Talk:Tatler

See also: Talk:Tatler (1709)

Requested move

• Tatler (1901) → Tatler
• Tatler → Tatler (disambiguation)

– Originally a contested technical move, then a separate move discussion from Talk:Tatler (1709) consolidated here as a multi-page move. older ≠ wiser 22:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• as agreed following article split with suboptimal naming of descendent articles. Current incarnation should keep unqualified name. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Object seems like we should determine whether the 1709 or the 1901 founded versions are primary. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• This should have been determined before the article was (apparently unilaterally) moved; the move has broken over a hundred inbound wikilinks. --McGeddon (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Note that this cut-and-paste split needs to be untangled: it looks like Tatler (an article about both the 1901 and 1709 magazines) had the bulk of its 1901 content stripped, and was moved to Tatler (1709); Tatler (1901) was then created from scratch with a big copy-and-paste of everything that was cut from the Tatler article. If Tatler (1901) is moved back to Tatler, it will have no edit history. --McGeddon (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Bleh. I don't think a simple history merge is possible, but if the pages are to remain separate there does need to be clearer indications of where the edit history is. Perhaps best option might be to undo the split and then redone following the instructions at WP:SPLIT. Besides the edit merge, there definitely needs to be discussion of which, if either, of the magazines it the primary topic. I've never heard of the modern magazine, but as a erstwhile lit major, I am well aware of the older magazine. older ≠ wiser 11:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• The history attribution templates are attached on the talk pages, with the diff#'s so contribution linkage can now be found. The 2005 versions of the article (when it was created) focused on the 1709 version, so the edit history would seem to properly belong to the 1709 article? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• The following posts between the horizontal lines were originally posted as part of incorrectly separated multi-page move request. older ≠ wiser 22:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

---

RE: previous Tatler move. This article was split (not by me) a couple of weeks ago into Tatler (about the 1709 version) and Tatler (1901) (about the current version). When I discovered this split, I pointed out to the mover that this had damaged a lot of links, and we agreed that Tatler would be renamed Tatler (1709) (which I did yesterday, and set about fixing the small number of links to the historical Tatler to point to the 1709 article), and that Tatler (1901) would reclaim the name Tatler, thus restoring most of the damaged links to their rightful target. However, the articles seem to have been messed around by the last set of admin moves, so that Tatler is now a disambig page, which is a much worse state of affairs than the one I was trying to fix. Now all links to Tatler are wrong. Can someone please put things back the way I requested them? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• See [1] :: Page Tatler has between 50 and 100 incoming links, but most of them are from talk pages and user pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Support the modern Tatler as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Interesting situation, while Clement Shorter's Tatler claims some kind of continuity with Steele's The Tatler, this is a bit wishful, perhaps WP:OR on Clement Shorter's account? The WP:FORK seems to me a reasonable split given a 250 year gap. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the 1709 version seems to be the more encyclopedic topic, more historically significant, and the more educational topic. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry=

Sorry for the mess. I split the pages and was attempting to "be bold" doing so. I should have thought about the existing links though. Heywoodg ^talk 05:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)