This is an old revision of this page, as edited by McGeddon(talk | contribs) at 12:01, 6 June 2013(→Move discussion in progress: self revert now that it's moved back; cut initial message entirely given that it was just from a confused bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:01, 6 June 2013 by McGeddon(talk | contribs)(→Move discussion in progress: self revert now that it's moved back; cut initial message entirely given that it was just from a confused bot)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Tatler (1709) was copied or moved into Tatler (1901) with this edit on 23 May 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ≠ wiser11:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comments from incorrectly separated multi-page move request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Heywoodgtalk05:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD is fine, but you should have gone and fixed the incoming links as well. Just remember for next time you split a page, please check the incoming links and point them to the appropriate pages. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
