Primefac (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this a bit better? Graham87 (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Graham87 basically covered what I was going for better than I did. My point was to make it technically possible somehow, and Special:MergeHistory seemed like an easier target at the time for whatever reason. In any event I have no objection to whatever rewordings others want to make. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)