|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 2014.|
For merging items, you may want to use the merge.js gadget from help page about merging. It has an option "Request deletion for extra items on RfD" to automatically place a request to delete the emptied page. This way of nominating makes it a lot easier for the admins to process the requests.
- I know; normally I just delete them directly, but Magnus's tool doesn't use the right format (and also doesn't check if I'm a sysop and just delete directly). Boo. James F. (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Thomas11: Hmm, very odd; my adding the data is via Magnus's tool, and I'm pretty sure I didn't see Reagan's name come up, let alone doing the wrong one. Beyond anything else, adding a sex statement to an item that already has one isn't something that it should do. For now, I will stop using the tool. James F. (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Aha, found the problem - two jobs got mixed up. Running the tool in reverse to fix it. Thanks for the heads-up! James F. (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Good evening Jdforrester. One other contributor told me about these 2 gadgets : merging and deleting. Like you said, it is very easy to use and it is also faster. So if you look t my contributions page, you can see that the only time when I requested a deletion this way was because I requested the deletion of the page which was with all the information in it. So I did it manually. I hope you keep going. Good night.
Nezdek (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Nezdek: You can use the tool even if the target page has all the information - it won't duplicate. This makes things easier for you. James F. (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
When merging, shouldn't we keep the item with the largest edit history?
Hi James. I just noticed that a merger occurred between invalid ID (Q15978207) and Literary language (Q1097949). Although I agree that the items should have been merged, I remember to have made numerous changes to Q15978207 whose history was lost with the merger. Shouldn't we strive to keep the item with the largest edit history, regardless of it being "newer" than the other? This is what seems to be implied on Help:Merge:
- "... one item is selected to be the recipient of the sitelinks and properties. This is usually the item that is used more often. If you can't tell, best choose the one with the lowest Q####, as it is the oldest item."
Maybe the problem is with me; I'm used to the guidelines seen on other wikimedia projects that stress the importance of keeping the page history, and it's a bit hard for me to get used to the fact that wikidata is a different thing (is it?). Regards, Capmo (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're right that it's not a great system right now (deleting one is always going to be destructive). I believe that the Wikidata developers have been working on making merging work a lot better, preserving the edit history – so hopefully it won't last. James F. (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Page histories are rather irrelevant on Wikidata as we contribute under the CC-0 licence here as opposed to other Wikimedia projects. The page history is therefore just a Wikidata-internal thing which is meaningless regarding attribution. That's why I don't think keeping the item with the largest page history is too important though obviously for reasons of transparency it would be great if the development team could manage to preserve the entire history, in order to see which user/bot added what. Regards, Vogone (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)