|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Is there a standard user talk page warning for copy paste moves? I know {{ uw-copying}}, but I wasn't sure if there was a more specific one. Ada Twist, Scientist (TV series) and Karma's World look to be two such copy/paste moves in a row by User:Agosn from their respective Draft pages. - 2pou ( talk) 20:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
What would be the appropriate action for cases where a draft is created as a copy-paste move of an article which was subsequently deleted? Should the history of the original article be merged into the draft? Should the draft be nominated at MfD? For examples, I have noticed MSport1005 has in a few instances done this. Two such cases I found are still in draftspace but were deleted at AFD: Draft:Alex Connor deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Connor and Draft:Levente Révész deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levente Révész. It would seem a minor issue but these drafts have been nominated at AFC (in the case of Alex Connor) and have even been added back into mainspace missing their page history (as was the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Dufek (2nd nomination), where a second such copy paste draft was deleted along with the article). A7V2 ( talk) 10:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
But what if it wasn't shortly after?Then you run into the possibility of parallel histories, though in theory all that would be needed would be the revisions before the copy/paste. Honestly, I don't really feel like any blanket statement will cover all cases, as they really do need to be dealt with as they pop up.
I wasn't aware that history merging requires undeletion- it does if the source page has been deleted ( Special:MergeHistory only finds live revisions).
I'm not sure where best to ask, but I've looked in a few places and the thread above about Étienne de Perier is the most relevant discussion I've found.
The article on the dragonfly genus Hypopetalia and it's only species, Hypopetalia pestilens, and were created on the same day in 2007. Hypopetalia was merged into Hypopetalia pestilens in 2011. Hypopetalia pestilens has 38 revisions, 26 of them after the merge; Hypopetalia has 15 revisions, 5 of them after the merge.
Per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, when a genus has a single species both genus and species should be covered in a single article with the genus name (typically) as the title.
What is the best practice to reverse the direction of the merge? A standard move would destroy the history of one of the pages, and round-robin would swap the histories in a confusing way. I'm thinking I should just do what is essentially a cut-and-paste move (with some modifications in phrasing) and history merge (or partial history merge) would just result in making it more confusing to understand the histories of each page. Should I cut-and-paste and add {{ copied}} to the talk page? Is there a better solution? Plantdrew ( talk) 02:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
As of the next MediaWiki version it will be possible to use Special:MergeHistory (but not selective undeletion) to split two revisions with the same timestamp. Posting here to let any other history mergers know. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Is there a standard user talk page warning for copy paste moves? I know {{ uw-copying}}, but I wasn't sure if there was a more specific one. Ada Twist, Scientist (TV series) and Karma's World look to be two such copy/paste moves in a row by User:Agosn from their respective Draft pages. - 2pou ( talk) 20:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
What would be the appropriate action for cases where a draft is created as a copy-paste move of an article which was subsequently deleted? Should the history of the original article be merged into the draft? Should the draft be nominated at MfD? For examples, I have noticed MSport1005 has in a few instances done this. Two such cases I found are still in draftspace but were deleted at AFD: Draft:Alex Connor deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Connor and Draft:Levente Révész deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levente Révész. It would seem a minor issue but these drafts have been nominated at AFC (in the case of Alex Connor) and have even been added back into mainspace missing their page history (as was the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Dufek (2nd nomination), where a second such copy paste draft was deleted along with the article). A7V2 ( talk) 10:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
But what if it wasn't shortly after?Then you run into the possibility of parallel histories, though in theory all that would be needed would be the revisions before the copy/paste. Honestly, I don't really feel like any blanket statement will cover all cases, as they really do need to be dealt with as they pop up.
I wasn't aware that history merging requires undeletion- it does if the source page has been deleted ( Special:MergeHistory only finds live revisions).
I'm not sure where best to ask, but I've looked in a few places and the thread above about Étienne de Perier is the most relevant discussion I've found.
The article on the dragonfly genus Hypopetalia and it's only species, Hypopetalia pestilens, and were created on the same day in 2007. Hypopetalia was merged into Hypopetalia pestilens in 2011. Hypopetalia pestilens has 38 revisions, 26 of them after the merge; Hypopetalia has 15 revisions, 5 of them after the merge.
Per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, when a genus has a single species both genus and species should be covered in a single article with the genus name (typically) as the title.
What is the best practice to reverse the direction of the merge? A standard move would destroy the history of one of the pages, and round-robin would swap the histories in a confusing way. I'm thinking I should just do what is essentially a cut-and-paste move (with some modifications in phrasing) and history merge (or partial history merge) would just result in making it more confusing to understand the histories of each page. Should I cut-and-paste and add {{ copied}} to the talk page? Is there a better solution? Plantdrew ( talk) 02:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
As of the next MediaWiki version it will be possible to use Special:MergeHistory (but not selective undeletion) to split two revisions with the same timestamp. Posting here to let any other history mergers know. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)