Help talk:Merge/Archive 1

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Translation

This page needs translation. Please add necessary links for translating. --Michgrig (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

 Marked for translation. --Base (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about properties

The Help page about Merge is not explaining how to deal with items referenced by other items. I mean: Qaaa and Qbbb are eligible to be merged; I do all steps to move "things" from Qbbb to Qaaa but still there could be other Qccc, Qddd, .... that are using Qbbb in some properties. I believe that before asking for the deletion of Qbbb we must add a step to verify links to Qbbb and to update them changing to Qaaa. Isn't it? --Ysogo (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I renew the question above. I strongly believe we need to add the step in the guidelines. I kindly ask some native speaker to do it with a better English than mine. --Ysogo (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What about titles and descriptions in other languages?

When looking at one item, I can see the title and the description in the language that I set in my command line at the top of the browser window. Nevertheless titles and descriptions can also exist in other languages and should be transfered to the receiving item as well. I can not obviously try all possible languages by changing the settings at the top of the window. How can I know in which different languages title and/or description are present? --Ysogo (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, labels and descriptions would probably be moved as well, if possible. It would be great if there would eventually be a gadget for doing this, but for now it's manual. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok in doing manually, but how can I guess the languages to copy from? I hope developers will soon provide, at least, a way to list the languages which has been used to title/describe an item. Otherwise when merging items, something can go lost. --Ysogo (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a gadget in your preferences called labelLister. It shows an additional link between Read and View hisroty that is called Labels list --Michgrig (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't know about it. I think we should better add this in the guidelines for merge operation as well. --Ysogo (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Added.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The page is obsolete

The page is obselete because items now can contain complex statements with qualifiers and sources. There should be some explanation about how to move these. It could also make more clear that labels and descriptions can be in all languages, and that you as default do not see them for other than your own language. Also moving of aliases is not mentioned at all. Byrial (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

SOFIXIT. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't bite! It is allowed to mention a problem, even if you can't fix it yourself or don't have the time to do it. Byrial (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, that was quite bitey from me there. Hopefully someone will implement the changes you suggested. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this a joke somehow?

Wikimedia Foundation. Proudly making contributing to Wikipedia harder every day. In the old days I could just add de:Katasterismos to en:Catasterismi and vice versa. Now I'm getting some error message where I have to click on details to get some code that I can't click on but have to copy and paste into some search mask on a totally different page to which there is no link and then I get to a page which only contains the German entry. Back to the FAQ where I can read that I have to delete the link to the solitary entry which I couldn't figure out how to do. This is the point where I figured that nobody pays me to get around some interface that some people put in my way to make my life miserable and I stopped trying. Still wanted to let you know. --Mudd1 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Martin451 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This system is better. If (as in the above example) you have 8 articles on different wikipedias, then on the old system you would need 56 interwiki links (7 links on each of the 8 articles). Adding links to one article would mean the links would have to be copied across all articles, normally done with bots, but it is still a big job. Instead the links are held centrally meaning less work totally, when a new article is added, only one link needs to be added, it is a bit more clunky, but less work in the long run, and less maintenance should be needed, especially when articles are moved. It also holds a central repository of data that is independent of language, e.g. people data of births, parents and children.

Thanks for fixing this. I don't deny that a change was due but if before I could do something and now I can't, I don't feel it's a change for the better. --Mudd1 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Other cases when users failed to delete/move/merge sitelinks

A solitary sitelink to a Portuguese article

I have just been through exactly the same situation as described by Mudd1, and have to agree with him. The Portuguese article for a subject was solely associated with an item, while all other similar articles were on another item. I was able to move the link to the proper item, but the interface should provide easier means for me to do it. Having to click on the error "Details" box, manually copy the item code and then having to come to another site (which is not informed anywhere) to paste it is not something that an ordinary user of the Wikipedia should be expected to learn. I'm not against the idea behind wikidata, but some aspects of its integration with the other wikipedias still have room to be perfected. Capmo (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How do I run the "merge gadget"? I've enabled it in my "preferences"

HELP NEEDED - How do I run the "merge gadget"? I've enabled it in my "preferences" but after that can't find the button to run the script anywhere... Please point me in the right direction. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@DPdH:: Does this image help? You can find the merge gadget from the drop down menu (read|history|(watchlist star)|dropdown menu). --Stryn (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

can't see no way to delete or move or merge a solitary sitelink to a Russian article

I wanted to merge https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16533329 into https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3511220#sitelinks-wikipedia , but I can't see any way: no way to delete the solitary Russian sitelink, and no way to "move" it, and the merge gadget doesn't show up. That's crazy that I can't see a way to make this small improvement to the sites.--Imz (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this page up to date? I can't find the option for enabling the merger gadget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets Jair Moreno (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It only works on Wikidata. So you need to visit https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets to enable it. And the merge request has to be done on Wikidata. It can't be used to merge articles on Wikipedia. Only to merge items on Wikidata. Mbch331 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested merge BAEF/.Belgian American Educational Foundation

Could somebody merge

• http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2266205#sitelinks
• http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2266205#sitelinks

I have no clue from the current article how I should proceed. Can't you just made a list of requested mergers and let the experienced users do the work? -- Mdd (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have merged Q2266205 with Q4834506 Byrial (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Tool handling merge needed

I am interested in merging duplicate items on gu and en wiki but without tool it became tiresome lengthy process. Its long awaited and discussed tool but still not available. please do something about it.--Nizil Shah (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge BWV 176

I want to expand BWV 176 and find a new separate Q5396640 in addition to the existing Q3057619. Once I have more time I will learn to merge, but could someone please do this one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Stryn--DangSunM (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to reply here :) --Stryn (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, still no time (or patience) ;) - same thing BWV 213, Laßt uns sorgen, laßt uns wachen, BWV 213 (Q6506214) vs. Q3220082. - This will come again for all BWV between 1 and BWV 224 that have English only (not many left), - they all have at least fr and nn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

More:

en: Sei Lob und Ehr dem höchsten Gut, BWV 117 Q7446552, fr: ?

en: Das neugeborne Kindelein, BWV 122 Q5226485, fr: Q3016718

en: Lobe den Herrn, meine Seele, BWV 143 Q6663610, fr: Q3257614

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is much worse that just this, doing now.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, next: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1167446 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7395208 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

 Merged. Littledogboy (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Why merging to the lower ID?

The section Select recipient item states that this should "usually the item with the lowest Q####, as it is the oldest item". Merging to a higher Q#### "is also acceptable" (!) only if "a lot" (!) of work can be saved by this. Of course the rule of merging to the lower ID makes sense if I today re-create an item that in deed already existed for a long time. Then it usually would be kind of strange to merge the old item into the new one. But this is just a special case of a more general rule that often would allow to merge into the newer item: Generally the item that is more excessively used should be kept. However, measuring this usage of an item is quite a task - it contains of the number of internal links to those items (requires at least one additional click per item) and the number of external links to them (may be impossible to determine). A legitimate assumption for a shortcut for this may be to look at the number of sitelinks and statements (and maybe labels and descriptions) - if an item has five of each, it's more likely to be referenced/used anywhere than an item that only has one of each. So merging into the more complex one is likely to break less (internal and especially external) references than the other way round. Plus, it's saving work (when done manually in total or parts) and more of a history (who added which statement, sitelink or label?). So I'd say the recipient item should be the more mature one, not necessarily the just the older one (though however, it may be a good rule of thumb to merge into the older one if both items are of about the same complexity or the newer one is really new). --YMS (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As the person who originally wrote that part of the guideline, I tried to keep it as simple as possible. I assumed that the reader was unlikely to know how to merge and didn't want too much hassle. Also bear in mind that automatic merging was not possible when I wrote it. I put in the rule of thumb to merge to the lower number (the older and usually more used item). The exception being when a higher numbered item has many statements/links/uses in other items which would make merging manually a real pain. If you can think of a better way of explaining this in the guideline, feel free to apply it :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, a suggestion for replacing the second and third sentences in that section based on my brainstorming above and your explanation that this quite strict rule only intends to be an easy guideline anyway would be something like "This is usually the item that is used more often (possible indicators are links to the items or the number of sitelinks and statements). If you can't tell, best choose the one with the lowest Q####, as it is the oldest item." Yes, it's a bit more complex, but I don't think it's hard to understand, and if one doesn't, he may just fall back to the "If you can't tell" solution without hesitating much (and without damaging anything in any case, as this is our current rule anyway, while the main rule sort of includes the "a lot of work" exception). --YMS (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Due to missing opposion, I replaced the last two sentences of that section with my (slightly modified) proposal above. Re-phrasing welcome. --YMS (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

New nutshell

I propose new text for nutshell:

It's definitely an improvement on the current nutshell. My only problem is that it emphasises the idea of simply nominating the item for deletion, rather than merging it first. I've seen some admins delete first, and not realise that the request was actually a merge request disguised as a deletion request. It would be great if there were actually a page for "Wikidata:Requests for merges". In fact, I think we need one at this stage in the project. I've seen people request merges at WD:RfD, at Project chat, at Admin Noticeboard, and at Admin talk pages. I think it would be a good idea to have a centralised place for people to report proposed merges. Other than that, I accept the new nutshell wholeheartedly. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, admins should make the exact same clicks/checks whether someone requests merge, or have requested deletion as a result of merging items, and if problematic, move the request to WD:IWC instead. I mean, nothing wrong with having a dedicated page for that, if you want. The question is, how to make it as much "walk-in" for normal Wikipedians as possible... and I am a lazy reader of help pages myself. Littledogboy (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that merge to lowest id and request deletion must be checked by defoult or description of it must be much more clear, many user don't use this options because do not know it Rippitippi (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please merge

1. Embassy (Q3052017) and Embassy (Q5369508)

Thanks in advance! לערי ריינהארט (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Stryn (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Request merge

"Site link Crocodile (locomotive) is already used by item Q1789751. Perhaps the items should be merged and one of them deleted?" it says and directs me here. Since it appears to be non-trivial to fix this, I am leaving it to your capable hands.

In fact, why aren't we directed to a page where we can propose fixes (mergers/deletions). The notion that an average user would learn to do all this stuff on his or her own is just wishful thinking. The far more probable outcome is that he or she simply leaves. Why isn't there a friendly button that one-clicks a new entry in some table for a pro editor to act upon?

Btw I was at a page whose url contains the code Q680481 when I got the above message. I suspect that's the "item" that needs to be merged with the above "item". CapnZapp (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful, to have a "merge request site". I found some Items to merge: Q13222335 and Q212254 in german both named Kompostierung. --Wer?Du?! (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

In general, merging is easy and if you are able to find the merge request page, you should be able to perform most merges yourself (or merges can be requested at item talk pages, the project chat, here, ...). Some cases are not so easy, though, due to conflicting interwiki articles, but for those, there already is a "request" page: Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts. In the case of compost (Q212254), I just changed the label, and think this should be enough here (that second item is not about the process, it's about the matter, and was probably only named this way because de:Kompost is a redirect to de:Kompostierung). Thanks for the pointer. --YMS (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge Request

Please Merge Q6088818 with Q1424412, as the Spanish page has received a separate Wikidata link. Thanks. Thricecube (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I future, you can try and do it by yourself, see Help:Merge --Michgrig (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Neeed scripts for faster Merging

Hello, I am using the gadget for merge button to be honest it's not fast enough. I will give you a concrete example: I am at Q1947477 and I try to add the ro:İscehisar page. I get the error:

An error occurred while trying to perform save and because of this, your changes could not be completed.

Details

Site link İscehisar is already used by item Q12744169

Now, the script that generate this error window should be able to check if Q12744169 only contains the page I want to add (in my case, it's always like that). If yes, then it should offer to me to merge that item (Q12744169) into the current one (Q1947477), and to delete the emptied item. Or to open the merge dialog (of the gadget) with a single click and to fill the number of the item to merge with the current one.

I think this would be a big improvement.

Also it might be useful to offer to merge the item into the current one, even if it has more than one page associated (while gently asking the user to check the item before merge).

It's quite painful to go to the new item, click the gadget (I have to do 2 clicks for that), then come back to the current item, scroll to the top of page, carefully copy the number of the item (making sure you don't include any extra character), and paste it into the merge gadget dialog window. It's very irritating when you have to do tens of edits at a time. Knowing that the scripts can prepare the merge automatically, the thing is quite frustrating. Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I just found a trick to merge items directly from Wikipedia - I just merged w:ro:Agafia Constantin-Buhaev into w:en:Agafia Constantin, by usind "Add links" at the w:ro:Agafia Constantin-Buhaev. However it leaved the item Q12720081 empty, without Requesting for it's Deletion. Is it ok to leave items empty like that? Maybe some hard working guys around here have automated tools to detect and remove such items? —  Ark25  (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

On my request, such merges have been tagged since they work, see tag merged item. It is really good idea to do something with empty pages, maybe sysops who provided merge might automatically delete them. If you want, you can suggest something here or make a new bug on Bugzilla.

Also, if possible, I prefer merging with the way you mentioned. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested merge Q4173903 And Q877055

Hello, I'm come from china, I read the 石英晶体谐振器 page today, when I want go to English Wikipedia learn more, I can't find the link with wikidata.
But in search, I find this page , Crystal_oscillator.
I think this two page is same one, but I don't know how to merge it in wikidata, please help, thx.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q877055
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4173903 --Cylbf2 (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cylbf2, the merger you request cannot be done: article zh:石英晶体谐振器 is about the "Quartz Crystal" and not specifically related to Crystal oscillators, although the latter is cited in the article:

石英振盪元件的類別、稱呼、代號與縮寫

內含石英諧振晶體的電子元件可分兩大類：

• 石英晶體（crystal 或 Xtal）
• 石英晶體振盪器（crystal oscillator，簡寫 OSC 或 XO）

As it seems, the Chinese Wikipedia still hasn't an article for crystal oscillators, otherwise we could link it to the English article en:Crystal oscillator. Best regards, Capmo (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Capmo, I know what you mean, I think.

But, I'm sorry, I Insists that two page is same one.

if translate it with Google,

you will find they are so similar, both the composition and picture, in fact, I think, the Chinese page is translate form older versions of English page.

And then if you search "Quartz crystal" in English wikipedia, it will Redirect to Quartz.

and in Quartz_(disambiguation) , Quartz (electronics) is

Crystal oscillator too !

OK,This is just my view.

PS:Off topic, Is it possible to one page of a language correspond two page of the other language. If yes, how wikidata handle it？

--Cylbf2 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cylbf2: Some pages may correspond to two others but Wikidata cannot hadle this. If you think there is a conflict, report it. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet another merge request

Hello,

Given I’m rather new to wikidata & just understand the very basics, I don’t how to merge the following two entries (especially because they contain additional data & that I fear breaking something by doing wrong actions when trying to do the manual merge), I request that the two following entries be properly merged: Q6544280 & Q3233823. Thanks in advance.

78.129.109.217 00:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Asking for a merge

There should be some procedure to request merges. A maintainance template, category, or request page. Or just ask here? --Bultro (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bultro: No need, in my opinion. As this page exists, everyone can find out how merges are done. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but it's not so easy and i'm not going to do it. I guess i'll propose merges on this talk --Bultro (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you don't find it easy, maybe this page would be good for you. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I second this request: the first step in the process is listed as "Check to be sure", but there's no place to ask for second oppinions, in case we're NOT so sure...

Also, i'm posting this here, since i might forget about it: after the Vietnamese fix their redundant articles, Q10794632 should be merged into Q158526... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Catholic Church parts: merge Q597526 into Q9592?

I think Catholic Church (Q9592) and Latin Church (Q597526) are actually the same thing, despite the confusing labels on them right now. To explain the hierarchy:

• Catholic Church (Q15924454): the entirety of the church system that answers to the pope (Q19546). (This is one of two concepts often ambiguously called the "Roman Catholic Church", but it consists of 23 churches.) Within that:
  • Catholic Church (Q9592) and Latin Church (Q597526): The "western" church that forms the majority of Catholic Church (Q15924454) and has traditionally used the Latin liturgical rite (Q49374). Europe and the Americas are almost all in this church. (This is the other concept often ambiguously called the "Roman Catholic Church".)
  • Eastern Catholic Churches (Q49376): The 22 traditionally middle-eastern churches of the Catholic Church (Q15924454) that still recognize the pope (Q19546) but have their own rites and heirarchy and are not Catholic Church (Q9592)/Latin Church (Q597526).

Am I missing something here? Is there any part of the "western" church that is not Latin church, or any part of the Latin church other than the "western" church? Catholic Church (Q15924454) was created in March 2014 (which seems suspiciously late for this concept), then someone tried to merge it into Catholic Church (Q9592), but the creator unmerged it. I think what is now Latin Church (Q597526) should be merged into Catholic Church (Q9592) instead. --Closeapple (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Updates as part of documentation overhaul

Hi all, I recently made some edits to Help:Merge as part of a larger sitewide documentation overhaul (more info on this here).

To compare my edits with the previous version please see the diffs here

Major changes include the following:

• moved around content so that manual merge information comes before automated processes
• changed all mention of 'interwiki links' to 'sitelinks' for consistency
• edited the example of candidate items for merging (hopefully to make it easier to understand)
• gave a bit more info on using gadgets when/where mentioned
• changed references to "properties" during the merge process to "statements" (I think this is more accurate)
• added more information on requesting a deletion
• removed the content under the section titled "Another semi-automatic process" - I could not get this to work for me and it seemed to apply on in rare cases (i.e. if one item contains exactly one link)

Please let me know if you have any concerns about these changes or suggestions on further improving the documentation. Here are issues I would also like specific feedback on:

• How do people feel about moving all of the content under the section "Where can I find items to merge?" out of Help and into a new area, perhaps the Contribute portal?
• is it ok that I got rid of the section "Another semi-automatic process"? Is it useful?
• what needs to be done to get this page from a proposed to an accepted guideline like Help:Description?
• are there too many/too few screenshots? Are the ones in there helpful?
• Should questions in the future about merging items take place on Project chat, this talk page, or somewhere else (like a new request page made for this purpose)?

Thanks. -Thepwnco (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The removed section was added by me but it is only informative. We can replace it by information about Special:MergeItems. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: Thanks for the feedback! I've since updated the section on automatic merging (I also updated the screenshots that we used to have in there). My understanding is that the main distinction between the Merge gadget and the Special:MergeItems page is the Special:MergeItems does not flag obsolete items for deletion. Can you confirm if this is correct? Cheers. -Thepwnco (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's true. The problem (today mentioned on Project Chat) of Special:MergeItems is it cannot ignore labels/descriptions conflicts. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Observations and thoughts:

• Since someone accessing the page is interested in how to do a merge, in my opinion, the easiest and quickest way to do a merge should be mentioned on top with the more complex alternatives below. (1) Merge gadget, (2) Special:Merge Items, (3) Manual merge.
• In my opinion, the autoEdit Gadget is not in the scope of merging and should not be mentioned on the page.
• To be precise, in The Merge gadget the instruction on how to enable the gadget ("To enable this function, open Preferences, select Gadgets, and tick Merge.") misses that the "Save" button needs to be hit as well.
• "Be sure to tick the relevant boxes before clicking "Merge"" is not really helpful and should be rephrased. Apart from that, it would be nice, if the options within the Merge gadget would not contain technical terms like RfD and stream deletion but that is a different story.
• "After merging the data for two items, Merge.js also sends the now obsolete item to WD:RFD for admins to delete and automatically generates a reason for the item deletion." is only true, when the corresponding checkbox has been ticked.
• Why can't I just delete the source item of a merge myself? Maybe there should be a note on why you cannot delete items yourself.
• I am not sure about the title Where can I find items to merge? but I kind of like the section in a way of "How to spot duplicates". Link targets that have not been updated for months may be removed in my opinion.
• In my opinion, the purpose of this page is to give instructions and help about the process of merging. If some items should be merged should either be discussed on a dedicated page or on the discussion page of one of those items (imagining someone would look at these). However, due to automatic bot imports, there are a lot of duplicate items in the database. Therefore, a dedicated page would probably be most applicable (at least for now).

Random knowledge donator (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just fixed the page, so it is now ready for marking for translation. As soon as the discussion ends, we can mark it. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this start with the automatic merge and then detail the manual one? Currently, until someone gets to that section, one might already have lost interest. --- Jura 12:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done --- Jura 10:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Updates after closing RfC

As the RfC about creating redirects is closed, this page needs to be updated...

• delete all sections about requesting for deletion,
• add documentation about redirects (link to Help:Redirects) and how to create them,
• update hints for the Merge gadget.

Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the difference. After some time for adding comments and improving the page will be marked for translation and translators will be notified about it. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect without JavaScript?

Is it possible to create a redir without js? How? Palosirkka (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Via API (wbcreateredirect). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Matěj Suchánek! Palosirkka (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How the #$%^ does one create a redirect?

The page says "Please note that Special:MergeItems does not redirect the obsolete item. If performing a merge with this tool, you will need to follow the create redirect step from the above section on manual merges.", which helpfully links to the "Create redirect" section, which does not say how to do it. This is ridiculous. What is Help for, if not to give instructions for what I assume is a simple operation, if only one knows how to do it?

I have given up on finding out how to do it, so I'm letting you people know that I have merged Q6290343 into Q16129665, and now the former needs to be redirected to the latter. If someone can also add the instructions to this help page, so that next time I need to do this I will know how, that will be appreciated. -- 98.116.22.251 04:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, a special page for creating redirects is in work and will be deployed soonish. Furthermore, an option to create a redirect on Special:MergeItems should be provided (not sure if there is a bug on Phabricator yet). Currently, creating redirects is only possible via the api or the merge gadget which works for logged-in users only. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 10:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and there is of course also User:PLbot which creates such redirects after merges automatically as done for you atm. :-) -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 10:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I was banging my head against a wall trying to do it correctly. It was so much easier when we could just add an interwiki link directly on the WP page, and let the bots do their thing. -- 76.15.128.65 11:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I second the curses. This page says there are two ways automatically to merge, namely the Gadget (2.1) and the Special (2.2). Instruction for the special is incomplete. It concludes with notice that the last step is to create a redirect, linked to the preceding section on manual merges (1.6 create redirect). In turn and in effect, that says use the Gadget or leave it to someone else. So the Special is not a distinct way to do the job automatically. Nor does the Gadget instruction confirm that it should be used to complete what the Special has left undone--how, by entering the same ID numbers again?

So I leave it to someone else. I used the Special to merge Q18559843 into Q2884061. VIAF https://viaf.org/viaf/21124726 links the former now empty item. --P64 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Request merge (or instructions)

Hello. I tried to merge two items because they are about the same subject, just sourced from articles with titles using different romanizations of Korean. However, I received an error, apparently because the Tagalog Wikipedia has two articles on the subject, each linked to one of the two duplicates in Wikidata. I have no idea how to proceed. I don't read Tagalog so definitely won't tinker around with pages on that Wikipedia. Can anyone help?

• Heo Yi-jae is linked to article "Heo Yi-jae" at Tagalog Wikipedia.
• Huh E-jae is linked to an identical article titled "Heo Yi Jae" at Tagalog Wikipedia.
• The former Wikidata item should be merged into the latter one.

Thanks so much! Shinyang-i (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The only way to resolve this, if you are still watching, is to merge the items on tag. To handle the problem until that work is done, you can use said to be the same as (P460) to link the two. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

WHEN should one redirect?

This help page seems to hint that a redirect should be left at the emptied item, but that you alternatively could demand it deleted. I do not understand why redirects should be created, since this is not motivated, and therefore am even less able to judge in what circumstances a request for deletion would be more appropriate. My best guess is that the redirects might be of use, if some item statements or properties refer to other items by their Q-numbers. Possibly, also, item references in pages like this one might motivate redirects.

The concrete case I ponder is items Q7484844 (labeled "Category:Capital punishment in France") and Q9526633.(unlabeled). The latter item contained only one site link, the plwiki category for capital punishment in France. I do not think any one handling that item understood that; the history refers to adding the information in several languages that this is a wiki category item, but nothing more seems to have been deduced. "What links here" for Q9526633 yielded no result. (Now, of course, it would yield the link from this paragraph.) Thus, after I moved the plwiki site link, no more information needs to be salvaged from the item. Is this a situation where I should request a deletion, or should I (try to) make a redirect?

It would be well, if the page clarified this deletion vz. redirection alternatives more clearly, I think. JoergenB (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The main rationale for keeping the redirects was that external users (including our own projects) may refer to the Q-number, and if the item is gone, the reference is gone as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OK; according to those rationales, deletions should almost never be demanded in merge cases. However, this help page in some parts appears to present things differently. Forinstance, the following thext is not accompanied by any reservation:

"There is also a gadget in your preferences called RequestDeletion that gives users the ability to request deletion quickly. Once activated, the gadget will appear under the "More" tab at the top of an item page."

After searching a little bit further, I found Wikidata:Requests for comment/Redirect vs. deletion, where the rationale Ymblanter refers to prevailed, and lead to a decision with a clearer summary:

"There is support that items should be redirected when merging. Generally speaking, items should not be deleted when merging.

1. Deleting is however appropriate if an item has not been existed longer than 24 hours and if it's clear that it's not in use elsewhere.
2. "Real duplicates" — the items that have exactly the same sitelink(s) in one or more items — should be redirected as well.
3. Wikidata:Requests for deletions can keep its name, since there will always be pages that requires deletion."

Now, if this summary from December, 2014, still could be considered as being the consensus opinion, then I think that it should be reflected more clearly in the text in Help:Merge. In other words, the text should not just state that redirects in general should be made at the top; the places where deletion and the RequestDeletion tool are mentioned should be restricted to one place, and in that place, the admonishion against using these possibilities in merge cases should be repeated, but modified by quiting the exception for newly created items with no use elsewhere.

In the concrete case I gave above, I'm "morally convinced" that the item Q9526633 is "not used elsewhere": It isn't in wikidata; since it only linked to a category, it harrdly would be of interest for external purposes; and if some wikimedia project editors understood as much as to find use for this id, they also should have understood something bout what this plwiki category is for. However, the item has existed since 2013, which is a bit longer than 24 hours:-); and exemption of category items was suggested but turned down in the RfC. Thus, by this consensus, a it should be turned into a redirect. I'll try to do this. JoergenB (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please Improve Help for Merging

I just went through a painful merge Q20892688 into Q11791996. Please update the help instructions to move Merge Items higher in the instructions.

Here was my experience:

The help instructions first tell me to remove the content from the item I want to redirect, but don't tell me how to accomplish that.

If I click Edit in the Wikipedia section on Q20892688, I land at Set Site Link and there's no place for me to click that I want to remove the existing link, only to add a new link.

If I try to use Redirect Entity to redirect, it tells me that Q20892688 is not empty. I can remove the description items but not the link.

Ultimately, I came to the part of the instructions where it told me to use Special:MergeItems. I followed the instructions and it worked perfectly, copying the information and creating the redirect. I wish this had been the first item in the help. I'd be bold and move it myself, but I'm not sure whether it's correct in all circumstances.

I'm guessing the help instructions re redirect or removing data were once accurate, but the system changed and the help page was not updated to reflect the changes.

Finally, it would be nice if when I click the Add language link on a Wikipedia page that it warns me to do this from an already-existing language page and not from the page I just created.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I revised it a bit. At no point one should be attempting to use Special:RedirectEntity. --- Jura 10:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

#Items to be merged with sitelink conflicts

I added a section on that, describing how I usually do that. Feel free to improve it (ideally before it gets translated). --- Jura 10:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

unmerging after redirect solved in statements

@Ivan A. Krestinin: Hi, I understood you have some code to cancel a redirect solving after an item merge. Please feel free to correct the procedure I gave for unmerging items if I made a mistake. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, I added information about period of time. Also we need to mention links created by usual users in redirect existence period. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge help needed

Module:Interwiki (Q20819069) and Module:Interwiki extra (Q15727702) from which to which would be better?C933103 (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Preferred is to merge into the lowest QID. If you activate the merge gadget in your preferences you don't have to think about it, it merges to the lowest QID by default (unless the box before that option is unticked). Mbch331 (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, weren't aware of those gadget.C933103 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I undid the merge as they don't seem to be the same type of modules. --- Jura 13:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jura1: Looks like the en:Module:Interwiki also mentions something in Module:Interwiki (Q20819069):

local langcode = {
	['bat_smg']      = 'bat-smg',
	['be_x_old']     = 'be-x-old',
	['cbk_zam']      = 'cbk-zam',
	['fiu_vro']      = 'fiu-vro',
	['map_bms']      = 'map-bms',
	['nds_nl']       = 'nds-nl',
	['roa_rup']      = 'roa-rup',
	['roa_tara']     = 'roa-tara',
	['zh_classical'] = 'zh-classical',
	['zh_min_nan']   = 'zh-min-nan', -- a comma have to be added when new lines are added
	['zh_yue']       = 'zh-yue'
	}

I assume he want to merge both because of these codes? Isn't this right? @C933103:? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

TLDR, I moved enwiki link to Q20819069, is this ok? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime, C933103 overwrote the enwiki version.
--- Jura 10:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: @Jura1: Nope, I didn't overwrite the module, however I added functions from svwiki to the module in enwiki, and the reason why I want to merge voth wikidata item is just that they are both modules that contain codes which help interwiki. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3AInterwiki&type=revision&diff=695894711&oldid=643469548 which show nothing from the original enwiki module get deleted. You can also see that for all modules linked in Module:Interwiki extra (Q15727702), their code are same as the 2013 edition of the English wikipedia module, which the English wikipedia module were reformatted at 2015 Jan in order to use mw.site.interwikiMap according to edit nite but their functions should still be same and are retained till the current version of the enwiki module. Simply speaking, the current enwiki module:interwiki contain functionality from both Module:Interwiki (Q20819069) and Module:Interwiki extra (Q15727702) afaiu. Or if both wikidata entry are to be considered as separate, would it be better for me to modify the module to put those newly added codes in the enwiki module into a Module:Interwiki2 to simplify the problem?C933103 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And after some search, I found that those modules in Module:Interwiki (Q20819069) seems to be at least partly come from fr:Module:Interwiki from P460 which claim it modify from d:Module:Interwiki from P460 and is copy from pl:Moduł:Łatki ...so these 3 modules should be in Module:Interwiki (Q20819069) too?C933103 (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@C933103: So if I read your comments correctly, I should update the codes of these Module pages? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: but I don't know if the differences within these codes (if there are any) are intentional, wiki-specific, or just not being updated... C933103 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but can we please move this section to Project:PC, because it looks like an edit war for me. --111.30.228.97 23:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Emm, needs someone who knows Lua here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably moving the topic to PC might attract more attention? C933103 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We can have several modules with similar names, but different functions. Ideally they all would be at only one place, but that's not the way it was set up.
--- Jura 09:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Help: merger of Q16269785 and Q7582463 requested

Both categories Q16269785 and Q7582463 are the same, but it seems like auto-merger gadget for some reason doesn't let them merged. "Failed to merge items, please resolve any conflicts first. Error: Conflicting descriptions for language fa". No idea how to solve it. Please merge these items.83.149.9.40 11:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Merged the items. Next time, please request this on Project chat or Administrator's noticeboard. That's followed by more people. Mbch331 (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Huddle

I don't understand the merging process, but https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16785057 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19970174 should be merged.

Done. --Izno (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge request

Please consider a merge of Q8922728 and Q1005138 LeadSongDog (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Categories and items representing the entity are considered separate. Not done. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge problems

As many other foreign users, who are not from Britain, Canada or US, I do not understand the merging process. I always got a mistake, when i want to merge. It would be better, if the Merging process is translated in other languages like German, French and Spain language. 92.76.115.96 11:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The German, Italian and Russian manuals have 76% translated, the French one has 97% translated. The Spanish one has only 39% translated. Using Special:MergeItems is the easiest way to do this but it isn't always successful. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

this is not about being from the anglosaxon world, the process is simply wrong. removing a wikipedia link is restricted if the wikipedia page still exists. :D

merge request

Hello! Would please someone merge Q19018108 into Q2793400? Thanks, 87.97.92.247 11:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

eventually i could make it. 87.97.92.247 12:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

well, not the merge, but removed the single wikipedia link from Q19018108. :D 87.97.92.247 12:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Q11122568 seems to be the same as Q5024959

Can someone proof my suggestion? Item dimension (Q11122568) is only available on ja-wiki and zh-wiki, don't took it for dimension (Q4440864). While using an autotranslation of these sides I tend towards, that this item is the same as hyperspace (Q5024959). Also ja and zh wikipedia links are missing in Hyperspace.
Thanks for your help --Plagiat (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge request

Q666578 and Q22713652 should be merged. Thank you in advance. --Paramecium (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge of duplicate Items

Please merge Q8053939 and Q20640565

and

Q5253788 and Q2901517 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.218.106.100 (talk • contribs) at 11. 11. 2016, 21:04 (UTC).

 Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

mexican football league system

Duplicates are : Q5975621 Q1068104, the later is the more complete one. I find it too dificult to merge, sorry. -2A02:8108:8A80:2308:72F1:A1FF:FEFB:2982 08:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Merged Special:MergeItems was one-click solution in this case. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Please merge

Concerning the items Beatus manuscript (Q3637297) and Commentary on the Apocalypse (Q813323). These are the same items; the subject that they talk about is known in various ways in the different languages, and is represented in two ways on Wikipedia: 1)variations of Beatus/Beatos and 2) Commentary on the Apocalypse. The only content conflict is in the Spanish language, where the two names are present as two separate articles that probably need to be merged:(es:Comentario al Apocalipsis and es:Beatos). Merging this is beyond what I am currently comfortable doing, but it would clean up the links between 9 different articles. I can be reliably contacted on the English Wikipedia. Thank you,Jacqke (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge Amalia of Nassau into Princess Amalia of Nassau

Please merge Q28035116 into Q23542606, I tried to do it but it said there is an unsolved redirection or something like that. Thanks! --Aeveraal (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You did it but propably attempted to do so twice. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge of Q20056009 and Q856600

Could someone please merge Q20056009 and Q856600? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.218.67.35 (talk • contribs) at 25. 12. 2016, 18:42‎ (UTC).

 Merged Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality items with unmerged duplicates?

There is a question at Wikidata_talk:Item_quality#Check_for_duplicates.2Fmerge: can quality items have duplicates that haven't been merged yet or should an assessment require checking for duplicates?
--- Jura 22:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge Q10856347 & Q1370565

Someone better at Japanese and/or Korean should double check but I think that Q10856347 & Q1370565 are both about a sash, as in a band worn around the waist or diagonally across the body. Bri (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge logs

I was looking for merge logs, i.e. logs of merge actions, and could not find them. Any pointers? Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge request

Mechtelt van Lichtenberg (Q43375758) appears to be the same person as Mechtelt van Lichtenberg (Q4961995). I do not understand Wikidata well enough to want to attempt a merge myself. Alafarge (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This has already been done. Mbch331 (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nandina domestica Q1153858 Q6037736 should be merged

Nandina domestica Q1153858 Q6037736 should be merged as duplication.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If I check the two items, they seem to be 2 different taxon ranks. If the information is correct, they shouldn't be merged. Mbch331 (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Mbch331 It is the only member of the monotypic genus Nandina.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It isn't my field of expertise. WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. can you give your opinion? Mbch331 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If taxa have different ranks, they are not merged, not even in cases where the higher ranked taxon is monotypic. Indeed they are still different taxa! In this case merging is not even possible, as some wiki's have articles on both taxa. So  Not done. Lymantria (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

These are two quite different concepts: one is a genus, the other a species. Besides that, they are two different scientific names. - Brya (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge Request

Q30898965 should be merged with Q8279. They talk about the same thing, and I've been trying to merge them, but keep getting an error I don't know how to solve. Some help would be very nuch appreciated :)

Marion Moseby (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Merged It was necessary to remove one Spanish description and then use Special:MergeItems. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge request pie

Merge request pie Q13360264 Q53778378

The second one has been deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge request (Q32090260 and Q28605411)

Hi! I would like to request a merge of Q32090260 and Q28605411, which are equivalent but in French and Spanish. Thanks! --MarioGom (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Merged Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge request: Iron Duke class battleship templates

Q5988715 is the template for most languages but there are also Q18997256 in Finnish and Q22864141 in Italian. Different descriptions prevent merging but they seem to be standard template descriptions translated to different languages with minor differences (whether Wikipedia or Wikimedia is used, for example). Also if standard descriptions such as these are used should they be recorded somewhere and updated in items that use them for consistency? Peter James (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Merged Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge request

Items Q2601478 and Q7550699 should be emerged, since they are about the same political party. I've tried using both the Merge gadget and Special:MergeItems, but kept getting an error. Candido (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

 Merged The error was the hint. It was necessary to remove one Indonesian description. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Maybe Q212238 (civil servant) and Q11771944 (civil service) should be merged? In en:wikipedia Civil servants is redirected to Civil service. --Custoo (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Distinguish a person and service. The redirect is irrelevant detail. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge request: Rutschstein

Please merge Q2177893 and Q16670103.--Patafisik (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Done by a bot. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Znicz Pruszków

Can someone help me merge Miejski Klub Sportowy Znicz Basket Pruszków (Q4839) and MKS Znicz Basket Pruszków (Q48836883) please? Exact same thing, the English one should merged with Italian and Polish counterparts. I find the merging process a little confusing even with the guide. Usertalk:Abcmaxx 15:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC))

 Merged Special:MergeItems was the right tool. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Matěj Suchánek Thank you! How come the English wikipedia page cannot/isn't linked to the Italian & Polish wikipedia pages ont he wikipedia other languages list though? Abcmaxx (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Both Wikipedia:Merging (Q4664090) and Help:Merging and moving pages (Q16650693) exist. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

List

Is there any list of the entries that should be merged? I just discovered Q15083 and Q862089. Greetings, 2A01:112F:742:C00:A0D5:F87D:C4D2:7234 21:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

2A01:112F:742:C00:A0D5:F87D:C4D2:7234, those 2 items are different: one is for species and one for genus. Since it is a genus with a single species two might be closly related, and some sitelinks might need to be moved. --Jarekt (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

item ID replacement after merge

I merged 2 items Q15687061 and Q19652. Is there some way to easily replace all Q15687061 with Q19652? Is it something done by a underlying software, bot, or by hand using some tool? --Jarekt (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

KrBot does it. If it doesn't happen immediately, there's a delay, in case the merge is wrong. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Request

I know it's not good etiquette, but I am not active on Wikidata and do not understand the explanation provided here. Anyway, would it be possible to merge Q1796178 into Q377500? Many thanks. Brigade Piron (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No, since both items link to dewiki and one of them is a disambiguation. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge "Medical disclaimer" or not

• Template:No medical advice (Q5616976) links to several projects, but doesn't to en-WP
• Template:No medical advice (Q25970205) links to en-WP only.

Perhaps they are candidates for merging. But I'm in doubt. For more information see Zweifel, wo Zusammenlegen angebracht ist (de). I'ld be happy if you'ld answer the question in German. Thank you very much, Juetho (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Drop down

Help:Merge#Gadget currently says

"To use it, open either the recipient or obsolete item, go to the drop-down menu to the left of 'Search' in the top bar..."

To the left of the "Search" button below the "Find" box I see a button that says "Go". Where is the drop down menu and what is the "top bar"? Hyacinth (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps your skin is different than the default? →

--Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with merging "Green Bank Telescope (Q1544579)" and "Green Bank Observatory (Q50414869)"

Greetings and felicitations. I am unfamiliar with Wikidata, and so I am asking for help in merging two apparent duplicates: Green Bank Telescope (Q1544579) and Green Bank Observatory (Q50414869)—please. (I've read the Help page's instructions, but they are a bit beyond me. :-/) —DocWatson42 03:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

These are no duplicates at all. The former is telescope, the latter observatory (one part of the other). In brief, the instructions advise enabling a gadget or using a form. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me—Wikipedia (with which I am most familiar) does list the telescope, and the observatory (as an organization), which I forgot along the way. It seemed to me at the time that Wikidata treated both as physical installations (one of which happens to be apart of the other), and that the existence of two articles/entries was a mistake. As for the instructions, I enabled the gadget, but it failed to merge the two, and I'm afraid I missed the link to the form. —DocWatson42 (talk) DocWatson42 (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with merging Q10353577 and Q325646

Greetings! As other Wikipedians, I'm a bit new towards Wikidata, and I haven't been successful at merging Q10353577 and Q325646. Both of them are about the same opus from Chopin (hence there is no overlapping between the languages in which the Wikipedia articles are relating to Q10353577 and Q325646). Could someone please do it for me? Thank you in advance. Murthag06 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with merging

The Bot User:GZWDer (flood) has made a lot of duplicate, identified these:

Q75381547 = Q156548

Q75381565 = Q151773

Q75381567 = Q564889

Q75381622 = Q292274

Q75381623 = Q102139

Q75381958 = Q381700

Q75381959 = Q583639

Q75381961 = Q242348

Q75381962 = Q1966130

Q75381963 = Q242298

Q75382264 = Q817052

Q75382267 = Q242691

Q75382268 = Q570902

Q75382269 = Q573263

Q75382960 = Q601229

Q75383156 = Q724825

Q75288482 = Q11979359

Q75288483 = Q530958

Q75288485 = Q13369885

Q75288501 = Q1797989

Q75288513 = Q1797936

Q75288526 = Q265691

Q75381527 = Q3083032

Q75381545 = Q152935

--Kjeldjoh (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kjeldjoh: If you are certain that they are the same (usually you should check these items first), See Help:QuickStatements#Item_merging for ways to mass merge.--GZWDer (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I have found som more duplicate that User:GZWDer (flood) has made:

Q75363845 = Q356560

Q75381542 = Q19943

Q75381548 = Q54386

Q75381550 = Q230580

Q75381551 = Q191045

Q75454485 = Q3232528

Q75544508 = Q3232533

Q75544511 = Q3232550

Q75544513 = Q3320925

Q75544518 = Q201589

Q75544519 = Q214369

Q75756594 = Q847010

--Kjeldjoh (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I have found som more duplicate that User:GZWDer (flood) has made:

• Q75288497 = Q272905
• Q75382243 = Q1004037
• Q75382244 = Q159101
• Q75644764 = Q208615
• Q75644765 = Q160495
• Q75644766 = Q1429306
• Q75644768 = Q241033
• Q75644769 = Q1004751
• Q75673253 = Q231895
• Q75834560 = Q2317090
• Q76011420 = Q1640126
• Q76011421 = Q3185931
• Q76012035 = Q11106090
• Q76012036 = Q12316283
• Q76103328 = Q2036974

--Kjeldjoh (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with merging Q185478 and Q66707394

Hello. I have a request to merge countably infinite set (Q185478) and Countable set (Q66707394) because "countably infinite set" and "Countable set" are the same thing, as said in both of their descriptions and aliases! I hope my request will be accepted quickly. Thank you. Q.Khải (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Oslo Accords

What is the difference between Q49107 and Q17013132? 217.214.151.164 23:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Merging Q4151810 and Q63440363

Hello there, could someone merge these two, please? Special:MergeItems failed. Thanks, 188.146.181.143 23:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

How do we request a merge?

Thanks, Swordfishspring (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The help explains how to conduct merge by oneself, there is no need to request it. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: But it does not seem logical that users that come here for the first time and don't know how it works have to install a script or edit complex things manually. It would be more user friendly if there was a place where users could ask for help. --MGA73 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(Continued at Wikidata:Project chat#Create a help page.) --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge Q355505 with Q16591923?

I believe that cs:Přídomek (Q355505, nobiliary particle) and de:Adelsprädikat (Q16591923, nobility predicate) are in fact about the same concept, and thus should be linked. The problem is, each is linked to a different Italian article. Could someone more experienced, please, have a look at this? Kolikaok (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Beit HaKerem Valley (Q16254031) & No label defined (Q3720240)

These two items are the same valley. Half the Wikipedias link to one, and half to the other. Can they be combined?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geshem Bracha (talk • contribs) at 10. 5. 2020, 11:35 (UTC).

 Merged --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Q21338008 (Giuseppe Ramazzotti) and Q55071402 (Guiseppe Ramazzotti)

Hi! I found a duplicate:

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q55071402 (Guiseppe Ramazzotti, with a typo in the given name)
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21338008 (Giuseppe Ramazzotti)

Could someone please merge this?

Thanks --178.1.238.251 19:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Merged --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Giuseppe Pagano (Q552423) and Guiseppe Pagano (Q77353561)

Hi!

"Guiseppe Pagano (Q77353561)" has a typo in the given name. It should be merged into "Giuseppe Pagano (Q552423)".

Thanks!

--178.1.238.251 19:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Merged --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Highway 567 (Q96189833) & Puerto Rico Highway 567 (Q86753916)

Hi! I accidentally duplicated this with this. Could someone please merge this? Thank you. Yamil Rivera (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Merged --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please Improve Help for Merging

Hello. These two items are the same

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q95982275
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96105617

--Slayym (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please merge this?--Slayym

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please merge

Steam cracking (Q3972201) and steam cracking (Q2335334) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Need merging help

Two Wikipedia articles have been merged, but the Wikidata is separate. Need to merge them. Can someone help? Here are the links:

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21008740
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2087952

Thank you in advance. Aditya Kabir (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please help

I've been away from the Wiki projects for a decade or so and stuff has changed. Changing interwiki language links has become much more complicated. Being an inactive user I stumbled upon a chance to contribute and thought I would like in the old days but I am getting stuck. I have tried Merge.je and Special:MergeItems but the first errors out on a supposed conflict on nl.wikipedia and the latter on commons. My attempt was to merge Q45989 and Q61676627 . Any help is much appreciated. Matthias92 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is tricky, people from WikiProject Taxonomy would probably explain why the items should not be merged. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Advice needed

I would like svwp article sv:Ganesha (djur) (about a genus of ctenophores, see Ganesha Q10502654, genus of ctenophores) to be interwiki linked to en:Ganesha (ctenophore) (about the genus ctenophores, but here linked to Ganeshida Q1493402, order of ctenophores. Ganesha is the only genus in the order and enwp, dewp ands svwp for this reason dosen´t have articles at the level of order (the name of the order are redirected to tehe genus). But frwp, nlwp and ptwp have articles about the order (taxonomic rank) and red links for the genus. I´m not familiar with merging here, and my question is: should these items be merged, and if, how, or how can the svwp article otherwise be linked to the corresponding enwp and dewp articles here on Wikidata? Thank you for help, if someone wants to look at this. Höstblomma (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This is tricky, people from WikiProject Taxonomy would probably explain why the items should not be merged. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I will try to resolve the interwiki question there then. Thank you for your answer about not to merge these items. Höstblomma (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge request

Not sure where to request a merge.

Item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96074869 is the same person as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8404 .

Sincerely, Moldur (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thank you--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge help

I would like to merge (Q98373542) with (Q98373599) due to a typo in its name. Thanks. Yamil Rivera (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I already solved. Yamil Rivera (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I tried to solve it my way, but decided that the merge is the right thing to do. Actually the first link is a duplicate of the second one. Yamil Rivera (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 Merged according to the manual page. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Manual merge

Hello, what is the purpose of the section "Manual merge". On the French project chat, someone who wanted to merge two items tried to follow Help:Merge but did not succeed to merge because he said he was blocked at some step in the manual merge section. IMHO, we should make this section less visible because it makes things confusing; why do a manual merge when the recommended method is to use the Merge gadget? This page is too long. We could imagine to have a summary of this page that fits with need of beginner who wants to merge something and a more detailed page for advanced users. What do you think? Pamputt (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I added {{Collapse}} to the section. --- Jura 01:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Gothic merger

So, I am not sure about this, but it seems to me that the entries on gothic fiction and Gothic literature are essentially the same, content-wise, except that one uses the term "fiction" and the other, the more specific "literature" (which is probably due to the fact that there is no adequate common translation of "fiction" e.g. in Russian, which uses "literature" instead). Both were created in 2015, so it doesn't seem to be a deliberate split-off. I think I can pull off the manual merge on my own, but I'd like a second opinion from more experienced editors if it is even a good idea. --Koveras (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I would bring this up at the WD:Project chat. Anyway, Q19715429 claims it's a subclass of (P279) Q20669641, so somebody must have had a reason to keep two items. Category:Gothic fiction (Q7708156) should probably get some attention, too. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge Q4062105 & Q99884120

If you think, I read endless text to merge something, then youse are WRONG! Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Merged However, you would do it only once. Reading Help:Merge#Automatic merge and Help:Merge#Gadget is enough. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Avoid lost link for deleting pages which are later restored

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T75908

Undo failed Site link enwiki:Swat Expressway is already used by item Q18393161. Perhaps the items should be merged. Ask at d:Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts if you believe that they should not be merged.

Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts: If you think a simple merge should be performed, you can perform a merge by following the instructions at Help:Merge. Please report here only interwiki conflicts, not duplicate items.

Revision history of Q47089853

• I did not personally make the 00:36, 24 October 2020‎ edit. Some stupid bot is making this edit and putting my name to the edit rather than its own bot name.
• My intent was not to permanently delete this item. I only needed to temporarily delete that page on English Wikipedia in order to set up for a history-merge.
• Per the instructions at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Wikidata, Page moves and deletions are generally reflected on Wikidata as soon as they happen. After performing a history merge, it is a good idea to check your Wikidata contribs and restore pages to their previous state if necessary. I try to keep up with this, but this is putting a burden on admins to remember yet another manual step in an already complex process of the steps needed to perform a history-merge. Sometimes I don't get around to doing this until hours or a day later, or more.
• The bot that notices virtually immediately after I delete a page never notices when I restore that deleted page.
• Swat Motorway (Q18393161) and Swat Expressway (Q47089853) are the same road.
• I've been willing to take extra time to accommodate this project by reverting the edits this bot makes in my name, when I'm able to. But installing and using some "merge gadget" is a bridge too far for me. Sorry.

— Wbm1058 (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello, I don't know how to do it but those 2 articles should be merge, please help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring And https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitufeo_(banca)  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.27.34.61 (talk • contribs).

On hold Recently, they were split by Moebeus and marked as said to be the same as (P460). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: Hi there! I think my reasoning was that while English wiki says they are the same, Polish Wiki has separate articles both on "Structuring" and about "Smurfing" (as a type of structuring). I just grouped all the smurfs together and have no strong feelings about this. Moebeus (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Q794958 + Q31875209

Q794958 + Q31875209 should be merged. --2A01:C23:944F:3600:880B:4E55:64CB:249A 07:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is "merge" gadget ?

Hi,
I would like to merge items Q1567490 and Q94989675. I wanted to follow the protocol explained on this page, however no such gadget as "Merge" exists in Preferences > Gadgets ... Could anyone enlighten me on that ?
Thanks in advance, --Macquaria (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, the first item under "Wikidata-centric" should be "

<translate> Merge: This script adds a tool for merging items. </translate>". --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ! Actually, my problem was I was searching on Wikipedia's "Preferences" section, not Wikidata's ...

Yet I still can't perform the merge I wanted :

Error while "Please wait...": A conflict detected on commonswiki: Q94989675 with commonswiki:Category:Alcántara dam, Q1567490 with commonswiki:Category:Alcántara Reservoir

--Macquaria (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

One item is for the dam and the other item is for the resevoir in front of the dam. They are not supposed to be merged. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Open questions about unmerging : what to do about changes that occured after the merge ?

 Question How to find usage of the item in statements created after the merge and check them ? How to check the new sitelinks to see on which item they should be linked ?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomT0m (talk • contribs) at 3. 11. 2015, 12:21‎ (UTC).

Merge Request

Q9032579 and Q86796150 schould be merged. Thanks. --109.125.72.174 15:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge Request Re / RE

Q611130 (Re) and Q20987254 (RE) should be merged. Thanks --109.125.72.174 16:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This cannot happen because of two articles in cswiki, ruwiki, shwiki and ukwiki. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge request Works Constitution Act (Q101094815)/Works Constitution Act (Q832115)

Works Constitution Act (Q101094815) and Works Constitution Act (Q832115)

Merge Works Constitution Act (Q101094815) and Works Constitution Act (Q832115) The German link is a redirect. I am unsure how to merge these. Will try to learn from this. Shushugah (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge request Atze Schröder (Q610528) and Hubertus Albers (Q21820014)

It's the same person with the same picture in the wikidata article. The two different articles lead in missbehaviour in the articles in Wikipedia. Interwiki-Links do not exist as expected. It's possible to go from the german article to the english and then from the english to the french. From the french article, it's possible to go back to the german article but not back from the german to the french article. See also discussion in german. Thanks for your help --Netpilots (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No good idea. Cause of legal actions that were taken by the actor the german WP decided not to implement any connection between the stage name and the real name of this actor. A merge as requested would work against this decision. Kind regards. --Carol.Christiansen (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

John Wynn Gillespie

John Wynn Gillespie (Q105937370) and John Wynn Gillespie (Q18984952) are the same person. The first one has no references, only a link to Wikispecies, which gives the same birth and death dates. I'm not familiar with Wikidata so I'm not sure how to merge. Thanks. Dank (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

 Merged according to the manual. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks much. Dank (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge Wikimedia Category entry and Object entry?

I've hit a problem i didn't encounter yet and need some help on merging. I've tried to add the commons category on Kazerun (a city in Iran) with its Wikidata Object. This yields an error, because the commons category is already attached to the Wikidata object of the Wikimedia category. Is this a case for merging? --Fl.schmitt (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not. Items about categories and topics are separate on purpose and I believe there is a consensus to put the Commons category to the category item in such cases. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, i understand - thank your for the reply and clarification! --Fl.schmitt (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Broken Down Film

Merge elements Q21206606 and Q18414501, becaus they are the same animated short.--Janik98 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge Request

@Matěj Suchánek:, Hi! Tanhum of Jerusalem (Q106291792) and Tanḥum ben Joseph, of Jerusalem (Q7068124) are one and the same person. Since I am unfamiliar with Wikidata and the merge process, and since I have seen that you have assisted others in this project, may I ask that you help me here?Davidbena (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

 Merged by Minorax. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Getting Wikidata to appear in Wikipedia article

@Ymblanter:, shalom. How can I get the info shown here in Wikidata to appear in the Wikipedia article entitled On Weights and Measures? The article already has an "Authority control" template, but, still, the Wikidata bar for that book title does not appear in the article. Will appreciate any help that you can give.Davidbena (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't see any identifiers in On Weights and Measures (Q29029690) that could be used for Authority control. That's why it remains empty. --PhiH (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @PhiH:. So, since I am obviously unfamiliar with the process of adding Identifiers to the Wikidata page for "On Weights and Measures," a cursory review shows the following WorldCat Identities: OCLC:912074 - which happens to be the Syriac translation of Epiphanius' "On Weights and Measures"; OCLC:949045253 - which title, "De mensuris et ponderibus," is the Latin equivalent given for the Armenian translation of Epiphanius' "On Weights and Measures." Both OCLC indentifiers refer to Epiphanius' work "On Weights and Measures," which he originally compiled in Greek. Under the Wikidata Identifier for the National Library of Israel J9U ID (P8189) I have searched the holdings of that library and I notice where it lists their system identification number for this work as 990030511370205171, which you can access here. I'm not sure if all this is helpful. There must also be a Greek-language publication of the original work. See, for example, Sebastian P. Brock , “Epiphanius of Salamis,” in Epiphanius of Salamis, edited by Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz and Lucas Van Rompay. The extant Greek manuscript of Epiphanius' "On Weights and Measures" is now preserved at the Bodleian Library at Oxford University in the UK, as shown here. Hope this helps.Davidbena (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge items

I cannot merge Q49892061 and Q8991401. It breaks with "Error: Conflicting descriptions for language ro". --95.127.162.246 15:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Adithyak1997 (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The same with Q61439680 and Q3472663. --95.127.162.246 16:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)