"Duplicate" Wiki pages

Good morning Admins,

• The Wiki-button on the James City / York / Williamsburg (VA) DB page links to this Wiki page:
  James City / York / Williamsburg
  
  
• There appears to be a "duplicate" Wiki page at:
  James City County / York County / Williamsburg / Poquoson

From what I can tell, the second Wiki page is an older page, possibly a legacy page from an earlier DB Wiki-button naming convention.

Do you think the second page's contents should be merged/copied into the first Wiki page? Or do you prefer otherwise?

Thanks,

Handled.

Thanks.

Another pair

Good afternoon,

Here seems to be another pair of "duplicate" Wiki-pages:

• US Forest Service - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UT)
• US Forest Service - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UT

It seems like the second one was created recently.


Edit: I have searched for a matching RRDB page for each of the above Wiki pages and have found neither. While looking, I learned that according to this RRDB page (Uintah County (UT)), the county's name is spelled "Uintah". I don't know if that implies that an "h" belongs in the above link-names or not.

Edit2: This RRDB page (National Forests (UT)) seems to have items related to the above National Forest, but its associated Wiki page (via the "Wiki" button) no longer exists.

Thanks,

Looks like the 2nd one is a mis-spelling of the first (notice the missing right parenthesis). Additionally it has no category

I'd break the links, copy the data from the 2nd page to the first, then empty it. That way it's an orphan and will no longer be in the active pool

Mike

ka3jjz said:

I'd break the links, copy the data from the 2nd page to the first, then empty it. That way it's an orphan and will no longer be in the active pool

Click to expand...

Ok. Will do.
Edit: Done.

I added some "edits" to my earlier post, too, in-case you read the original before I updated it.

Thanks,

Someone added data right back into the erroneous page (the one with the missing right parenthesis) - they must have known the URL or looked in the public reports area to find it...

Mike

ka3jjz said:

Someone added data right back into the erroneous page (the one with the missing right parenthesis) - they must have known the URL or looked in the public reports area to find it...

Mike

Click to expand...

The editor might have the incorrectly named page in their watch-list. So,

• After copying the new data to the bottom of the correctly-named page, I put an explanatory note on the incorrectly-named page requesting that future edits be made to the correctly-named page, and provided a link to it and this thread.
• I will remove the message from the incorrectly-named page in the near future so that it will be truly blank and will show-up in the orphan list from which it will be deleted like the other orphans.
• Do you have any other advice on how to proceed?

Thanks,

For the time being, I have protected the "US Forest Service - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UT" page so that only admins can edit it.

Good morning admins,

Here is a pair of wiki pages with nearly identical/"duplicate" names:

• City of Rochester (NY) FD
• City of Rochester (NY) Fire Dept

From the contents, it might be clearer if the second page above were renamed as "City of Rochester (NY) Fire Apparatus" .

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Here's another set:

• St. Louis County (MO)
• St. Louis City (MO)
  
  
• St. Louis City County (MO)

I might be wrong, but it seems like the last one above should be blanked and deleted because a St. Louis "City county" does not seem to exist in MO.

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

My take on the 2 listed sets of dupes - I'll let Bob W9BU make the call, as he's the active admin here...

For the NY articles - although it appears that the titles are similar, the content isn't completely duplicated. It might be best to move all the apparatus stuff to one page, put a note that there are discrepancies that need to be resolved, and link the 2 articles together. Probably renaming or moving one of the articles to make the title and content match would be in order (instead of a redirect, I'd create a new article and empty out the other, orphan it and have it dropped, but that's just me - I don't like making redirects when this method works too). Resolving the differences requires someone in the NY area with knowledge of the apparatus in that area, so unless you are there, you can't assume one or the other is correct.

I would tread somewhat carefully with this St.Louis business. There is a St.Louis County, and a St. Louis City both listed as separate entities in the database and it appears to be easy to confuse the two. The trick here is to determine which data belongs to what in 'St Louis City County'. This is another instance where local knowledge will help. Once you know how to split that City County article, it can be emptied out, orphaned and dropped.

Mike

That last St.Louis article has nothing but 2 links in it. I'd move the links to the appropriate place, blank the article, orphan it then have Bob drop it. It doesn't serve any useful purpose just to house 2 links that belong elsewhere anyway

No doubt someone put this here that wasn't familiar with the wiki structure and how to find articles...

Mike

Good afternoon Admins,

Here seems to be another "duplicate" page situation:

• Hatford (City) Radio ID's, and
• Hartford CT Radio ID's

The second one was created initially, but was moved to the top page (to match the DB naming-convention).
The second one was then blanked so it could be deleted, but now seems to be active again.
The data in the second page seems to be a verbatim duplicate of what already exists in the first one.
Please consider deleting the second page.

Thanks for your time and consideration,

I edited the old article to redirect to the new article and protected the old article so only admins can edit it.

Thank you.

Another pair of "duplicates"

Good evening,

These two pages contain much of the same info.

• St. Louis Area Trunked Emergency Radio - SLATER (P25) Radio IDs
• St. Louis Area Trunked Emergency Radio - SLATER (P25) Unknown Talkgroups and Radio IDs

Should they be more clearly separated, or should they be merged/combined into one?

Thanks,

I would say merge them. I moved that data with the 'unknown' into its own article to move it off the main page for that system, not looking at the first one, thinking that had confirmed Radio IDs which I didn't want to touch

Mike

What I was thinking last night when I posted the above question(s)...

Since

• less than half of the items on the St. Louis Area Trunked Emergency Radio - SLATER (P25) Unknown Talkgroups and Radio IDs page are actually unknown, and
• most of them are duplicates of the items on the St. Louis Area Trunked Emergency Radio - SLATER (P25) Radio IDs page,

it might be clearer to separate the lists more completely by

• placing the known items on the St. Louis Area Trunked Emergency Radio - SLATER (P25) Radio IDs page, and
• placing only unknown items on the St. Louis Area Trunked Emergency Radio - SLATER (P25) Unknown Talkgroups and Radio IDs page.

But, If pages are merged...

• If the pages are merged onto the "unknown page", it would seem confusing to have the page named "unknown" because the list contains more known than unknown.
  
• If, instead, the pages are merged onto the "known page", it would seem confusing and different than current policy-by-practice not having unknown TGs on their own page separate from everything else.

After reconsidering the situation, a better idea might be...

If the pages are more clearly separated...

• So far, the policy-by-practice has been to have a separate page for "Unknown Talkgroups", a separate page for "RIDs/UIDs" (known and unknown), but not a separate page for either "Unknown RIDs/UIDs", nor a blended page with both TGs and RIDs/UIDs.
  
  
• Maybe the more consistent thing to do would be to separate the data into a "normal" "RIDs/UIDs" (known and unknown) page, and an "Unknown Talkgroups" page.

Thoughts?

Some random thoughts here - the problem here is one of data.

TGs and RIDs are tied together. While it might have been true at the time the transmission was logged, it's quite possible that the same association may not exist on subsequent or future transmissions.

I understand that it was meant as a research page - and that's fine - but going forward, those associations might not exist again, if ever. I'm not sure, frankly, how you could merge the two, unless the page title or description were to caution against making that association.

I have a feeling that someone might have duplicated the data on that linked page, and simply slapped it onto the trunked system page, not liking (or maybe not understanding) how linked pages work. Or perhaps not understanding how these pages are supposed to be structured (keeping such a list - which is likely to get longer - off the main trunked system page allows it to grow without the purpose of the trunked system page getting overwhelmed.).

A few questions in the Missouri forum might be in order here

Mike

Another set of similarly named pages are:

• Washington Gas
• Washington Gas Light Company

Both point to the same RRDB page. Since both have years-long history-logs, I'm not sure if there's some reason for them to coexist, or if one can be deleted.

I'm inclined to think that the one listed first should be deleted, since the one listed second matches the system name in the RRDB.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

And neither one have any real content.

Handled. Thank you.