User talk:Flooded with them hundreds
| This is Flooded with them hundreds's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
archives help
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Could an administrator please help tidy up my archives? I'd like revisions of /archives/1 from 2018 to split to /2018, and revisions from 2019 to this talk page. -- Flooded w/them 100s 13:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, are you asking for a WP:HISTMERGE-style split, or are you asking for the archives to be copy/pasted to a /2018 folder much like /archives/2? Primefac (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Primefac, the former. -- Flooded w/them 100s 14:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, so then are you wanting a literal "this post was made on 1 January 2019" split or something more organic to split the history on when the "newest section" was made 1 Jan? Either way it's going to be very odd and I'm not sure either one is stellar...
- I think it would be best to just copy/paste the appropriate sections to a the appropriate /2018 or /2019 section, like what I did when I condensed my archives. It would preserve all of the original attribution but would avoid any weird "okay why is the next revision suddenly not here" questions. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I meant I want the revisions of the archives to be separated by year. Then I'd blank the pages and add navigation links pointing to the page histories. That way my archives are maintained in the form of page history rather than copy-pasted content. -- Flooded w/them 100s 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- And /archives/2? What's being done with that? Primefac (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- It can be deleted. Just bot edits. -- Flooded w/them 100s 16:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it won't be deleted, because it's not just bot edits (and you know we don't delete user talk pages in the first place). You're welcome to leave it where it is of course. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
- Ignore that page then, it's unimportant for now. Would you please split the histories? -- Flooded w/them 100s 16:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, a user talk page and a page in the user talk namespace are not necessarily the same. Deleting the latter (if it's not a user talk page) is fine but not the former. -- Flooded w/them 100s 16:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac: if you're busy then it's okay, maybe another administrator would do it. -- Flooded w/them 100s 13:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, a user talk page and a page in the user talk namespace are not necessarily the same. Deleting the latter (if it's not a user talk page) is fine but not the former. -- Flooded w/them 100s 16:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ignore that page then, it's unimportant for now. Would you please split the histories? -- Flooded w/them 100s 16:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it won't be deleted, because it's not just bot edits (and you know we don't delete user talk pages in the first place). You're welcome to leave it where it is of course. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
- It can be deleted. Just bot edits. -- Flooded w/them 100s 16:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- And /archives/2? What's being done with that? Primefac (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I meant I want the revisions of the archives to be separated by year. Then I'd blank the pages and add navigation links pointing to the page histories. That way my archives are maintained in the form of page history rather than copy-pasted content. -- Flooded w/them 100s 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Primefac, the former. -- Flooded w/them 100s 14:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It's really more the fact that I can't think of a reason to do this, because it messes up attribution and contribution history, as well as making things rather messy and awkward. Page splits should only be done to either undo an improper histmerge or when an article has been "hijacked" and the history actually contains two different articles. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
- I see your point. Maybe a better way would be histmerging /archives/1 to this talk page to return the history to its original state. I'll then think of a new archiving method. -- Flooded w/them 100s 16:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)