Wikipedia talk:Moving a page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Help Project (Rated High-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Breaking incoming links[edit]

In a recent RM discussion, Gerda Arendt argued that moving the page would cause problems for external websites that link to it. With no hard redirect in place (the proposal is to have a disambiguation page there instead), this could be perceived as an error. My view is that this is just WP:LINKROT but the other way round from normal, and is simply part of the usual dynamics of the ever-changing Internet. I can see Gerda's point, but I don't think that we can really take this into account or else nothing would ever get moved. I don't think it should be our responsibility to manage non-Wikimedia websites. However, I can't find any Wikipedia policy or similar that even mentions this situation. Should something be written? What should our policy be? Bazonka (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not against page moves at all, I move a lot and even initiated some requests. I try to be very careful when there will not be a redirect, and don't see any advantage for the readers by going through the effort of renaming and fixing, to end up disambiguating two (!) people - which could be done in a hatnote. All this effort (move discussion, now coming here): for whom? I mean people, not some rules such as (debatable and debated) Primary topic. "Primary" will depend on what time and who's looking. One user told me not to have heard the name of the composer before. Wikipedia is there to change that ;) - I made three more comments in the matter than I usually do (two that is). Stop. Let me edit articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
A dab page is a redirect though, albeit a soft one. Anyway, this is not the place to discuss the specifics of the Humperdinck case. I do partly sympathise with your general point but I don't think it's a big problem. What I want to discuss here is whether we should mention it in any Wikipedia policies. Bazonka (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been bold and added a new section to Wikipedia:Link rot#Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites. I think any further discussion should take place on the corresponding talk page, not here. Bazonka (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Examples[edit]

I confess that before having been called here I didn't look at the page. Now I did and have a few questions to the Technical restrictions:

  • I don't understand what "which may be used as workarounds" is supposed to mean, perhaps "which show the title differently from the stored title"?
  • Why is there so much bolding?
  • Why is an example pictured for {{DISPLAYTITLE}} which would be the same for {{italic title}}, while the other could be used to achieve Ave Maria, WAB 6.

Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Automatic movement of pages[edit]

I want to move ro:Cladova (dezambiguizare) over ro:Cladova for example. Is it possible to generate a single link and to make the move just by clicking that link? Something like for example https://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cladova_%28dezambiguizare%29&action=move&target=Cladova

Is it possible to automatically make such moves using AWB or some other tool? —  Ark25  (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it is not possible to move a page using just a URL. It is however possible using the API, but you'd have to write your own program to do that. I'm not aware of a tool for speeding up page moves. Graham87 15:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Change in Editing User.[edit]

Hello,

Please change the Wikipedia heading from Chetansynergos/sandbox to Borderless Access as it was wrong entered and the whole page belongs to Borderless Access. Please do the needful ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borderless Access (talkcontribs) 09:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Graham87 14:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Women[edit]

If a woman gets married and has a page on Wikipedia, her page should be moved to the title containing her maiden name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: Not necessarily. WP:COMMONNAME applies. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Differences in naming convention[edit]

Hi, back in November 2013, I moved a number of Russian submarine articles with the summary "Name comes before hull or pennant number or disambiguation. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Naming articles about military ships." It appears that such a convention applies chiefly to American and British ships, as those that serve in the Russian and Soviet Navies follow a different naming convention, with the name following the pennant number eg "K-141 Kursk". This convetion appears to have been adopted by other navies as well. Should the moves the kept as they are, or should they be reverted? Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that this is something that WT:MILHIST and WT:SHIPS would both have agreed on some years ago. Have you asked them? --Redrose64 (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting a page[edit]

Hello I started a page Ancient river and released I did not put a capital. I could not work out how to change it through all the guides, so I requested a deletion and then started a new page Ancient River. Is there a way to redirect this? As the new page is not showing up just the deleted page. Learning sorry. July 22 SeniahCSeniahC (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The redirect is there. I see you created a few minutes after you posted this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy a page including its history[edit]

It happens enough: a Help page is at an introductory level and a Wikipedia page with the same pagename is an advanced version. (We have two of these situations right now: Help:Searching and Help:Template need advanced versions WP:Searching and WP:Template. Compare Help:Pagename and WP:Pagename, amongst others.)

It's like moving a page, but it copies instead. (This might be called cloning a page?)
It's like forking/mirroring, but only for one page.

Export it, then import it back in?
Cut and paste with edit summary telling the source page?
Requests for moves seems like the wrong place to argue the merits of such requests. — CpiralCpiral 23:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If you need to split a page's history, see WP:HISTSPLIT. But this is not often done, you would need a pretty good reason to request it. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a move, but I need a copy of the history, so that one and the same history is in two pages at once. Is that just wrong? If so the other option seems just as lame: cut and paste, but mention "forked from Help:X" in the initial edit summary. But if that's OK with you, it's OK with me. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 22:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Not possible. Page history is a series of revisions; each revision happens to exactly one page and no more. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like simultaneous revisions. I want what you say is possible, which is for "each revision to happen on exactly one page" at a time. So let me rephrase please: Is duplicating a history impossible? (And from there it would be separate.) Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 01:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Duplicating a history is *possible* through exporting and importing, but I can't think of any situation where it would be a good idea. It would cause people's edit counts to be inflated, for a start. Cutting and pasting is fine in this situation. Graham87 01:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving over redirect[edit]

An error is displayed when viewing a diff for a revision that has been deleted, or was the creation of a redirect that has been overridden by a page move, or has the id for a future revision that is yet to be made. The error no longer appears when the revision has been restored, or when a revision having the id has finally been made. When moving over a redirect, the overridden redirect is permanently removed from the database and cannot be restored. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Order[edit]

When moving a page, the four edits (old page, new page, old talk page, and new talk page) can appear in any order in the user contributions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not specific to page moves. Edits and moves are listed in chronological order, except that with page moves, their timestamps are often the same to the resolution that MediaWiki uses (I don't know if it's the nearest second, the nearest tenth, or the nearest hundredth). When two edits (not just page moves) have identical timestamps (to that resolution), they are listed in random order on all lists - contribs, watchlist, page history, etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
MediaWiki stores timestamps to the nearest second. Graham87 03:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

WhatLinksHere[edit]

There is an issue with Special:WhatLinksHere. When moving an article, only the moved article appears as a redirect in WhatLinksHere under the new article name and the talk page redirect does not appear in WhatLinksHere. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: I strongly suspect that this is closely related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 141#Category membership issues, in that the links tables (which is what is used to generate both WhatLinksHere and the lists on cat pages) are lagging behind reality. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on talk pages[edit]

Why is there nothing here about when and under what circumstances it's appropriate or advisable to discuss a proposed page move on the article's talk page first, rather than just being bold and doing it? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is. WP:MOVE#Before moving a page. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I beg to differ. That's about going to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I'm talking about when I'm thinking of moving, say, Adolf Hitler to, say, Der Feuhrer, but before I do so, I go to Talk:Adolf Hitler and flag my thinking and seek feedback, because I think it may be controversial and may not attract universal agreement.
I only use Wikipedia:Requested moves when I have tried to execute a non-controversial (or agreed) page move but found my way blocked (I don't have administrator-like powers). In all other cases, I either discuss my thinking on the article's own talk page, or simply move the page. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand Wikipedia:Requested moves. Sure, you can be bold and simply move the page if you believe the move will not be contested, and there is nothing technically blocking your ability to perform the move. You may use the technical section of Wikipedia:Requested moves to request administrator help if there is something technically blocking your ability to do it yourself. Going to an article's talk page and flagging your thinking and seeking feedback is precisely what Wikipedia:Requested moves is all about – all RM discussions take place on the specific article talk page which is the topic of discussion. The WP:RM page is simply a bot-generated listing of the discussions that are happening on individual talk pages, which is used by editors who "watchlist" such discussions and administrators to look for discussions which are ready to be closed. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is true that "all RM discussions take place on the specific article talk page which is the topic of discussion". But there are times when the discussion takes place on the article's talk page without ever involving WP:RM at all. Is there any rule that says that all such discussions must be funnelled via WP:RM? Not to my knowledge.
So, there are two ways of starting a discussion about a page move:
  • (a) raise it at WP:RM, or
  • (b) raise it directly - and only - at the relevant article's talk page.
I always go for option (b) unless there is something "technically blocking [my] ability to perform the move", in which case I'll consider option (a) if I have the energy to re-learn the syntax of such requests (in other words, if I think the move is important enough for me to spend my time going down the bureaucratic route).
Do you see what I'm saying? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Option (b) is option (a). If you go to the article's talk page, and (without starting a new section) add at the bottom {{subst:requested move|(new name)|reason=(your reason why)}}, a bot will update WP:RM automatically. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I see you saying that you don't want to be bothered with learning either the syntax {{subst:requested move|(new name)|reason=(your reason why)}} for starting discussions about potentially controversial moves, or the similar syntax for requesting uncontroversial moves, as you think that's too bureaucratic. Perhaps you can use {{Help me}} to ask someone else to do it for you. Some editors don't like the one-week limit on discussion (though that can easily drag out to a month or more if a consensus doesn't form right away), or that they have to request a move that they're not sure should really be made, and want to just start an informal and less structured discussion. I'm not keen on that, unless it's just putting up a trial balloon before deciding to initiate the more formal request. If a move is made based on a local consensus that wasn't advertised at WP:RM, then you risk WP:CONLIMITED objections later on, after others discover the fait accompli move. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, that's exactly what I'm on about. Let me explain. At last count, I have made 1,544 page moves throughout my 12-year Wiki-career. Some of these (a small number) have indeed come after going through WP:RM. A larger number have involved a local consensus at the relevant talk page. But the vast majority have been relatively minor, and I considered it was not necessary to discuss them beforehand, anywhere at all.

Have any of these 1,544 moves been objected to, or even reverted? Yes, a small number, probably about 1%. So, experience tells me that the risk to which you refer is not significant. Or maybe I tend to dabble in the less trafficked articles; God knows, someone has to.

My query came about as a result of a rare reversion of one of my moves (George Frideric Handel's lost Hamburg operas to Handel's lost Hamburg operas). The editor who reverted my move expressed his objections at my talk page, thus: "It is normal practice to open a talk page thread before moving an article title. You shouldn't just barge in and do it unless there is an obvious error".

So, on the question of how to go about obtaining a consensus in general, he and I are in agreement: use the talk page; no mention of WP:RM.

But before responding to him, I wanted to check exactly what the guidelines actually say about these procedures. And that's where I discovered a lack of any mention of the procedure that is widely used (I could find thousands of examples if necessary).

So, if the position is that all page move discussions must be conducted under the aegis of WP:RM, we should say so. But if it's perfectly acceptable for them to occur with the support of a local consensus only – as long as the participants are prepared to risk the move being countermanded by a global consensus at some later time – then we should also state that explicitly.

But saying nothing at all about local consensuses is not a goer. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

When no specific instruction or guideline exists, I think the rules of common sense apply. Thus, it would be perfectly OK, in my view, to boldly move a page if the title contains errors of capitalisation, spelling, italicisation, or if it clearly breached a title convention established for articles in that subject areaa. However, changing the wording of a title to a personal preference, without notification or justification, is a slightly different matter. Common sense (and common courtesy) suggests some discussion before the action, on the talk page at first, resorting to RM only if matters can't be resolved by local consensus. Brianboulton (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Right, some common sense applies here. If you can quickly come to a local consensus, that's fine. You'll bypass the need for an independent third party to determine consensus and close the discussion. However, if it soon becomes apparent that there is substantial disagreement, I suggest not delaying too much in opening a formal, advertised discussion. If you have a long, drawn out discussion before advertising it, you can have problems with new editors arriving on the scene who aren't up-to-speed on the issues, and have to rehash them. Most page moves are technical and routine in nature; I do a lot of those myself. There is usually a significant backlog at RM, so it's helpful not to burden independent admins with too many routine moves. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@user:JackofOz as other have said common sense comes into it. However in the case of a good faith move that you have made that is reverted by another: Then what?

Let us take George Frideric Handel's lost Hamburg operas as an example case.

I think that if user:Brianboulton (the editor who reverted your move) had explained his/her reason for his/her revert on the article's talk page, rather than on your user talk page, it might have encouraged others interested in the article's title to get involved the merits of the two possible titles. However that is not what was done.

You have made a bold move and it has been reverted. You are now faced with two choices. You can simply leave it alone (there are millions of other articles), or you can initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article with or without a RM request. If you choose not to involve RM, and the only person who responds is user:Brianboulton, then unless the two of you reach an agreement there will be no consensus. (As no consensus if often the outcome of these limited conversations, then as the move initiator why not short circuit the process and use the RM process to try to build a wider consensus for what you believe to be a move to a more appropriate title?)

However if you have initiated a conversation on the talk page without RM and if there is no consensus, then either the page remains where it is, or the disagreement over the article title is escalated with the dispute resolution process. If one of you chooses to escalate then WP:RM is a better process to use than the other options (such as a WP:RfC), because it is specifically tailored to handling page moves. Those who lurk at watch WP:RM often have a broad knowledge of WP:AT policy and its naming conventions (supporting guidelines) and so can help steer less experienced editors to make decisions based on policy rather than their own personal preferences; and unlike an RfC there is a defined close procedure with appeals built in for a RM request.

Because in the past there have been move wars, to stop that happening there is a tradition of only moving a page if there is a consensus to do so, and a specific section of guidance at WP:RM designed to stifle page move wars (see WP:RMUM).

-- PBS (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, User:PBS.
Making an uncontroversial move – if you can, do it yourself!
I considered it uncontroversial, so I moved it.
I now see there was a bigger picture that I failed to see at the time, viz. similarly named articles all using the same format. That just shows that it's not always possible to know with absolute certainty whether a move would be controversial or not; one must use one's best judgement. One should never be criticised for being bold if one is operating in a reasonable and non-malicious way.
If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page.
User:Brianboulton is very welcome to initiate such a discussion on the article's talk page.
But that gets me back, via a circuitous route, to my original question. Rather than someone boldly moving a page and then having it reverted and then discussing the matter at the talk page, what's wrong with commencing a discussion at the talk page as the first step in the process? It's not always necessary to go through WP:RM, it's really not. I just think these guidelines should explicitly allow/recognise this sort of procedure. Particularly as it is widely practised and always has been and always will be. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Policy and guidelines are just that. If you want to start a conversation on the talk page of an article before moving the article then of course you can do so. There is really no reason to say as much, because if bold moves are tolerated then by extension so to are conversations on a talk page about potential moves. If you do not get a clear consensus to move the page then presumably as an experienced and conciousness editor you would not make the move. However in this case, what you did was was acceptable as the bold move was in made good faith. This is what usually happens and we do not have to say as much. This page only comes into play if you are blocked from making a move or if you think that the move will be controversial. If you move a page and the move is reverted (unless you can persuae the person who reverted the move to revert their revert, the move is controversial and a RM will be needed to move it to your preferred name). This process was originally introduced, like the Wikipedia:Requests for history merge to be a non-controversial technical page. However within hours of its creation there was the first "oppose"[1] and it started to become a clearing house for controversial as well as technically difficult moves. -- PBS (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
... an experienced and conciousness editor - why, that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me for a long time. Thanks.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The instructions seem to be outdated. Should we update them?[edit]

This page still recommends manual recategorization, which is a very slow and tedious process. Cat-a-lot can be used to automate this process, but it isn't mentioned on this page at all. Should we edit this article to recommend the Cat-a-lot script as an automated categorization tool? Jarble (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble:: I wouldn't recommend that anyone be using manual or script-based recategorization, not when we have bots to do it. I think the Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_category section should just be replaced with: "Category moves can be requested via WP:CFD. For the technical details of the category renaming process, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions."--Aervanath (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Aervanath: Bots are able to redirect categories automatically, but I'm not sure about the best way to split categories. Is there any tool (other than Cat-a-lot) that can automate this task? Jarble (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jarble: For splitting categories, I would ask at WT:CFD or other forum where category-focused editors hang out if there are better tools, but I suspect that there aren't. Either way, I wouldn't recommend adding it to this page, since splitting categories is really beyond its scope. This page is when you need to rename the category wholesale, not split it.--Aervanath (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, the target links clickbox isn't showing.--Laurianna2 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Recommended changes for "Post-move cleanup" section[edit]

In order to reduce confusion, I think it would be useful for the information in the "Post-move cleanup" section of this article to be identical to (or at least more closely match) what appears in the "move successful" page which pops up after a move. I did my first article move today and at one point accidentally navigated away from the "move successful" page. So I searched and found this page but the information presented here wasn't quite the same as what shows up on the "move successful" page. Having the text be as close to identical as possible would be very helpful. Gmporr (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gmporr: It looks like you are requesting a change to MediaWiki:Movepage-moved. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 00:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the better identification of what I was referring to; I definitely didn't know where to find MediaWiki:Movepage-moved. But really, rather than wanting a change there, I think a change to Moving a page#Post-move cleanup, to include either the bullet list from MediaWiki:Movepage-moved, or a link to it, is the solution to my concern. Seeing the bullet list pop up after having moved an article gives a concise list of what the user needs to do. When I navigated away from it and couldn't find it again, I found this page but wished it had included the same bullet list to make things more user-friendly. Gmporr (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. For now, I've added a nutshell to the section, which summarizes the changes. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 02:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Revisions on 16 September 2016[edit]

I made some updates to move how-to pages: one two three, essentially favoring {{subst:RMassist}} over {{Db-move}}, which I explained in comments and edit summarries. The primary reasons are:

  1. WP:RMT requests are easily traceable via permalink, and when moves are carried out, contain the permalink so that the requests themselves are easily attributable. (just like an automatic db-move link generated by the template)
  2. Unlike db-move, WP:RMT provides a central location naturally conducive to further discussion prior to a move that's carried out. This could be a quick exchange regarding interpretation of title guidelines or something similar. The Db-move suggestion is a discussion on the page's own talk, which likely has far less visibility or watchers.
  3. The infrastructure provided by {{subst:RMassist}} includes an easy "discuss" link that posts on the talk page. There is no easy link to initiate a further discussion after a db-move decline.
  4. That there is no need to pollute the CSD categories with requests that can be satisfied with a pageswap, of which almost requests listed at WP:RMT are also equivalent to db-move requests anyway. The only difference is that the redirect adds two moves in its existing revision history.
  5. For the past month or so, I'm led to believe that Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion are not handled as rapidly as those at WP:RMT. Technical requests are often handled in less than a day.

If anyone wanted to follow up on this, please let me know. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 00:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: I would like to make a few comments on your changes:
  1. Why is it better to have discussions about the move on WP:RMT rather than the article talk page?
  2. There is nothing preventing someone from adding a discuss link to {{db-move}}
  3. Unlike pages which are tagged with {{db-move}} people watching a page know nothing about an RM/TR request, making fewer people aware of the move request. Perhaps a bot could add some template to pages currently under discussion at RM/TR
Pppery 17:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Pppery, I've noticed that (move) requests at Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion tend to get handled slower (sometimes taking 5–6 days) than at WP:RMT. At RMT, many editors with a good understanding of titling guidelines are (currently) quite eager to resolve them, and it's a venue designed for page moves. If you disagree, feel free to undo my changes (I gave the diffs above). — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 17:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert you, but just wanted to point out a few advantages to {{db-move}} that perhaps should be considered. Pppery 17:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Pppery: Mention of RMassist in the how-tos should be fine for now. I believe db-move's own suggestion per typical db is its own talk, but I probably wouldn't be against a discuss link. Potential bot listings on RMT could list db-move transclusions (but it's not like no one's looking at the category, and resolutions for pages there seem reasonable I think). — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 04:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving sandbox to an existing page[edit]

I copied an article (with very little content) into my sandbox and worked on it there. Now I want to move it back to the existing page. How can I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohits19 (talkcontribs) 21:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Normally, by clicking the "move" tab, select "(Article)" from the drop-down box under "New title:" and entering an article title in the box to its right. That only works if the article name name doesn't exist. If you want to overwrite the current article Grunt (software), you have to copy/paste the wikicode from your sandbox into the editing box of that article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe Mohits19 would like the revision history moved. This would need to be performed by an admin. I tagged the target page with {{histmerge}}. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 06:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!! The article was moved to the original page along with revision history. If I need to do this in the future, how and where do I tag the target page? -- Mohits19 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mohits19: It looks like the revision in which I tag Grunt (software) with {{histmerge|User:Mohits19/sandbox}} has been deleted during the histmerge. Basically put that code at the top of the page, you can see Template:Histmerge/doc#Examples for further details — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 00:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

All previous moves for a given page[edit]

Is there a way to see a list of all moves that a given page has undergone? Querying the move log only shows the moves away from a given title and for a page that has moved several times piecing together the history this way is quite a bit of a hassle. All page moves are recorded as edits in the page's history, I'd imagine an edit summary search for something like "moved page" could do the trick, but I haven't been able to find a tool that does that. – Uanfala (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Piecing together a complete move history can be a time-consuming pain. m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey. wbm1058 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so there isn't anything at present. Well then, I guess I don't have anything better than the current proxy method I use – looking at the history of a redirect to the page that has moved. Most of the time this history contains only edits by the double-redirect fixing bot that tidies up after moves. – Uanfala (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Right, I do that too. If you want to submit a wishlist item, I will vote to support it. wbm1058 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
There's a tool - Edit summary search - unfortunately it can only look at edits made by a single user, it would be good if it could work for unspecified user; it would need to look at the edits of a page specified by its curid because the page name changes at every move. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)