Talk:The Fields (film)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the The Fields (2011 film) page were merged into The Fields (film). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (13 Feb 2012) |
The Fields edit
Guys I don't think "100%" on location in Pennsylvania is accurate seeing how I'm looking at a newspaper article saying they're filming in Amite, LA. 166.137.14.121 (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Requested move edit
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move per request. A standard history swap has been done, as is typical in these cases. We do not history merge articles that have separate origins (which is completely separate process from a text merge), and doing so here (and in every similar case where two article have overlapping timelines) would create an utter mess out of the history and the attribution of edits. See e.g., Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The Fields (upcoming film) → The Fields (2011 film) – The information from The Fields (2011 film) has been merged into this older article, but that one has the properly disambiguated name. Don't think this is controversial, but requires admin tools for the deletion of the target article and subsequent history merge. I've already updated the links from other articles. — Bility (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment that's going to be problematic... edit history needs to be kept somewhere... and it seems ot have parallel histories... 65.92.182.149 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support: The merge is inevitable, as persistence of duplicate topics is untenable. Suggest WP:HISTMERGE. The Fields (2011 film) is logically preferred, since The Fields (upcoming film) is obviously perishable. ENeville (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support, with caveats. OK, this is how I see it. I don't think anyone would disagree that "The Fields (2011 film)" is the correct title, but there are some attribution issues. First, The Fields (2011 film) should be moved to something like Talk:The Fields (2011 film)/old, then The Fields (upcoming film) can be moved to The Fields (2011 film) and the {{copied}} template should be updated to reflect the moves. There should definitely not be a histmerge, as there were no cut-and-paste moves and the two articles have parallel histories. Jenks24 (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Merging histories isn't solely reserved for cut and paste errors. There's no need to maintain x amount of subpaged versions of every duplicate article on the wiki—a whole contributor list is sufficient and will be in place when the edit history of "The Fields (2011 film)" is restored after the move. — Bility (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.