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)

Draft question

Had a wee query as I don't think this is a cut and paste move but a draft was created for 2024–25 Celtic F.C. season at Draft:2024–25 Celtic F.C. season whilst a redirect was in place. Should these be history merged as some content is the same but some different? Any help appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is no. History merging is only required for attribution purposes; two people independently writing on the same subject in different places is not an attribution/copyright issue, so there is no need to merge the histories of the page. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'm fairly certain the experienced editor who removed the redirect will have been aware of the draft which is disappointing. That makes things quite simple though. Thanks again, Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

What benefit is gained from histsplitting?

We have here a lovingly detailed procedure for carrying out this action... but not any reason why it would ever be necessary or desirable. Why is this a thing? jp×g🗯️ 21:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You mean, other than the opening paragraph of WP:HISTSPLIT? Do we need more than two sentences to describe essentially "the old article got taken over, and we should split it to its own page"? Primefac (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Over time, articles may change from one underlying topic to a completely separate topic. Normally this should be accomplished through moves and disambiguation pages. However, if a user is unfamiliar with those processes they may simply change the topic of an article (overwriting the old) and continue editing. If this is not caught immediately it is very easy for the new topic to build up a substantial edit history of its own.

Well, maybe I am nuts, but this doesn't seem to give any reason why administrative intervention is needed to separate them out. For a history merge, we have legal (and moral) concerns about failing to propetly attribute an article's authors if revisions are hidden at another page. For a split, it just doesn't make sense why we should care.

Let's say Blistered Mooncakes is a 2004 stub about the debut novel by some some up-and-coming writer, who is in no way notable. This sits around unnoticed for a few years; in 2012 a totally unrelated movie is released called Blistered Mooncakes and it wins 5 Oscars.

What harm is done by having the 2004 revisions in the article's history? The only argument I can see for removing them is some kind of idiosyncratic retroactive application of GNG to individual revisions, which would set a horrible and censorious precedent empowering elites (such as us admins) at the great expense of everyone else. jp×g🗯️ 00:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I had encountered this 4 years ago, one that Primefac had kindly processed. Kurt Lightner was hijacked many moons ago, and then an anon editor reverted back to the first biography. The revisions were ultimately spilt up into two, with the second biography being moved to a disambiguated title and remained deleted for copyvio. See request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge/Archive_37#Completed_requests_June_2020 – robertsky (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

What I want to highlight is the potential for disruptive editing with editors wanting both biographies to be at the same title reverting on top of each other if the revisions are not spilt out. By separating the revisions, and if both are notable, a move discussion can be made to determine the titles without having to resort to protecting the page and having editors to refer the content by revisions. – robertsky (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

For a current example see K. Annamalai, which has previously been overwritten for Draft:K. Annamalai. CMD (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

(EC) To me it wouldn't make sense to have those 2004 revisions in the same page history as the film for chronological reasons, if anything, and I'd move them out to "Blistered Mooncakes (novel)" or something. I've actually done something similar at Bardcore and Bardcore (album); see this section of the talk page of the "Bardcore" article. Graham87 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; it's less about "this random garage band got overwritten" and more "this notable author's article was overwritten by a notable actor with the same name and no one noticed because it happened in 2010". We aren't obligated to split out pages with varying histories, but it is an option in cases like that. I will also note I regularly receive requests for history splits when someone's sandbox gets moved to the article space and there are (sometimes literally) a dozen other subjects in the article's history from earlier sandboxes; that stuff doesn't need to be in the history. Primefac (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah 100% agreed re user sandboxes. Graham87 (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

First edit is a move

Just wondering if there is something missing in the history of Northern three-striped opossum. The first edit is a move, and I can't see any history in the redirects in that history. CMD (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of move-over-redirect actions (or at least the 2006 version of that). I can't find the original base page but the entire system (including deleted versions) were all written by the same user so from a histmerge perspective I don't think there's anything to do. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, glad to hear there's not an issue. CMD (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There actually was *one* significant deleted edit at Three-striped Short-tailed Opossum, so I history-merged it in and deleted the early redirect edits. I've ignored the earlier speedied version of the article. Graham87 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Good spot, thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

When to history merge needs a wording adjustment

The "When to history merge" section is in conflict with WP:NOATT currently, or at least worded in a way that doesn't make it obvious that sole contributor cases shouldn't be histmerged. These cases are normally declined or fixed in other ways. Normally I'd fix the wording myself but I'm not great with wording policy (as seen by the slow progress on updating WP:CP and related pages). Sennecaster (Chat) 00:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you expand on what is in conflict? This page says histmerges are needed when there are multiple editors at the old page, while NOATT says if the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, and the rest of the two sections seem to be similarly not-in-conflict. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I misspoke with it being in conflict, but I think having a more explicit mention in the "When not to merge" section might help since it didn't click in my mind right away when I was trimming one of the reports. I also went along the thought process of "It make sense for NOATT to apply everywhere, but I would not be surprised if there was some asinine part of policy that made it so we have to care specifically for c&p " because copyright is a mess. Maybe modifying In both of these situations, if the original editor is the only one that has contributed content to the pages, a history merge is not necessary because there are no attribution issues (only one editor has written all of the content). since I read it as only applying to AFC/Draftify objections and not other situations w/r/t history merge. If it's just me getting confused that's fine too :P Sennecaster (Chat) 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from. Will give some time for other opinions but a little bit of redundancy doesn't hurt. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)