Talk:Twelve Years' Truce

In what war?
It's weird seeing that, not knowing what war the Twelve Years' Truce was in until seeing that it's in the category Eighty Years' War. You'd think there'd be some mention of it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.153.82 (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for restoring page history of "cut-and-paste move"
Part of this page was "cut and pasted" from the section "Twelve Years' Truce" in Eighty_Years%27_War. Unfortunately, this was done without moving the relevant page history over to this page. Hence my request to merge the page histories in accordance with Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves. This requires assistance by an administrator. An acceptable alternative might be to put in an "attribution" in accordance with WP:SPLIT. But I suppose that also requires administrator intervention.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, page history mergers are only possible if a complete article is cut an pasted. I only split off a part of Eighty Year's War. FYI, I did provide attribution in my edit summary back then ("Merging bits and pieces from 12YearTruce content fork in Eighty Years' War"). The explicit template Primefac added at the top of this talk page is optional, so I have done everything necessary according to WP:SPLIT. By the way, new discussion threads are placed at the bottom of a page, not at the top; see Help:Talk pages to refresh your memory about this talk page etiquette. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @HyperGaruda. At least I got your attention :-) Wikipedia editors have preciously few rights and one of those is having their contributions acknowledged. Breaking up a page history in the way you did erases for all intents and purposes the page history. Nobody delves into the page history to look up possible "cut and paste" moves (unless one of course suspects that such a thing took place). So I think placing the acknowledgment-template Primefac kindly put on this page was the least one could do. And that such a courtesy is "optional" does not mean it should be omitted.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ; the page history is the first (and only?) place someone would check to see who did what. And what else would "optional" mean, if not that it can be omitted. --HyperGaruda (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)