Wikipedia talk:Cut and paste move repair holding pen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] why

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.

[edit] 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

[edit] template:capmv

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
{{db-histmerge|PageA}}
on PageB. Kusma (討論) 22:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 ====Copiedfrom → Copiedto====. 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)

[edit] Category

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)

[edit] Archive

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)

[edit] Template:Pending merge

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Name

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)

[edit] Proposed redesign of Template:Db-histmerge

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)