Page MenuHomePhabricator

Identical items can't be merged due to duplicate articles in ceb wikipedia
Closed, ResolvedPublicBUG REPORT

Description

Steps to Reproduce:
Q33512910 and Q1305 are about the same concept and should be merged, but can't

  • Select the merge option in the top right corner
    merge.png (330×2 px, 193 KB)
  • add the QID of the other Wikidata item in the merge wizard popup
    Screenshot 2019-06-21 at 11.34.19.png (728×902 px, 77 KB)
  • push merge

Actual Results:

photo_2019-06-21 10.50.54.jpeg (276×906 px, 59 KB)

Expected Results:
successful merge.

Event Timeline

@Andrawaag: What is "Merge Wizard"? Where to find / see Merge Wizard? Is this on wikidata.org ? Please include steps to reproduce and set a project tag, if possible, so someone else can find this task. Thanks!

This is a known issue and happens all the time. The wiki has a dup, wikidatan sees it and attempts to merge, failure raises a bug for wikidata. The proper way to deal with it is to 1) assign the property "said to be same as" to one of the wikidata items and on the wiki page of the same item, add that wiki's equivalent of the English Wikipedia merge template. That said, and sight unseen, I know enough about cebwiki to know the granularity of topics is higher than most, if not all, Wikipedias and the mistake is probably in the user's interpretation. In short, without checking, I will assume these should not be merged at all.

I am back and after checking, happy to report I was right. One is the town, and the other is the municipality. They are not the same and should not be merged.

@Andrawaag: What is "Merge Wizard"? Where to find / see Merge Wizard? Is this on wikidata.org ? Please include steps to reproduce and set a project tag, if possible, so someone else can find this task. Thanks!

I added additional screen-dumps. I was assuming this is a default wikidata feature, but I guess its something I installed a long time ago.

The message you received was correct. There is a help page for this: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Merge

I am back and after checking, happy to report I was right. One is the town, and the other is the municipality. They are not the same and should not be merged.

Can you elaborate a bit more on this? I am trying to understand these ceb originated statements, but I don't speak ceb and most of the ceb originated statements are poorly referenced. If you look at the specific wikidata page you argue should not be merged, it is hard to see what it actually is and why it should stay a Wikidata item on its own merit. Except for two statements (P31 and P625), none of the statements has references. Based on both having P31 -> city, it makes sense to merge those.

Yes sorry if the statements seem so ambiguous, this is just one of many cases where such things occur. One is a historic city and one is a current city. The problem probably arises because there is so little left of the original historic center in today's city, due to WWII bombing. The maps of both should make it clear, as do the titles in cebwiki themselves, which simply reflect the Dutch. A municipality has generally over time annexed various lands due to growth. The historic city limits generally follow some historic city wall footprint, though in this case it is hard to tell.

So if I understand it correctly, Q33512910 is the historical entity of Wageningen and Q1305 is the current city of Wageningen? What exactly is meant by historical? 100 years, 10 years? ... Also can we not report in the current wageningen historical changes using e.g. the end time property? In the "old" city it should then be clearly mentioned that this is an old city with a rough end estimation or not?

No I have not explained it well then. Try to think of it in terms of postal districts or voting districts. As a town grows, generally neighboring villages are annexed, but they do not lose their postal codes or voting district names. This is just as true for the original "core" district as it is for any other municipal district. In this case the core district and the wider municipal area have the same name. That is all.

The bug, if there is any, is in GeoNames or in wherever else @Lsj's bot obtains its geographic information. Ultimately it must be corrected there or there is still a risk of reintroducing it to Wikidata.

Jane023 claimed this task.

This is not a bug. Everything is working as expected. The problem was entirely on the user side in their interpretation of the error message, which was entirely correct.