Template talk:History merge

Please read Template talk:Db-reason before editing.
If you are contemplating editing this template, especially with regards to categorization or parameters, please read the discussion at Template talk:Db-reason.

db-reason is the meta-template from which all these templates derive, and is also used for CSD in its own right. Some of the other CSD templates are also used both as meta-templates, and as templates in their own right. Because of this, the relationship between these templates, their parameters, and the issue of categorization (so that candiate articles get categorized, but the templates temselves don't) is more complex that it appears at first glance. The discussion on Template talk:Db-reason should elucidate some of these issues. Jamie (talk/contribs) 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed redesign
I've drafted a proposal for a redesign of this template at User:Ilmari Karonen/sandbox/histmerge. Unlike the current version, the proposed version is not built upon Template:Db-meta. I think this is an improvement, since this template and the task it is used for are not really very similar to the more usual kinds of speedy deletion the metatemplate is designed for. Any comments would be welcome.

A secondary issue I started wondering about during the redesign was whether this template should really categorize pages into CAT:CSD as well as into the histmerge-specific subcategory. I realize that all the other speedy deletion templates do this, but as I just noted above, this template isn't really all that much like all the others. History merges are a pretty specialized task, and I'm not sure how many of the admins that routinely do normal speedy deletions would be willing to handle them. I think I'll drop a note at WT:CSD and see what they'll say. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ps. The proposed version looks like this:

Feel free to edit it if you have any corrections or improvements to make. It's a kind of a cross between deletion and merge templates, using the merge icon but with. I think this is appropriate, since it is a request for irreversible admin action. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Much better. I agree that it makes sense only categorize for the history merge speedy; it looks like less than a dozen admins regularly merge histories, and these articles probably break the rhythm of speedy deletion jockies&mdash;but in truth I'm happy either way.


 * I often come across articles where people have reverted the tag with notes like "do not delete." It's not used like the other speedies, so should have a less threatening, more concise message. This is perfect. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one has opposed the change so far, I've updated the design of the template to match the version above. For now, I've left the categorization unchanged; I'll remove CAT:CSD from the set of categories applied by this template shortly, unless the visible change in appearance (or the notices I've left elsewhere) happens to drag in someone who opposes it.

Another issue I'd like to hear opinions about is the canonical name of this template: should it be or just ? Of course, both should continue to work as they have so far. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Add to the template?
I think it would be useful to add a line to the bottom of the template which suggests adding to the user who performed the move's talk page - it would be quicker than going looking for the template, and is in line with the other speedy deletion templates. Thoughts? – Toon (talk)  21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Waldir talk 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if there were a parameter to remove this suggestion if it has already been acted upon. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Styling, name
Just to re-examine the 2007 discussion from above:


 * 1) If this template is to remain titled db-histmerge, shouldn't it be styled using db-meta?
 * 2) If this template is to remain ambox-styled, shouldn't it be moved to histmerge?

I think the latter is the better option. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅, using the second option. See here for more details / links to diffs. --Waldir talk 16:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to reduce size
In order to reduce the visua size of this template, would someone be willing to update it so that the administrator note is collapsed, and add a link to expand it (similar to wikify)? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ I made that notice only visible to the relevant audience (admins), so everyone else won't have to bear with the unnecessary extra size. --Waldir talk 12:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
As I am being stopped from correcting this template by the edit filer, can someone

change this: &lt;nowiki&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt; ~&lt;/nowiki&gt; to this: &lt;nowiki&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt; ~&lt;/nowiki&gt; Because Db-copypaste-notice takes the page that is pasted to as the FIRST parameter, and the source it was cut from as the SECOND parameter; this is the opposite order to uw-c&pmove

-- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Anomie⚔ 15:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed improvements to Template:Histmerge
Discuss at Wikipedia talk:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Rethinking the placement of this template
I'm finding it susprising that this template is meant to be placed inside the article. It's quite prominently visible and is usually placed on the top of the article, there for all readers to see. The thing advertised, however, is a history merge: something probably no reader has heard about, even most editors will not be familiar with it and the target audience of this notice is actually the very small group of administrators who specialise in this arcance activity. Isn't there a way to handle these requests without notices on the article itself? – Uanfala (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

2017 change to how details are displayed
I'm not active in this area, but this April 2017 edit by changed the way the details are displayed. I don't know that one is inherently better, but the documentation wasn't updated and I don't see a conversation about it, so I figured it good to ask/point out if the new way is indeed desired. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 18:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)