Another interesting type of Scottish historic orphans are those that are duplicates of items that do have site links. Even very prominent ones are duplicated, such as

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17569486 (dup)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q933000 (real item)

Interestingly, they use different Scotland IDs, and it does indeed seem that Historic Scotland also contains duplicates:

http://data.historic-scotland.gov.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=2200:15:0::::BUILDING,HL:47778
http://data.historic-scotland.gov.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=2200:15:0::::BUILDING,HL:49165

Overall, this seems to be an example of an ID that really should not be considered "identity providing" since there seems to be an many-to-many relationship between Wikidata and Historic Scottland. Orphans should receive additional ids from a better source if at all possible. With the great number of seemingly legit non-functional uses of the Scotland IDs, they cannot be used in practice to detect duplicates.

Regards,

Markus

On 02.06.2015 13:01, Markus Krötzsch wrote:

On 02.06.2015 11:30, Magnus Manske wrote:

Update 2:
For example,
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17847522
and
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17847537
have the same Scotland ID, but refer to different entities (church and
churchyard, respectively). They were as two entities in the original
dataset, sharing the same ID.

Yes, I noticed such cases too. From the information Wikidata, it is not
clear to me why this is sometimes done and sometimes not done.

For example, these adjacent houses have the same Scotland ID but
different items that each have their own coordinates (where did the
coordinates come from?):

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17576211
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17576182
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17576185

In many other cases, adjacent houses with the same ID are combined into
one item:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17806587

(note, however, that the house addresses given in the ID and in the item
label do not match, though they overlap on most of the houses.)

Finally, there are also cases where there are different IDs and we have
several items, but they have the same labels that merge the contents of
the two IDs:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17810121
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17810137


It seems that the data was not taken from the Historic Sites database
but from some different source that has its own coordinate data and a
different (but seemingly arbitrary) approach to grouping sites. However,
the coordinated give Historic Scotland as their reference -- I wonder if
Historic Scotland might be changing frequently or exist in several
versions.

Regards,

Markus

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:26 AM Magnus Manske
<magnusmanske@googlemail.com <mailto:magnusmanske@googlemail.com>> wrote:

    Update: There appear to be quite a few items with duplicate Scotland
    IDs (not all of them may be erroneous!):
    http://wdq.wmflabs.org/stats?action=doublestring&prop=709

    On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:23 AM Magnus Manske
    <magnusmanske@googlemail.com <mailto:magnusmanske@googlemail.com>>
    wrote:

        I created (some/most of) these items as part of the Wiki Loves
        Monuments UK 2014 drive, to run the campaign from Wikidata
        rather than from a bespoke database. This allows the community
        (TM) to maintain the data, rather than one poor sod (e.g.,
        myself) having to frantically update all of it every year ;-)

        "Consumer" tool is here:
        https://tools.wmflabs.org/wlmuk/index_wd.html

        These are based on "official" data from National Heritage,
        provided to me via Wikimedia UK. Grade A (or Grade I/II* in
        England) structures should be noteworthy by default.

        It appears (as per your examples) that some of these were
        created as duplicates/with wrong IDs. As I said, this is based
        on "official" data, so it's the best I could do at the time.
        With mass creation, there are bound to be a few strays. If you
        can find some large-scale, systemic issue I'll try to fix it,
        but the one-offs will always fall back to manual fixing. At
        least, with Wikidata, we can fix them together.

        On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:01 AM Daniel Kinzler
        <daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de
        <mailto:daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de>> wrote:

            Am 01.06.2015 um 22:26 schrieb Markus Krötzsch:
             > Finally, the technical question is: Why is this even
            possible? I thought that,
             > in each language, label+description are a key (globally
            unique), yet here we
             > have many pairs of items with exactly the same label and
            description. Or is the
             > problem that no description was entered and so the system
            does not apply the
             > key?

            The uniqueness constraint does indeed not apply if there is
            no description.

            --
            Daniel Kinzler
            Senior Software Developer

            Wikimedia Deutschland
            Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

            _______________________________________________
            Wikidata mailing list
            Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
            <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>
            https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata



_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata