Template talk:History merge

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

message: 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)
replies: text: --Waldir talk 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Add <nowiki>{{subst:uw-c&pmove}}</nowiki> to the template? 

message: Just to re-examine the 2007 discussion from above:
# If this template is to remain titled db-histmerge, shouldn't it be styled using ?
# If this template is to remain -styled, shouldn't it be moved to ?
I think the latter is the better option. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: , using the second option. See here for more details / links to diffs. --Waldir talk 16:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styling, name 

message: 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 )? Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion to reduce size 

message: As I am being stopped from correcting this template by the edit filer, can someone
change this:
{{subst:db-copypaste-notice}} ~~~~
to this:
{{subst:db-copypaste-notice}} ~~~~
Because  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  
-- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Anomie⚔ 15:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Discuss at Wikipedia talk:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Proposed details= parameter for Template:Histmerge. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed improvements to [[Template:Histmerge]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rethinking the placement of this template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2017 change to how details are displayed