Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for history merge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merges found at WP:RM

I've just found this place after numerous history mergers and blocked mergers found at WP:RM. In many cases the histories need to be merged but cannot because of the block compression. The solution I worked out there was to move the history (to me merged in) to foo/history and note it with {{Pending merge}}. When the issue is resolved it can easily be merged into its parent. That template also adds the Category:Pending merge for easy location. violet/riga (t) 18:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History merge requests by non-admins

It seems that there's a bit of a gap in our cut-and-paste repair system. Currently, there isn't any place for a non-admin to request a history merger. Consequently, I propose that this page be modified to look something like this. It creates a section at the top for non-admins to list merge requests, and retains the section for merges that can't go ahead due to the database problems. Comments? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM deals with quite a lot of these things. violet/riga (t) 17:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Should the instructions on that page be amended to reflect that, then? Perhaps a section on that page specifically for repair of cut-and-pastes...? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I have updated the instructions at WP:RM to mention this page. Noel (talk)

Better name

Y'all feel free to come up with a shorter/snappier name for this page, as well as a WP: shortcut for it. Noel (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Botched moves"? —BorgHunter (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Or, "Wikipedia:Move repair shop" or simply "Wikipedia:Move repair". Short, snappy. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:SPLICE sounds good. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:08, Dec. 27, 2005
Good one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia:Repair shop a lot (nice, BorgHunter). How about that? Snoutwood (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've never liked the full name of this page, but I personally think it should be named something more in line with similar admin notice pages. Might I propose that it be renamed to Wikipedia:Requested history merges? That seems to conform to the names of WP:RM, WP:RfPP, etc., and I think it may be easier for others to understand and remember. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
But... Wikipedia:Repair shop is just so fun. Please? Snoutwood (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a point for this anymore?

Since there's a criteria for speedy deletion (csd-g6) that can be used to fix cut and paste moves and a specific template {{db-g6}} to be used on those pages, isn't this redundant? Same goes for Template:capmv and the related category Category:Cut-and-paste moves to be undone (that's currently listed in cfd at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 15). - Bobet 20:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting point... somewhat to my surprise, the history shows recent activity. I don't think we need a "pen" for the articles, just a way of notifying admins where the cut-n-pastes are. On the one hand I believe they're relatively rare. On the other, not all admins know how to fix a c'n'p. Still, I would prefer one way of notifying people, rather than two, hence this page is arguably more useful than the cat. Radiant_>|< 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarity needed

the instruction at WP:SPLICE is confusing. it says

  1. Place {{capmv| NAME OF PAGE THE ARTICLE WAS CUT FROM }} on the talk page of the article which has been moved.
  2. List the article on this page, under the "List of cut-and-page moves to be redone properly" section.

article which has been moved: that means original location of article or new one? where must i place {{capmv| NAME OF PAGE THE ARTICLE WAS CUT FROM }}? on the talk page at new location? this is the original msg. on my talkpage by User:Pournami - I'm equally confused ;) --Gurubrahma 07:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

now, instruction 1. reads as:
  1. Place {{capmv| NAME OF PAGE THE ARTICLE WAS CUT FROM }} on the talk page at the new location of the article which has been moved, i.e. on the talk page of the article where pasting was done.
i believe that's the answer to my question. i hope i'm right abt the wording. --Pournami 12:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Capmv

Template:Capmv has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Capmv. Thank you. - Bobet 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


how can cut and paste moves be recognized? are there still people who move articles by cut and paste? why do pages get moved by cut and paste? are there still help pages that need helping? what are the pages that get listed at splice? earlier capmoved pages or fresh ones? inspite of move function and help pages directing users to move the right way?--Pournami 09:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Some pages get cut and paste moved since (I think) you need a certain amount of edits to get a move button and it's a lot easier than listing it at WP:RM in those cases. The place I've most often come upon a cut and paste move is Special:Shortpages, since a lot of people blank the original page after a cut and paste move (if someone's unfamiliar with a move, they're often unfamiliar with deletion too). - Bobet 01:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

who can list pages at splice and why should they do so, and when? what should they do? -Pournami 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can list pages at splice. I've changed the instructions after you posted that question so if you still think they're not clear, please tell.

the problem

i stumbled on splice while looking for help in fixing a move which i thought was wrongly done (and was unnecessary and unjustifiable to boot, but that's another matter altogether). what i saw was:

  1. Place {{capmv| NAME OF PAGE THE ARTICLE WAS CUT FROM }} on the talk page of the article which has been moved.
  2. List the article on this page, under the "List of cut-and-page moves to be redone properly" section.

i was confused. it would have been better if only it had been instead:

  1. Place {{capmv| NAME OF PAGE THE ARTICLE WAS CUT FROM }} on the talk page at the new location of the article which has been moved, i.e. on the talk page of the article where pasting was done.
  2. List the article on this page, under the "List of cut-and-page moves to be redone properly" section.

the instruction should have been (1)clearly stating where the template is to be used or (2)at least pointing to where the user can see what the template does.

if capmv template is going to be deleted, and users instructed to use db-histmerge template instead, at the time of necessary rewriting of the page, just to keep in mind.

also, dont know if this is right place to ask, is everything ok with the move tool? does it work alright? -Pournami

So change the text, then :D. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:14, Feb. 6, 2006


template:capmv was deleted. what am I supposed to use now? 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

{{db-histmerge}}. If PageA has been cut-and-paste-moved to PageB, and PageB is the good title, use
on PageB. Kusma (討論) 22:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Listing new requests at the bottom of the section

Why do we have people do this? It'd be easier to read if they were added to the top. Can we change it to that, or is there something I'm missing? Snoutwood (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be my personal preference, makes it easier to follow. I'd actually like it if fourth-level headers would be added to each request too, perhaps a title such as ====CopiedfromCopiedto====. I think that would make it a lot easier to know what has to be done, as some of these requests I have to read through four or five times only to find out that's just a really simple, standard cnp mv from one article to another. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, I agree (add new to top, with fourth-level headers). I have the same trouble trying to figure out what should go where. Shall we add that into the instructions? Snoutwood (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


It seems strange that this page is uncategorized. Does anyone know the proper category in which this page belongs to? --Siva1979Talk to me 20:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just categorized this page. Please state any objections you may have to my talk page. Any comments about this would be appreciated as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 21:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! Snoutwood (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Do we really need an archive for this page? It seems to me that the move log and the deletion log would be everything that one would need to determine what had happened. If one wants to know who's contributing here, then this page's history'll do just fine... it just seems like another unneccesary step to me that could be removed. Any thoughts? (Oh, and by the way: I'd still love to see this called the repair shop: it's so much nicer and succinct-er — I used to have to search for ages trying to find this place.) Snoutwood (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I started the archive last month since the list was getting longer than the recommended page size and there was no reason not to archive. I don't really care about its existence either way, but your comment about the move log and deletion log showing everything is sort of misleading, since you'd have to know the title the page was moved from in order to figure out what had happened (the move log doesn't show anything for the target page, the deletion log shows it was deleted and restored). Previously the old entries were just removed without a comment (ie. the completed requests section didn't exist), but putting them in an archive now doesn't seem like it takes much effort or hurts in the sense of disclosure. - Bobet 17:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoops... silliness on my part. Instead of move log, I should've said the page's history, which does have that information in it. The deletion log was just for the disclosure aspect of it. You're right that it doesn't hurt, but it just doesn't seem to provide anything that those logs don't already. You know, not to multiply entities beyond necessity and all that. I dunno, I was just thinking that keeping this simple might be fine. (So, how about that name change?) Snoutwood (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I seem to have missed this. About the name change: sure, the name isn't great, but I don't think that's a problem, since no one's going to end up here from anywhere but a link. No matter what you name it, no one's going to guess it, or even know that a page like this exists without finding a link to it from somewhere. If you still want to rename it though, go ahead.
About the archive: I figured it would be easier to find fixed cut and paste moves there, for whatever reason, since one could conceivably come up with some use for it (like if something was messed up and needs to be reverted, and whatlinkshere will show that it was cut and paste moved. And since this page is used only for complex cases, one could easily miss one of several pages where the histories were messeed with). I'm sure that's not the most convincing example, but I don't see why it would be better to not have the page. - Bobet 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the page needs to be moved, but a redirect from Wikipedia:Repair shop probably wouldn't hurt anything. On the other hand, I think the archive is superfluous and would support dismantling it, and maybe putting a note on the page about removing finished/declined requests after, say, 30 days? -- nae'blis 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed about the archive, and about adding a statement about removing old requests. I've made the Wikipedia:Repair shop redirect (even though that should be the main page, harumph, harumph). Snoutwood 20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
O.K., as there hasn't been continued opposition to removing the archive and putting up a old-requests-will-be-deleted-after-30-days notice, I'm going to put that up and remove the archive. Bobet, if you (or anyone else for that matter) still feel that we should keep the archive please speak up and I we can undelete the archive, remove the notice, and talk about it some more. My feelings are the same: all of the info's logged in the history of the relevant pages, the move and deletion logs, and in this page's history, and that people generally won't be looking here for information about the page move - all of the discussion leading up to the moves here are elsewhere, and anything that's been done here can be found in the logs. Kyle Barbour 19:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Template:Pending merge needed at all? As far as I can see, it is no longer used. --- RockMFR 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected it to Template:Db-histmerge. Snoutwood 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of db-histmerge?

Personally, I don't like {{db-histmerge}}, as it's easier for me to just watch this page, which allows me to easily spot new entries. Additionally, that template cats items into the morass of CSD, which I don't think is the best place to put the more complicated issues like history merges, as I doubt that they get dealt with very well there. Does anyone else feel this way? My idea is to change db-histmerge to a page with instructions on how to list something here, and then change the instructions here and on WP:HISTMERGE and have this be the sole place for listing these issues, rather than having, as we do at the moment, here, CSD, and Category:History merge for speedy deletion (which is only two months old and which I didn't know about until I looking into the code of db-histmerge). What do people think? I'm aware that this need to be discussed in other places as well, but I wanted to get some opinions from here. Kyle Barbour 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated db-histmerge for deletion — please post your thoughts, opinions, and comments here. Kyle Barbour 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Is there an easier name for this? It is a bit of a mouthful and at first glance hard to understand. Simply south 18:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I usually use the shortcut WP:SPLICE. I imagine we could perhaps remove the words "holding pen" from the title. --After Midnight 0001 11:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed redesign of Template:Db-histmerge

See Template talk:Db-histmerge#Proposed redesign. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is unfamiliar...

I thought most complex history merges were requested at WP:AN/I, and I've been around for a while. I think that it would be a good idea to add links to the WP:AN / WP:AN/I header directed towards this page. Otherwise, I doubt many people will find it. --Iamunknown 12:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What to do when this page gets too long?

I think in the past (e.g. [1]), the older requests seem to have been just removed off the page. And I just noticed #Archive above which has some discussion previously. Tra (Talk) 14:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Revisiting this, I think it would be useful to archive this page, especially now that you're listing all merges—not just the merges that are requested here. I'm going to start listing the other merges I do as well. I think you do more merges than anyone, and between the two of us, most will end up listed here.
    In the past, most merges were not listed, so an archive wouldn't be that useful, but now we should start archiving past requests. Cool Hand Luke 04:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • But which shall I do out of #3 and #4? With my user talk page I do #4, to keep the history with the old messages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I prefer #4 because it takes the history with it. I think that's the more old fashioned way to archive, and I still prefer it. However, most archives now seem to be type #3. You're by far the most active contributer here, so I think it should be your choice. Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done #4. Also, the recent incident with page 'Apple' shows a case for not letting too many edits accumulate on one page name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


  • I have split the  Done section and the  Not done section into monthly subsections. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Is there a template like Template:RMlink to standardize a request for a splice? (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mount Royal

A splice repair was done at Mount Royal , Mount Royal, Montreal and Mount Royal (disambiguation), however the new title is not clearly the better one... all the incoming links to the new dab page location Mount Royal are for Mount Royal Montreal, while Mount Royal Montreal has no incoming links virtually. Shouldn't the histmerge have reverted the pagenames to what they were before the C&P? (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste page swaps

  • Shouldn't c&p page swaps (when multiple pages are exchanged with each other, instead of just moving one page around) be brought to the attention of WP:RM? Since this sort of thing is supposed to be discussed at WP:RM, from what I read about what it does, it seems like a circumvention of consensus building to correct the page history and not restore the status quo anti-bellum (if a recent swap) and note it there, or if a non-recent swap note it there to anyway. (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I found a {{db-histmerge}} request to histmerge Mount Royal to Mount Royal, Montreal. Examination showed that there had been a cut-&-paste move, so I histmerged them. Whether the resulting combination should be in Mount Royal or in Mount Royal, Montreal can be resolved separately in Wikipedia:Requested moves, surely? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, but at WP:RM it lists that only administrators can move pages around when they are not simple redirects or redlinks. If such a move is done here, surely that circumvents the community process established at WP:RM. If people could just cut-and-paste swap and then have a histmerge request done, then people could get around finding consensus for the move in the first place. (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • In the case of Mount Royal, for a period between 2001 and 2006, the term Mount Royal, Montreal properly referred to Mount Royal, Quebec, because at that time, the town became a borough of Montreal, before regaining independence. Since parts of cities usually have xxx, city, this would indicate that's the name of the former borough. (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Requirement to list on this page?

  • A while ago I was browsing through CAT:CSD and found a db-histmerge tag, which I took care of. However, I didn't list it here, because I thought this page was only for histmerge requests. But now I see that some of the ones listed on this page are marked "requested by db-histmerge". Is there a reason to list those here?--Aervanath (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought that users and administrators would benefit from keeping a record of all history repairs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I see. So, sort of like WP:RM, then, recommended but not required?--Aervanath (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the minimum participation required?

I'm posting here as this talk page seems to be more active than Wikipedia talk:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Can cut-and-paste fixes be done independently by an admin, or they must be tagged first and then the subsequent processes follow? Jay (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no required procedures to follow, any admin can do it. This page is for non-admins to post requests for fixes, but admins obviously don't need to.--Aervanath (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


Would I be accurate in saying that this is project that is best suited to admins? I'd be interested in helping out here a bit from time to time, but as I understand the project page, it appears that most of the abilities that are required would only be available to administrators. How accurate am I in that understanding? (originally posted at WP:CUTPASTE talk)Ched :  ?  06:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

100% accurate, I'm afraid. In order to perform the history merges required, you need to be able to delete and restore pages. Since only admins can do that, it unfortunately restricts the ability of helpful editors like yourself to aid in the process.--Aervanath (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll be asking for some education in this in the very near future. Thanks for the reply. — Ched :  ?  20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

eyes please

Would one of you kind folks take a look at this thread please. I deleted the redirect, and moved the article from user space to article space: Devendra Prabhudesai. If there are any history issues I've missed, or I've done this improperly, could you please check my efforts and let me know. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wondering how this works.

If I edited an article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Charizard and then C+P'ed the info to Charizard, could you move the history from the Wikiproject into Charizard? Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer is yes, so long as Charizard does not already exist at the time of the cut & paste or if it existed has not changed, apart from the cut and paste, since article Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Charizard was started. Keith D (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The seconds before db-histmerge

I reading now for quite some time trough the Wikipedia, but i could not find a solution yet.

I understand (I think) about the db-histmerge tag. When there was a cut & paste move it seems to be perfect. But what to do, when the could & paste move has not yet happened. OK, there is the plain move. But only, if the target is not yet there. In that case we can ask an admin to do so. But doesn#t the history of the target gets overridden by the source history?

The case I have (yes, I know now, bad style) is that there was that article (and still is) Superluminescent diode. This one has been copied (by cut&paste) to User:Lmmrs/Superluminescent diode - with an note in the original article. It has been completely rewritten and should now be moved back to Superluminescent diode merging the history of Superluminescent diode and User:Lmmrs/Superluminescent diode.

How this is done? Thanks for your kind help. -- lmmrs (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who does history-merging except me?

Who does history-merging except me? (2)

Yes that was the one - I did not spot the spelling mistake. Keith D (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Maad Dogg 97 (talk · contribs) seems to be a repeated cut-and-paste-r, since I just posted several pages for repair just now, and several more pages that had quick reversions I did not post. There's atleast 10 of them in his history. -- (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves

Change made and reverted pending discussion at Wikipedia talk:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#New section: How to handle the left-over redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding penWikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen – I count at least two compound adjective (cut-and-paste move, move-repair holding pen). This is an ugly title; why not find an entirely different description? Repair holding pen for cut-and-paste moves Requested cut-and-paste-move repairs comes to mind. Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose it's not an article, and using spaces makes it much easier to remember then how many ever hyphens or dashes you need for this thing, or which are hyphens and which are dashes, and having to type dashes in the first place. -- (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There is autocomplete for that. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
How does that help people who turn off Javascript? -- (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
and redirects. I'd be impressed if anyone got it right on the first try in its current state anyway. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – making the title interpretable by people who don't already know what it's about seems like a good thing. Dicklyon (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2013 (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.

Who except me does history-merging?

"Who except you does history merging" - I've been wondering that myself. Thanks for all you do. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed improvements to Template:Histmerge

Discuss at Wikipedia talk:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Proposed details= parameter for Template:Histmerge. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

merging from Articles for Creation?

I found Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/list of horror films released in 2013., which has some text that could be merged to List of horror films of 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Apart from my postponing of G13 deletion and adding a comment, they don't have parallel histories: the main-space article was started after the AfC draft was abandoned. The regular merging instructions don't seem to apply, because AfC drafts don't have an associated talk page, and are likely to eventually be deleted under G13. Should I ask for a history merge? —rybec 04:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

An edit needed?

"Currently the only technical limitation is that category and file description pages can't be moved.".
Category pages can now be moved, and what is a file description page? Images can be renamed now. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved to EdJohnston's proposal, per consensus. bd2412 T 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding penWikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair requests – ...or Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repairs or something similar. The current page name is too long, not to mention too difficult to find. Presumably, the page was originally named like this becuase there used to be a technical limitation due to which cut-and-paste-moves which could not be repaired. The situation has changed now. SD0001 (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment the project page has shortcuts, such as WP:SPLICE, and is linked to from the repair request template {{db-histmerge}} -- (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • PINGing regular and recent repairers @Anthony Appleyard, Anne Delong, Keith D, and EdJohnston: -- (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Cut and paste" is incorrect terminology in the first place - these are mostly all "copy-paste" problems, since the original is left behind. Since these are mostly asked for by the "Histmerge" template, maybe something like "Requested history merges" or "History merge requests" would do. I don't find the current page hard to find, though. I just type WP:Cut and the autocomplete kicks in.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Most of the repair jobs that I get are cut-and-paste (from A to B). A few times someone later reverts A to text, thus changing it into a copy-and-paste. Some are genuine copy-and-pastes from A to B, leaving text at A, with later edit histories in both A and B, and I usually reject the repair request as WP:Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I only seek to have the page name shorter. Perhaps Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repairs is okay? I have created a redirect for it. Anyway, I don't understand the logic behind "holding pen". What does that mean? SD0001 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Retain the traditional name. No reason to erase history at the whim of one editor. RGloucester 18:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Doesn't sound like a good reason to me. SD0001 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Tradition is important. We do not want to live in a whitewashed world. The natural and organic names of entities must be retained, lest their history be erased. The metaphor is colourful. We must have colour. RGloucester 21:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If the name is to be changed, I propose Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. This parallels 'Request for comment', 'Requests for page protection' and maybe a dozen other pages. Having a self-explanatory name will be helpful for those unfamiliar with the issue. Under the current system these merges are routine and any admin can do them. Even if a merge is rejected (due to parallel histories) the merge can be declined quickly. So there is no longer any need for a 'holding pen.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Do you mean Wikipedia:Requests for history merge? Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I fixed my proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead an created it as a redirect to this page. At the least, it's an accurate and valid search term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
information Note: I have had already created a redirect from Wikipedia:Requested history merges. SD0001 (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support EdJohnston's proposal. This page is meant for posting requests for histmerges, not just cut-and-paste situations; Anne Delong has a good point. Moving it isn't erasing history; we're retaining everything except this page creation from a few days ago. This is a rather obscure page, so moving it won't surprise many people; it's not a very organic or natural name; we're not whitewashing anything by moving it to a more descriptive title; and there aren't any naming conventions that would be relevant. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support EdJohnston's proposal. I was looking for this page as possible place to post a cut & paste move but ended up just doing a quick revert as I caught it quick enough and using a technical request. Seems like the proposed name is both shorter and matches the purpose of the page better. PaleAqua (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support EdJohnston's proposal, sounds like a much more self-explanatory name. Graham87 14:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support for EdJohnston's proposal per common sense. Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Archive 0

As seen from Arhive 1, archiving for the page was started only in February 2008. It was noted in an earlier discussion that there is no archival value for the requests posted on this page before that, since only requests posted on this page were recorded. However, it is obvious that that holds true even now. Only a few, selected admins make a record of their histmerges on this page (Anthony Appleyard, Anne Delong, EdJohnston, and probably a few more). So, I have been pondering over the idea of resurrecting all the removed requests from the page history of Archive 1, to create an older archive. I think Archive 0 should be an appropriate name, as it is too big to be accommodated on Archive 1 itself. The present version is at User talk: (I haven't completed it yet.) I am of the opinion that this archive has more archival value than any of the existing 21 because, with due respect to Anthony Appleyard's tireless work, they all look like userspace logs since 95% of the entries are by the same admin. (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Queried requests. (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for history mergeWikipedia:Requested history merges – Sorry for bringing up another RM within less than a month of the earlier one being closed. But I feel that the existing page name is a bit too botched. The word "for" is unnecessary. Also, "history merges" rather than "history merge" sounds much better to the ears. This name was proposed by Anne Delong in the above RM discussion as well as by AmiDaniel in an older discussion. It is easy to see from the above RM that a consensus existed for a change of name, but nobody seems to have paid much attention to the exact name proposed by EdJohnston. The new name is a parallel to Wikipedia:Requested moves, which is more closely connected to this page than the ones using Requests for xxxx naming scheme, as well to a number of other pages like Wikipedia:Requested templates and Wikipedia:Requested articles. Also, almost all of the pages using that naming scheme would sound odd if changed Requested xxxx format, but this page is a clear exception. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC) (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page history deleted

The history of Haiǁom people was deleted, probably under the name Haiǁom dialect () or maybe ǂAkhoe dialect (). Could someone restore the edit history to Haiǁom people? The deleted articles could stay deleted, or they could be restored and then moved to Haiǁom people without a redirect.

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: All I can find at either of those titles is redirect edits. Graham87 05:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Graham87: It's probably been recreated, then, perhaps by moving another rd over it. Could you check
Haiǁom dialect, Haiǁom language, ǂĀkhoe dialect, Haiǁom people, ǂAkhoe dialect? (it's less likely to be one of the other rds). — kwami (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Taeyebaar and Young Pakistan Flag Movement

Looking at the history of Young Pakistan Flag Movement, Taeyebaar did in fact do a cut-and-paste move from Younge Pakistan Flag Movement even though he thinks that he didn't and removed the notice from his talk page in Special:Diff/709912442. If not Taeyebaar, then who actually did the cut-and-paste move? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It was in 2009 and has now been fixed. What does it matter who did it? Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Page movers proposal

It has been suggested that the to-be-created Page mover group be granted the ability to perform history merges through Special:MergeHistory. Participate in the discussion at WT:Page_mover#Discussion:_Include_MergeHistory_tool. (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at VPI

I've started a discussion here regarding the creation of a new "history merger" user right, which may be of interest to those watching this page. Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Total page removal

Hello Wikipedia Team

I created an article named Sober on Tuxedos (band) and it was deleted. The problem is that it still appears on facebook and I don't want that to happen.

If you please have a way to make it disappear from facebook, I would appreciate it.

Thank you in advance

Mad00lini (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Mad00lini (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Series of Userpage history merges

Hi there! I have a lot of experience with page moves and other moves, but not history merges and figured I'd ask here. I just realized that a couple of the articles that I created in 2009 in my userspace, I moved with cut-and-paste merges instead of proper history merges. I've listed them all below:

Let me know if I should just tag the lists and thanks so much! Nomader (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Figured it out and taking care of it, feel free to ignore this cmt. Nomader (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Not yet a cut and paste job

I'm trying to merge Draft:17776 and 17776, and a history merge is probably needed, I suppose. However, there's yet to be a cut and paste job moving the contents of the draft to the mainspace, but generally, the merge would pretty much replace most of the information on the mainspace article with the draft. The histories don't overlap at all in terms of time. The draft's entire history comes before the mainspace's entire history, and the draft has only one author: myself. I'm not really sure what to do with the situation. Is there any advice about it? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Cheque clearing and Clearing house (finance) history issue

Due to a copy and paste merge from Cheque clearing to Clearing house (finance) followed by an article move from Clearing house (finance) back to Cheque clearing, most of the edit history now in Cheque clearing belongs to the article Clearing house (finance) and the Cheque clearing article has lost its edit history. I believe this needs an administrator to resolve, but I am not sure how to specify the request. Would anyone be able to assist with this please? Whizz40 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


Ron Stallworth

Hi, it appears I screwed up when creating a page for Ron Stallworth, the retired police officer who infiltrated the KKK. There was already a page there for a football player who had played two seasons and for whom there was very little information available. I made a judgment call that the cop Ron Stallworth was way more notable, based on the volumes of material that have been written about him, and I "moved" the football player to Ron Stallworth (American football) - except I didn't really move him, it turns out, not properly, at least. I did what I now know is called a "cut-n-paste" - apparently that's a big no-no - and then I proceeded to create a new page for the cop from scratch. I don't know how to fix this. Please help! Thanks. Amsgearing (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Thank you very much! Amsgearing (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

History merge (Monomelic amyotrophy)

I revised an article using my sandbox and need to carry out a History Merge. I first asked in the Teahouse, Wikipedia:Teahouse#History_merge_(Monomelic_amyotrophy). I am reposting here hopefully more clearly than I was in the Teahouse, with a short reference to this on your project page. I posted my intended cut & paste thievery in the Teahouse post. I should should have posted this here in the first place. I'm using a sort of a "gorilla in a china shop" approach, my version of being bold I s'pose.

I made a Peer Review request for completed a revision detailed below. But History Merge is my first issue.

  • A few weeks ago I posted {Dubious} and made a couple of other edits to Monomelic amyotrophy.
  • A MED reviewer made some cuts including my revisions. The article was now a mere STUB
  • Sad day. Lamentations and wailing. Then time to get to work.
  • I made a few more revisions but big needed edits became too complicated.
  • On [10:51, 16 May 2018] I cut and pasted the scrap of an article into my user sandbox (MMA revision) so that I could revise at my leisure.
The revised article is more than twice as big in size and more than triple in references. I got good help for the article but am stumbling through all the WP ins and outs. When I started the sandbox project I saved frequently w/o explanation.

I want to correctly transplant the revision from my sandbox. I read the Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves. BE BOLD does not apply -- I am being CAUTIOUS. Thank you for your help. GeeBee60 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Who does history merging?

@Anthony Appleyard: I think you shouldn't be the only one that does history merges, and that there should be more people to help out. Is there a way to request for extra help? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
G'day, what's up? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I do history merges when I come across them while working in Draft space, but I don't usually check the list here because Anthony is so efficient and the backlogs elsewhere are huge. However, everyone needs a day off now and then! Anthony Appleyard and AustralianRupert, edit summaries are another way to get help; I have the project page on my watchlist, and there are likely others who do as well. At UAA if there's a backlog editors add to their edit summaries "27 more to do" or "big backlog today" or something like that. It takes less time than posting on a noticeboard and is more targeted, and may draw in help on busy days.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I see that asking for more help hasn't worked. What do you think would work better? (Note: I'm not an administrator). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added the category to my list of cats to keep an eye on. Hopefully I can help out now and again. Primefac (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Xaosflux does history merges. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: I'm actually pretty surprised to see this thread. You are well known to most of us as the histmerge guy on the project—you are basically the only admin I'm aware of who specializes in histmerges. Nothing but respect for that. But I always got the impression that you were always on top of it because it was something you liked working on. I assume other admins feel the same way. You're a volunteer, like the rest of us. There's no actual pressure on you to handle all these requests. There's plenty of us hanging around AN at all times. If the backlog is ever too much for you, just drop a note and request some additional help. It's not an issue. As for "the backlogs elsewhere", see Template:Admin dashboard. There are constantly standing administrative backlogs everywhere. I've spent 8 straight hours just responding to open threads at ANI alone, only to have the backlog there at the same level a few days later. So, if you ever need a break from histmerges, there is plenty of other work for you to do, and you can kick this backlog to other administrators whenever you want. Swarm 23:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I haven't been very active in this area recently as my Wikipedia time has been greatly reduced following the birth of my fourth child, which is meant I have had to prioritise my time a bit more. Co-ord duties with MILHIST have taken up most of my time over the past few months. I will try to remember to look in on the category occasionally, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @AustralianRupert, Anne Delong, and MrLinkinPark333: Thanks. Sorry. Some time I will have to write a fullscale instruction page on how to history-merge, including about handling talk pages and pre-existing deleted edits. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Admin SPI clerks are a good resource to recruit for history merges if there's a backlog of pretty simple requests. I fix cut-and-paste moves often by sockpuppets trying to circumvent editing restrictions, and case merges are just simple history merges except we're not very careful about parallel histories (doesn't matter for SPI archives). I rarely look at the log, though, I guess like everyone I assume Anthony's on it. I'll watchlist the page and take a look more often. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't done any history merges for a while (just got busy with other projects), but I am quite willing to do some if there's a backlog. I see that there isn't one right now. Thanks, Anthony Appleyard for clearing out the queue. This page is on my watchlist, too. If a message is posted here while there are still requests in the queue, I will help out if I am around that day.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: Another backlog that would be most needed to go through would be the Category:Possible_cut-and-paste_moves while keeping an eye on the other histmerges. You don't need to apologize to me @Anthony Appleyard: because you haven't done anything wrong. I'm glad that others are volunteering to help when needed and that was what you wanted in the first place :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333, I noticed that backlog myself this morning and cleared one that just needed some merge templates on the talk pages. I'll try to work on it from time to time.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Awesome. One more backlog that's being worked one. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Two-page history merge requests

The page currently says For relatively simple cases where history merge is required, the destination page should be tagged with the {{histmerge}} template. This page should be used for requesting very complex merges, merges involving more than two pages, history merges of deleted pages, or when the use of the template is otherwise inadequate or where its usage would cause problems. However, in practice, it seems that simple two-page history merges are listed here as well; there are also plenty of requests tagged "(asked for by {{histmerge}})" that could have started here. What is the expected practice? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Template documentation out of date?

The documentation for {{histmerge}} says in complex cases to "leave a description of the problem under the "List of cut-and-page moves to be redone properly" section" here. There's no such section; should that be "New requests" instead? It also describes {{histmerge}} as 'this speedy delete tag'. In the case of Project Harvest Moon there are two articles now and afterwards there should still be two, just with different histories. That makes me wonder if the template is the wrong way to request it (even with a |description=). WP:Requests for history merge only mentions the template as an option. What's the preferred way to go about this? › Mortee talk 16:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead with using the template - request here. I hope that's right. Still wonder if the documentation could be a little clearer. It also says "details - if present, will add the text This is a complex history merge request and a collapsed show/hide box listing the details." Happily, that's not true. It adds "The requestor [sic] left this comment:". I could change that bit myself, but I'm not comfortable changing documentation for a process I'm not more familiar with, at least not without checking first. › Mortee talk 16:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Help would be useful

I do it occasionally when noticing a need. I don't use the category. DferDaisy made many recent requests. @DferDaisy: Users are allowed to copy-paste their own sandboxes to articles per WP:NOATT if there are no other substantial contributors. This is a common practice and does not require history merge. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Their sandbox history may have revisions they do not want in the article history so I would advice against history merge without a user request. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I was following the instructions at WP:STALE: "if an actual draft version of a copy-pasted article, redirect or request a history merge". You could change the instruction to remove the "or" option. DferDaisy (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I have specified which option to choose: "if an actual draft version of a copy-pasted article, redirect if it was copied by the sole contributor, otherwise request a history merge".[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Reversing Roe

Hi. I've created the article for a movie called Reversing Roe. However, another user had "created" it before as a redirect and now the article does not appear on my list of articles created. Is it possible to make it appear on my list of articles created? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked user using IPs to request history merges/restorations

Beginning by pinging editors I previously raised this concern with: @Anthony Appleyard:, @Deepfriedokra:, @Bbb23:

It has caught my attention that there are various IPs making requests to have article histories merged or restored that are tethered to the blocked user User:Winterysteppe.

This IP and This IP made requests through September 2 and September 4 for the edit history merge/restoration of edits made by User:Hayholt, User:Artix Kreiger and User:TheGreenTower. Hayholt and Kreiger were confirmed conencted to Winterysteppe. TheGreenTower was not, but given their reason for being banned and the IP including their edit history with the other confirmed Winterysteppe's, I wouldn't consider it unfair to assume that they are affiliated. However, I also discovered this IP and this IP today that request edits merges/restorations for articles that restored edits made by GreenTower.

This IP and this IP made requests on September 10, 11 and 22 for the edit history merge/restoration of edits made by User:Faromics and user:Motizun, also confirmed socks of Winterysteppe. It's very clear to me it is more than a coincidence and the IP requests being made need to be examined to see if it's Winterysteppe having their sockpuppet account histories restored. Rusted AutoParts 04:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

History merge of earlier draft and more recent article

I think some aspects of Draft:Najwa Zebian could be used to improve Najwa Zebian. If someone does this, it would be appropriate to acknowledge the earlier draft, but the draft would usually be subject to deletion, so the edit history might not be available in the future. Is history merging appropriate in this situation, or should I edit the newer article and just name the draft creator in the edit summary? Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: Feel free to marge any content from the draft to the article. Due to the overlapping history, a history merge cannot be done, so please provide attribution in the edit summary. You can then redirect the draft to the article with a {{R from merge}} so that the history is kept. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Need help untangling article histories (Smile (Beach Boys album) / The Smile Sessions)

I'm a bit confused about how to handle this, so I'll try to make it as clear as possible.

  • February 2003 — "Smile (The Beach Boys album)" is created [4]
  • December 2005 — "Smile (The Beach Boys album)" page title is moved to "Smile (Brian Wilson album)" [5]
  • January 2007 — "Smile (The Beach Boys album)" is created for a second time. [6] Most of the content from "Smile (Brian Wilson album)" was split to this new article.
  • December 2012 — "Smile (The Beach Boys album)" page title is moved to "The Smile Sessions". [7]
  • April 2013 — "Smile (The Beach Boys album)" is created for a third time. Most of the content from "The Smile Sessions" was split to this new article. [8]

From what I can tell, it seems like the first (or only?) step to untangling this would be to merge everything prior to this diff into the history of Smile (Beach Boys album). Is this correct? --ili (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Advice requested at Talk:Roman diocese

I'm not sure if I should list this on the Project page; guessing not. Here's the situation: we're nearly done tidying up a draft page, and in a short while we intend to replace the article Roman diocese in a TNT operation with this draft. So we are not yet in a situation where a HISTMERGE is necessary, and we're trying to work out the best strategy now, ahead of time, to avoid complicated disentanglement procedures afterward. What would be most helpful, is if you could give feedback at the discussion at Talk:Roman diocese#HISTMERGE issue. (I previously listed this at WP:AN, and someone there said it would be better to come here with this.) Thanks in advance, Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Going to reply at the article's talk to avoid decentralizing the discussion. Primefac (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Advice requested for Music Is the Weapon

I recently came across the strange case of Music Is the Weapon and Lazerism. There looked to be a string of moves around 4 April of this year and then a clear cut-and-paste on 30 September. Page history shows that in April 2020, this revision of Lazerism is a copy-pasted version of this revision of Music Is the Weapon, so I think that's also a cut-and-paste. The September move is a basic cut-and-paste from Lazerism to Music is the Weapon per the edit summaries. I have next to no experience with histmerges and have no clue what the next step is. Any advice and/or recommended courses of action are appreciated. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Bloody hell, copied and pasted in two different directions. Should be all set. Primefac (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

I am wondering as to the purpose of this page. For one admin, it's a place to put every histmerge performed, whether requested here or via {{histmerge}}. For others, it's a place to request "odd" histmerges in (what I assume would be) instances where a {{histmerge}} is insufficient to deal with the nuance (and/or they don't know that template exists). Personally, I think it should be used only for the latter; Special:Log/merge exists for the completed merges, and there's not really a need to write down the declined/removed {{histmerge}} requests on articles because they will be in the article's history. Interested to hear other viewpoints about potentially changing the overall scope of the page (i.e. "archive of requests" or "place to request"). Primefac (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac. I don't think there is a need to log history merges here. Let's just leave it for complex requests. Unless they are requested here, I don't add any that I perform (or decline), even ones that wouldn't be included in the merge log. — JJMC89(T·C) 08:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Primefac and JJMC89: What is to happen with logging history-merge and history-split requests that can't be performed with Special:MergeHistory, and thus won't automatically be logged in Special:Log/merge, but must be performed the old way by "delete X, move Y to X, undelete X" and/or similar such as deleting followed by selective undeleting? Currently we seem to be starting the logging again with a new single "accepted" list and a new single "rejected" list, which each currently has one entry. But as time passes, these two lists will get longer and longer and will need to be split into monthly or seasonal or yearly segments - - - which is the system that I have been keeping running since August 2008 and now has 38 archives. I would prefer to keep the current/old system, with a change: "do not log by hand history-merges which are performed using Special:MergeHistory and thus are automatically logged". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    Why do they need to be logged? I don't see any benefit to logging, and, as I said above, I don't do it. The completed/rejected requests can just be removed, similar to actioned RM/TR requests. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    I was actually thinking about this the other day, and agree that either we start keeping archives of RM/TR or we do like there and just remove them when complete; I think it makes more sense to just remove them unless there's some sort of discussion or contest, in which case it can sit for a week or something. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We need to decide whether or not to log rejected history-merge requests, and whether or not the reason for rejection is (as often) only WP:Parallel histories. Currently with a rejection, I delete the "please history-merge" template call from the affected page with an edit comment which tells the requesting user to follow a link to the histmerge log entry for the rejection, where he can read the reason for the rejection. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    Put the reason in the edit summary when you remove the template. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Each entry in Special:Log/merge only seems to contain "name of admin who did the merge; names of the 2 pages involved; date/time of newest edit moved". It also needs an option to add extra information such as may be seen in many entries in the archives of page Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    It already has such an option. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about History Merge

Hi, I've been working on a rewrite of Étienne de Perier in the wake of an edit war. After running most of it through the talk page, I've created a temporary talk subpage, Talk:Étienne de Perier/Temp, to manage the rewrite of the most contested part of the article. (It seemed a better way to manage it than using the talk page itself as the participants in edit war would agree to working directly on the main article.) I figure once consensus text is agreed upon, I can cut and paste that into the main article (replacing the currently messed up sections) and can move the temp page into the talk page's archive, but should I seek a history merge so that attributions for edits made to develop the final consensus text are included in the article history? Or is it better to put a {{Copied}} banner on the talk page pointing to the temp page or the archive? —Carter (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is
There isn't any reason to move anything anywhere, and a histmerge would be (to be completely honest) a pain in the arse because of the parallel histories at the start. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Primefac! I figured it would be a difficult histmerge and I'm happy to use {{copied}}. I just wanted to make sure it was being done correctly. —Carter (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Dogmatic User:Primefac

User:GiantSnowman history-merged Draft:Alejandro Balde to Alejandro Balde. But User:Primefac declined many same cases. Sawol (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That's because it shouldn't have been done. Special:PermaLink/1042840502 is fundamentally different than the "next" diff Special:PermaLink/1044362415, and so there was no copy/paste pagemove. It's not worth the time and effort to re-split these pages, but they are two separate histories. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
No, it was fine. I declined to merge Alejandro Baldé because that was a parallel history. Also @Primefac: your 'remove junk' edit also happened to remove a bunch of sourced prose, which I have restored. GiantSnowman 17:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Teasing apart which diffs where where before a histmerge occured is difficult, but by my reckoning the sourced prose was only in the draft and never in the article, which again makes me wonder why it was merged because that implies there was never a copy/paste. If I misread that then my bad, but that's why I made my initial statement. You're right in that I probably didn't need to restore the non-prose version (that's on me), I think I was just surprised that you'd choose the "original" over the "copied" version (further leading me to think that it wasn't an actual copy/paste). Primefac (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I support User:GiantSnowman and User:Anthony Appleyard. User:Anthony Appleyard have delayed same case, and then User:Primefac declined. I hope User:Primefac will rest from history-merging. Sawol (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
In fairness to you Primefac I should have cleaned top after performing the merge, which I usually do. GiantSnowman 18:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)