Wikipedia talk:Page history

This is the talk page of a project page that redirects to the page:
• Help:Page history
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions and edit requests should take place at:
• Help talk:Page history

Wikipedia Help Project

(Rated Redirect-class)

	This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

What the heck happened to my edit?[edit]

What the heck happened to my edit?

As far as I can see, all it does is state the official statistics of violent crime in America and compares them to the violence of more recent computer and video games. If I used slightly uneven handed language, then by all means, change it; however, I don't see anything wrong with my edit and I persist in reinserting it until a reason is given for it being deleted. I do not think it is fair for such an influential community to take a side on such a delicate and controversial issue.

DM out.

deleting older versions of user pages[edit]

How do I delete "Older Version" entries in my Profile? Because my computer has a fault and crashes regularly I have to save my typing very frequently so my "Older Version" list is much too long. Go to User:Arpingstone and then to "Older Version" to see what I mean. I only need the latest entry.Can I do it or can an Admin? Thanks Arpingstone 09:53 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I can do it for you - just say when. --mav

Please clear out my profiles Older Versions (except the very latest, of course!) whenever it suits you. Thanks -- Arpingstone 10:36 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Will do. --mav

nothing-changed edits[edit]

What's going on with this edit [1]? There's nothing under the before-and-after boxes. But it was marked as an edit in the history (it was the last edit, by the anon). I've seen weird nothing-changed edits before, always by Anons. I'm always afraid it's vandalism. --Menchi (Talk)â 04:17, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think the diff doesn't show when spaces are added or deleted. RickK 04:35, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Spaces do show up, but on a green background, so you can't actually see them [2]. I'm not sure what is done to make the dif have no green background but I've seen it quite a lot. Angela . 14:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Don't those green spaces only show up when you're deleting a line? If you're deleting or adding spaces within a line, you don't see any difference. RickK 16:21, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This can occur if two people wikipedia:revert to the same version, or after page histories are merged, and in various other ways. Martin 20:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Page History Checkboxes[edit]

(from the village pump)

What are the checkboxes that have suddenly started appearing beside items in the Page History lists for? Or am I seeing things? Bmills 14:31, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk: Main page)

Don't feel so bad - it took me a good 3-5 minutes to figure it out. I was even thinking about posting to the pump. Anyway, check any two boxes, and it'll show you the difference beteween the 2 versions you select. →Raul654 14:32, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

However it seems it doesn't work that way, as it always gave me the difference between the last two versions. Or I might be too stupid to understand it? andy 14:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, it works, but it seems it is only working when selection the checkboxes from bottom to top - when doing from top to bottom it only shows the difference between the latest two version. Maybe a negative sign which needs to be stripped? andy 15:01, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think this was fixed just a second ago (was chatting on IRC about it) :-)

There's a debate about two columns for the selection vs. the current one. Snok is preparing different variants, there might be a vote on it soon. -- Gabriel Wicke 14:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to work for me. I guess I was afraid to try it in case it was the sellotape that held the house together. Bmills 14:49, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yea, I had the same fears at first. So I did my first test run on the Hanson article. That way, if I screwed up, we wouldn't lose anything valuable. →Raul654 14:52, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Much-needed feature, but there seems to be a trifling bug at the moment. The history of the Heresy page shows 3 edits following the one by Sbuckley. Do a diff from that one to curr, and you get 2 changed paragraphs, one being a little spelling fix. Do the same with checkboxes, and only one of the paragraphs shows up. A diff from Sbuckley to either of the first two versions following it is correct; only the check-box diff to the current version is wrong. Dandrake 20:38, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

I love this. It's all goes a bit pear-shaped (wrong) if you click back in your browser and start unchecking boxes or checking new ones though. I've managed to have 4 lines greyed at once, and on another occasion 3 boxes ticked and no lines greyed. :) fabiform | talk 04:39, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You mean, like

File:Wikiscreengreygrey.jpg

-- till we *) 22:23, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yup! Or, the other way around, like this (checked loads, then I I clicked back and unchecked them). It's all a bit confusing: Image:Screenshot all grey lines.jpg fabiform | talk 22:47, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'm missing something, but is there really any need for this feature to be JavaScript activated? I mean, wouldn't it be far easier to just have a form submit button and an explanation that ticking two boxes will allow you to compare those two versions? Fun though self-submitting forms are, they just seem to create more problems than they solve. As far as I can see, the script doesn't even stop you ticking too many boxes, as long as you are faster at clicking than your connection is at loading. But maybe I'm just being a luddite? - IMSoP 22:11, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Javascript is annoying. Implement the feature without resorting to javascript. Sennheiser! 22:14, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thinking about how this could be achieved, I've thought of a pure HTML design which would actually be more robust than the current javascript one: rather than using checkboxes, simply provide two columns of radio buttons, for old and new (diff and oldid). That way, the user can only ever select the right number of arguments, and no superfluous scripting is needed. What do people think? - IMSoP 00:02, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC) [PS. The current markup also breaks both W3C standards and good practice for browser compatibility.]

Is it possible in pure HTML/FORMs to have grouped radio buttons in two table columns? I wouldn't think so, but I don't know exactly. -- till we *) 21:19, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I worried about that, too, but HTML groups radio buttons by name, not by container, so there isn't a problem. I've coded a (very) quick demonstration of what I mean [3] and if I have the energy, I may make a prototype Page History form sometime; shouldn't be difficult. - IMSoP 21:49, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this javascript implementati on is buggy and absolutely useless in links:

File:Screenwikibug.png

Sennheiser! 01:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

usemod seems to have a more standards-compatible ui: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?action=history&id=MeatballWiki. Could be done with an auto-submitting js as well if js is enabled. - Gabriel Wicke 22:28, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Aha! Exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. And personally, I think it's much nicer without auto-submission, because you can change your mind and you get to say when you're done. - IMSoP 22:38, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is much better. Sennheiser! 01:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You may be interested that I've just submitted a bug to sourceforge with a patch to provide a pure HTML replacement for this interface. [4] - IMSoP 23:03, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Compare versions ("&" breaks it)[edit]

I've been trying to compare versions in the Dungeons & Dragons article by using the spiffy new checkboxes. But after I click the second box, I always get a blank page called "Dungeon" (try it--you'll see). I suspect this is due to the "&" in the title? How do I fix this so I can compare versions? —Frecklefoot 21:29, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. It does indeed seem to be the & causing the problem: it should be being turned into "%26", but the wrong value's being written in the PHP - unfortunately the only immediate way around it I can see is manually contructing the URL for the comparison (i.e. ignoring the new javascript gadget altogether) - if you look at the address of one of the "(cur)" links, you can substitute the numbers which represent the two versions you want into the "diff" and "oldid" values in the address (this is all the Javascript does). Looks like this feature got added in rather a hurry, doesn't it? - IMSoP 22:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Submitted to SourceForge. Angela . 23:26, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now. Angela . 10:02, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Viewing source of old article revisions[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, February 21, 2004.

The article Abbey appears to have been cut off mid-sentence. I tracked this back to the 06:34, 31 Oct 2002 version (the previous version is all right). Ideally, I would have been able to view the source (including wiki formatting) of the 31.12.2002 version and copy it to the most recent revision. Is this possible? If not, I'll just copy the article as is, and reapply the formatting on my on. -Itai 01:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes there is. Click on the date/time of the revision you want to retrieve. Then at the bottom, click edit this. That'll give you the wikicode→Raul654 01:16, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

No, not really. Clicking Edit this page gives me the wikicode of the current (lacking) article, not of the historical (complete) article. Thanks anyway. -Itai 03:07, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What you have to do is first click on Page history, then click on one of the links with the date (i.e. something like 21:07, Feb 13, 2004). After you click on one of those links, you'll see "(Revision as of 19:13, Feb 13, 2004)" at the top of the page. Then click on Edit this page and you'll see "WARNING: You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this revision will be lost." at the top and the text as on any normal edit. If you save this version, you are effectively reverting to that revision. Dori | Talk 03:13, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Right you are. Thank you. I've been clicking on the last and cur buttons all along. I've now fixed the article. -Itai 10:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well done! Now have a think... how could the documentation have been more helpful to you? Is there a change that you can make to one of our various help pages that would make them more easily understood by people wanting to revert for the first time? You're now in a good position to do this, while old hands tend to just say hey, it's obvious. If this isn't your thing, no worries, but worth a thought IMO. Andrewa 19:29, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it is obvious, speaking with the wisdom of hindsight. I was merely pressing the wrong button. Repeatedly. Mercifully, it wasn't the little red one that makes the world blow up. Not much of trial and error with that one. Seriously, however, you're absolutely right and I'll be sure to give it a thought. -Itai 21:59, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where was the intent of the WMF mentionned ?

I am also not entirely convinced what the WMF has to do here; it seems to me that histories are under gfdl just like current version. And that content is the property of editors, rather than WMF. Content to me, means all versions of an article.

Also, I see not why we would not distribute older versions than current version, since by definition, though we might distribute one version on paper for example, the current version will go on changing, so the distributed version won't be the current any more... Anthere

Viewing inlinks to old versions of articles[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if there's a way to apply the "what links here" function to older versions of articles. Clicking on "what links here" for an older version lists links to the current version. thanks --chris

Revision notice[edit]

I understand the reason for the following notice on earlier page revisions, but why does it exist on the permanent links to the most recent versions? The most recent versions of pages haven't been revised, so why do they say they have?

"This version of the article has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the GFDL."

Enigmatzu 22:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Editing to Page histories[edit]

(copied from Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#History)

brian0918 is working on the revision history, removing certain libellous revisions which were inadvertantly restored. I know some people have qualms about deleting history, but this is our policy and it should be carried out the same in this case as any other. Those concerned about the historical record should know that of course all the old revisions are stored in the database so in 100 years when historians want to study this incident, they can. It's just that it would be deeply inappropriate (always) for us to keep revisions of those sort public. Please let brian do his work undisturbed. :-)--Jimbo Wales 18:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the explanation. It is very startling to stumble onto a blank history. Article histories and discussion pages often shed more light on the nature of the information in the article. Being able to access that "black box" (in Bruno Latour's sense) is often critical to being able to trust the content -- which seems to be at the heart of the issue at hand.

Specific alterations of article history should be made as transparently as possible, perhaps leaving a notice:

Access to this portion of the page history has been removed by [[User:So and so]] because it violates [[This policy]]. Complete page histories are stored by the Wikimedia Foundation and are available to researchers according to [[This other policy]]. Dystopos 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[]

Unlike the fictional character, Whiz -Marvel, Whiz is a real person with diplomas, certificates and documents of his knowledge!

I added info on the fictional WHIZ radio (where Capt. Marvel the superhero's alter ego works).

Why no web feed of Page History?[edit]

Why is there no way to get a web feed of the page history of an individual page? I believe it is only possible for the global Recent Changes page.

How do I add a note?[edit]

My apologies for my ignorance, but I am still at the bottom of the learning curve. I have just discovered the history of changes page for the page I have edited. It is for a page on which someone else added recently a sentence that is inaccurate and unsupported. Since I have been working on this page because it is my area of expertise, I noticed the addition. I took the sentence out. I suspect this person will put it back. I don't want to have a war with him, but would like to put a note on the history page that it was removed and should stay removed unless he can support his claim with some facts. I have seen notes on other entries next to the notation of the page section, but cannot see how they were put there ....oops I forgot to sign this. -- Shulae 17:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Just type something in the "Edit summary" box between the editing area and the "Save page" button. Also, you can put something in the discussion page for the article – if the other person is watching the article then they will see your change to the discussion page automatically. — Lee J Haywood 21:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Reverts[edit]

I heart wikipedia, but lordy is it full of dickheads. How does one simply revert to a pre-vandalism version in the history of a page without manually undoing the changes? --Sophistifunk 02:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[]

From the page history, click the date/time of the last "good" version. Edit that page; you should see a warning that the revision is old. Type in an edit summary ("reverting vandalism" or such), and save the page anyway. That will "revert" the page back to that version. — TKD (Talk) 03:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[]

I now appear to have an an "undo" link for the latest anonymous edit, which makes this easier, but cannot find where the feature is documented. Should something be added to the help page? —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[]

Wiki-linking old versions[edit]

Is there a way to link to previous revisions using Wikipedia's internal linking system (that is, without using the full URL, which produces an 'external link')? Benandorsqueaks 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[]

Large chunk of Talk page history missing?[edit]

I'm slightly baffled by something. The Talk page for the article List of assassinated human rights activists has absolutely no history listed from February of 2009 to May of 2017. I realize the Talk page was moved at that point, and I also notice that the page itself only had about a dozen edits in that timeframe. But it still seems pretty odd that not a single Talk page entry was added in that time. Could the move have wiped out or broken some links to the Talk page's history logs?

I also cannot link directly to that Talk page (as you can see by the broken link above), for no reason I can fathom. Could the two issues be related? CleverTitania (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Search This Blog

anhduc wiki 4