[00:31:36] markh: What is 'a lot more' statements regarding merging? Looking at Q3024244 and Q18245731. The former is quite minimal, the latter has a bunch of identifiers. Both have one sitelink each. [00:37:10] JAA: It looks like a case of conflation. It appears that Q3024244 is an Italian DJ duo, Q4037236 is an American rock band, and Q18245731 has a mixture of statements some applying to the first and some applying to the second. [00:37:51] Yeah, I was just looking into that mess actually. Q3024244 also has some unrelated statements coming from a collaboration with another Italian duo. [00:38:18] (The 'has parts' one) [00:40:29] What's the best course of action here? Move everything in Q18245731 to one of the other two manually, I guess? If so, what to do with Q18245731 at the end? [00:41:01] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Conflation [00:44:00] Thanks! [00:44:35] For people, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Conflation_of_two_people suggests making the conflated item an instance of conflation (Q14946528) [00:51:52] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Split_an_item suggests to use merges to transfer everything including references. So I'd merge Q18245731 into Q3024244, restore, merge into Q4037236, restore, then turn it into an instance of conflation? (And remove the merged statements from Q3024244 and Q4037236 that don't apply.) [00:54:00] I would use the moveClaim gadget. If not already enabled you can enable it in Preferences. [00:54:35] That does seem more reasonable. [01:12:27] Not sure what to do with the Myspace and Twitter entries on Q18245731. They're empty and have zero indication of which of the two (or possibly another entirely unrelated entity) they belong to. They both come from https://musicbrainz.org/artist/777cf761-b5aa-46b1-a6c1-0ba4fea39e8e , which clearly belongs to Q3024244 but also links to the Deezer entry of Q4037236... [01:13:14] The other identifiers are themselves conflations, and I've seen other examples of 'instance of conflation' entries which left them there for that reason. Makes sense to me. [01:15:18] (The Myspace page used to belong to Q3024244 based on the Wayback Machine. It's been empty for years now though.) [01:22:59] I would expect the band members to be among the 10 following and/or 9 followers on the Twitter account, but I don't see any matches so it may be an unrelated account. [01:23:47] The American band has a different account, and the Italian group (apparently a trio, not a duo?) dissolved before the account was created, so yeah, it does appear to be unrelated. [01:25:48] (Actually, not quite dissolved, just much less active than before. They still exist.) [05:10:10] How should a situation be handled where multiple separate entities are described on one wiki page? Specifically, I'm looking at one where there have been three different Danish jazz trios over the years (distinct names and members) which are all described on a single page on Danish Wikipedia. I think each trio formation should have its own WD item, but sitelinks must be unique... [05:14:08] There are already messy WD items for two of the trios. Identifiers for all three mixed up, and one statement that doesn't even belong to any of the three (but rather to one member) as the cherry on top. They also have sitelinks to Danish WP, with one of those links being a redirect nowadays (which I think couldn't even be assigned now since IIRC sitelink redirects get detected on the dupe check). [05:52:30] I also found Q1531509, which was originally created for a German band, now represented by Q109424218, but hijacked by an Irish band of the same name via a merge of Q3778322 in August 2018. The item had existed since December 2012; a number of edits have been made since the merge. Should it still be unmerged?