Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Bureaucrats' noticeboard This is a noticeboard for all matters requiring bureaucrats' attention. For privacy-related issues send an email to the bureaucrats' mailing list, please. This is not the appropriate place to request help with editing or to request help from administrators.

Translate this header box! Start a new discussion Request account renaming

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2020/06.

Project chat	Lexicographical data	Administrators' noticeboard	Development team
Translators' noticeboard	Request a query	Requests for deletions	Requests for comment
Bot requests	Requests for permissions	Property proposal	Properties for deletion
Partnerships and imports	Interwiki conflicts	Bureaucrats' noticeboard	Requests for checkuser

permanent duplicated item (P2959)

Hallo,

the svwp has two articles for the same Chilean river es:Arroyo Veco (Ajatama)

1. sv:Río Macusa ---> Q23305808
2. sv:Estero Veco (periodiskt vattendrag) ---> Q22440317 (this one is asociated with the article in the eswp.)

Q23305808 and Q22440317 can't be merged because they have a different article pointers.

I added a permanent duplicated item (P2959) to every record.

My question is: Is this the correct way to handle double articles?.

--Juan Villalobos (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, No, you should have used said to be the same as (P460) instead. I have corrected that. Lymantria (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you, Lymantria.

The origin of the problem is that the river (https://www.google.com/maps/@-18.9282884,-69.27875,3614m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en , is somtimes called "Macusa" (see map of the US c:File:Txu-oclc-224571178-se19-10.jpg) and sometimes "Veco" (see c:File:01-tacna-arica.jpg).

With said to be the same as (P460), it is still impossible to merge Q23305808 and Q22440317.

Is there a method to merge the two records with different pages in the same wp?.

--Juan Villalobos (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the usual answer in these cases to try to get the offending item merged on the other wiki first? —Scs (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the items need to merged on the Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedias. Until this has been done, we have to keep two items.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I did it once but I had doubt whether it was there some option in wikidata. Thanks for all. --Juan Villalobos (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's the same, you can do this and move all statements to Q22440317 --- Jura 09:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

What I do in similar cases is to resolve duplicates on sv:WP / ceb:WP by redirecting one to the other (deliberate choice, usually the one with less bot generated stuff - without understanding a word). I leave the cleanup to @Lsj: or someone else, I don't care for the rubbish created. (e.g. mountains at the border often are created twice, once for each neighbouring state). Then I remove the sitelinks on Wikidata for the redirected pages. This allows me to merge in Wikidata. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There should be some kind of REDIRECT in Wikidata. When a template in some Wiki (es, en, de, sv, etc) requests the content of a record, Wikidata should send the data of the pointed record (and not "it is empty"). That would avoid to intervene in Wikis where I don't understand the content. --Juan Villalobos (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Juan Villalobos: did you have a look at Wikidata:Database reports/Identified duplicates? --- Jura 07:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: Yes, I read the header several times. I can't understand it.

I guess that such cases of doubles are present in content generated by bots and humans. There should be a clear and easy step by step instruccions how to resolve it. It is not the case today.

Now I think that the possible way is to delete the content of a bot generated article, redirect to the another article, and merge both records in Wikidata.

But I don't like to delete a content that I don't understand.

--Juan Villalobos (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I know it's tempting, but there isn't really anything that can be done about it at Wikidata. It's up to the other projects and their editorial choices. Wikidata should not give instructions to other projects about the way to handle them.

At Wikidata, there is a bot that merges the items once the project cleared it (usually a merge, sometimes month if not years later, but what they do is up to them). --- Jura 12:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Romualdo Ferreira d'Almeida

Dear all,
Three pages reffer to an unique entomologist, Romualdo Ferreira d'Almeida (Q21338820, Q22112588, Q55008232). Two of them are connected to wikispecies but the other one is more complete. And there is also some typographic variations. But I think it will be better to have only one page. Thanks for actions and comments. Have a nice day :-) Givet (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have merged the items over on Wikispecies and also here on Wikidata. - FakirNL (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Pintoch

@Ymblanter: Per Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Reforming_the_property_creation_process#Admin_activity, creating properties will count as an administrative action. So Pintoch will only meet the inactivity condition as of 1 September. Note I do not propose an reinstatement of adminship in this case as he seems no longer have an interest.--GZWDer (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks like property creation is not reflected in this count (which makes our job more difficult, but this is not the point now). Pintoch has made two administratve actions in December (and never since) but has created a bunch of properties in February. Comments on how to proceed are welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless Pintoch comes back, I don't think there is any benefit to regranting adminship now, only to remove it in a few months. I would propose:

• If Pintoch returns before 1 September and requests to have their permissions restored, adminship be restored as a matter of policy, since it was removed accidentally
• If Pintoch does not make any such request by 1 September, the rights stay removed, and a new RfA is needed

Just my $0.02. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The stupid thing is that they are around, they have for example reacted on my message at their talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for trying to get this right! I really do not mind losing those user groups, I am indeed no longer involved in these activities. So I am happy not to be an admin and not to be a property creator anymore. Thank you all for your work! − Pintoch (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we can probably treat this as a resignation then and the appropriate clauses apply. --Rschen7754 18:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Mass… waitings

Hello Bureaucrats,

I am editing populations with QS2 and, apparently, it will not happen in hours, but in days. Editing stops on a batch and I have to restart, no matter what time of day. I need to identify the problem and also to shorten the time as much as possible. Could you grant me flood for this operation, please? I will return the flag when finished. —Eihel (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Eihel, I am not certain the flag will help much, but I granted the flag for a week. Please remove it when you are done. Lymantria (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)