Cycn

I will not talk to numbers and I wíll not engage bullies or trolls. I won't react to any comment posted by IP addresses. It's not humanly possible to distinguish on IP address from another, and I cannot be expected to recognize you, which puts me on an unfair disadvantage. I don't know who I'm talking to, so I don't. Create an account, then I can recognize you as an individual and group you contributions as being yours.

I will not react to any post you make anywhere and I will remove any post placed by IP addresses on my talk page. The latter also goes for a very small number of people I specifically uninvited from my talk page; It's my talk page. I preserve the right to remove any and all comment on my talk page. I will, of cause, return the (dis)favor; Your talk page is yours, I'll respect that.

Most of the time, even if we disagree, it should be clear what I'm objecting to (you can ask, but please don't push it), and if you choose to come back a later, respecting the objections I had, I will engage with you again, unless you're still a number.

Feel free to disagree, I still won't talk to numbers... - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 20:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

je kan niet zeggen 'voormalige gemeente van Nederland'-> einddatum 31 dec 2014 , wel 'Nederlandse gemeente' -> einddatum 31 dec 2014. Vandaar ook mijn bijschrijving bij het item voormalige gemeente van Nederland. user:Michiel1972

Ik zag niet dat jij het was... Maar ik heb mijn aanpassing weer teruggedaaid dus nu staat het weer goed... - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Om daarop in te haken: Statements die ooit waar waren moet je niet weghalen, maar voorzien van een eind datum (of andere qualifier). Neem bijvoorbeeld deze change, hier had je de shares border with (P47) niet moeten verwijderen. Het is wel even andere manier van denken dan op Wikipedia. In de infobox willen we de informatie die nu waar is, hier willen we de informatie die nu of in het verleden waar is geweest. http://www.gemeentegeschiedenis.nl/ is best wel een leuke site hiervoor, let wel op dat de recente herindelingen daar nog niet zijn doorgedrongen. Multichill (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: In grote lijnen heb je gelijk, in elk geval in deze gevallen. Er zijn echter wiki's die bepaalde properties automatisch invoegen, dus dan is het zaak dat er de oude verwijderd worden. Dit geldt, bijvoorbeeld, voor P41 (vlag) en P94 (wapen) en voor de ruwiki en de viwiki die deze automatisch inpassen in een infobox. Voor aangrenzende gemeentes zal dat niet gebeuren, lijkt me. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nee, die moet je niet verwijderen! Verander de rank naar deprecated (en voeg eindatum toe) dan is het niet meer te zien op Wikipedia. Multichill (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Cycn, Can you explain your mass reverting of my edits? Geagea (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Categories and articles are different things. Even categories from Commons should be added to category items, not to article items. There are different ways to connect Commons categories to articles: Commons has the template:On Wikipedia[1], and here you can add the Property:P373 to link the commons category as a property of the articles. This propery is used on several local wikis to add the link to the articles, and probably more wikis will be adding code to use the P373 entries to automatically add commons categories to articles. There are articles on Commons, though not as much as on local Wikipedias, and they should be added to article items on Wikidata. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

So this revert for example was proper? Or there is any hiden reason that you attck only my edits her? Geagea (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, both the enwiki and hewiki entries are articles, the commonswiki entry you added was a category. Categories and articles mustn't be mixed, so I reverted them. I saw you added more categories from Commons to article items, so I'm checking them as I did before with a few other people who make this mistake. It's nothing personal, if you were wondering... (You did add some Commons categories to category items, so you may have seen a few 'thank you's for that) - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

In this specific cae you are wrong because there is only one photograph in this category. Not a reason for for gallery. See User talk:Lymantria#תיאטרון גבעתיים (Q18192252). This is not a mistake just a decision made by wikidata. I didn't see this discussed in Commons or in He.wiki. this should be common decision. I added gallery ony if there was good gallery. Until that, in the other cases it should directed to the category. Geagea (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not User:Lymantria who decides this, and he doesn't seem to agree with you at all, but if you could point me to place when this "decision made by wikidata" was made I'm more than willing to stop. Adding categories to articles will lead to more problems that it may solve and there are correct ways to connects commonscats or even single images (Property:P18, as I just did in Q16132585) to article items. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 11:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was going to raise the issue to commons an he.wiki but was busy at that moment and forget to do so later on. User:Lymantria mentioned the same decision of wikidata but according to him in case of one photo in the category it is o.k. Anyway, just think about it. You have in that case an article in wikipedia. no chance that there going to be category for this in wikipedia. From the other side of commons you have a category with files. The common sence says that should be connected at least until (or if) we have any gallery. Anyway I'll raise it tommorow in Commons noticeboard.Geagea (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Isn't there a template on the hewiki with a link to commons, like the one in Template:Commons category (Q48029)? If not, you may want to suggest it when you raise the issue there. I'd do it, but I don't know if it would be appreciated to do that in English... - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I believe there was some discussion around Wikidata how to improve the integration of Wikipedia articles and Commons categories, but I've lost track on where it's currently being disscussed. I'll try to find it as the participants of the discussion you may start on Commons may want to cross over with that discussion. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

FYI: My name has been mentioned in this discussion several times. I am aware that commons categories are not to be added as site link together with wikipedia articles in one item. Commons galleries may - they need to have more than one file (commons policy). I think that was not the best choice and it would have been better to allow linking commons categories and wikipedia articles - commons has category: as the main namespace. If there is only one image on a subject, the subject needs to be represented in a category, not in a gallery (~article). So this wikidata-policy is IMHO unnatural. I agree with Geagea on that. But I respect decisions taken and guidelines set, so I do not propagate to violate them. Lymantria (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thaks for reacting, Lymantria.

If there isn't enough material for a gallery (so only one image), there isn't a reason to make a category either. So these categories shouldn't exist, let alone be added to the wrong items in Wikidata. These single images should be the most relevant for these items, though, and are perfect to be added by using Property:P18. I see no reason to bypass the policy, making the situation more complex in the process, in these cases. There are alternatives and because of the wish of (people in) the Commons community other options are being investigated. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The biggest problem is that by adding a category to a article that does not have a Property:P31 yet you mat trigger a bot (for example: this one in Q18640834) turning the whole item into a Wikimedia category (Q4167836). Effectively adding commons categories to article items exports problems from Commons to Wikidata. ::There should be a better to accomodating the wishes several Commons users have to be able to add links to articles on the categories in a more practical that the Commons:Template:On Wikipedia, as this template needs to be updated manually when new articles are being added to the set on Wikidata. There are serveral wikis that automatically use data for Wikidata, so it should be possible to create a template that automatically checks for articles when a page or category is loaded, so the latest set is listed.

But most importantly, I should find the proper discussion page to move all the above to, so something can actually be done with it... - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll appreciate if you revert your edit if and when the policy will change. Geagea (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the policy will change to allow adding a category to an article item in the way I reverted. It may be done in another way, but then simply 'reverting' would be according to such a policy. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 07:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

As they come up I'll list the things you can do to link articles and categories without violating policies. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Use Property:P373 to add a commons category to an article item.
• Use Property:P18 to add a single image to an article item.
• The Template:On Wikipedia to add links to the articles to a category on Commons.
• A template:Commons category on the local wiki. You can find them in Template:Commons category (Q48029). Unfortunately the hewiki isn't listed, so it doesn't seem to have such a template. If it wasn't for the language barrier I would create a template like this on the hewiki, but if needed I'm willing to assist.

  Comment: I'm sorry, Property:P373 doesn't really join the Commons category page with the Wikidata item page. The functionality of properties is fatally imperfect – reciprocial properties are not able to work really as reciprocial, especially when Property:P373 uses a pure string data type which is not able to link effectively and sustainably to pages. The original fatal problem is that Wikidata are not consisent in the original idea the one item page should represent one real item. Regrettably, Wikidata are not able to associate both article pages and category pages of identic item with one item page, force us into creating two item pages for one item and provide no effective possibility to join the two item pages reliably.

I'm not able to accept that Wikidata phase 1 was started without having the relation between articles and categories and between Wikipedias and Commons thought-out properly. Regrettably, Wikidata developers seem not able and not willing to fix this fatal defect foreseeable. The solution applied by Geagea is suitable and funtional for most of Commons categories. (Commons galleries are not and never were equivalents of Wikipedia articles. The only similar is that the gallery namespace and the article namespace use no prefix but that's all. The role and character of gallery pages is rather similar to file pages than to article pages.) However, even though we prefer the relation gallery-article for such rare items which have their own gallery page, there is no rational reason to impede or cancel useful com:category-w:article links in the most typicall cases of single items for which Commons gallery and Wikipedia category don't exist and are not probable to be created. Even though we consider com:category-w:category (and disputably also com:gallery-w:article) relations as preferred, we should tolerate and support com:category-w:article relations for cases when they don't collide with the preffered relations. We can consider such a relation as a makeshift solution until Wikidata provides some better and systematic one. As soon as a proper solution is functional, these relations will can be turned simply into it. Currently, Property:P373 is not a fully-fledged functional solution. The com:category-w:article is the most frequented and most useful type of interproject relations – it is insane to neglect it. --ŠJů (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree it would be best in P373 would provide a complete solution, and now it's lacking, but to use com:category-w:article as a work around, and even, as happens as well, removing the commonscat grom the w:category and moving it to the w:article is a recipe for chaos. It would be insane to ignore the option com:category-w:article but as of now this is as far from a satifactory sollution as the alternatives are. I believe there should be better way to solve this and this may at that point even include com:category-w:article constructions in some way, but right now the do more often harm than the do good, while certain alternatives don't do harm and are mainly rejected because they not as nicely looking in some people's opinions. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 09:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

hello, i really think you are (again) wrong with merging disambig and normal items, and with leaving a lot of mixed up descriptions.

now we have about hundred other items with "lost" links. and when changed they will link to an item which will be marked as disambig sooner or later (because of jawiki), and also you changed P31 from disambig to given name, but left the descriptions unchanged.

this is frustrating. please fix the lost links Special:WhatLinksHere/Q16766219 and the descriptions in several languages at Q6182284 yourself. i quit for today. Holger1959 (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see, I reverted the links and restored Q16766219 as the item for the Jermaine items about the male given name, which includes the Japanese one, as that page is categorised in: Category:Human name disambiguation pages (Q4671251) and Category:English-language masculine given names (Q8415116). I think I managed to take out all the descriptions "disambiguation page". - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is no difference between the 2 categories Rummad:Skrivagnerien Bro-C'hall‎ and Rummad:Skrivagnerien Frañs. Some of the users of the Breton Wikipedia use the word Bro-C'hall for France, and others use another word, Frañs. The two words exist in the Breton language, but obviously, it can mislead other users. I hope that point will bet settled one day. Yours, --Llydawr (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reaction. Unfortunately only one of the two can be linked to the item Category:French writers (Q6833907). - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Your wrote "You should be able to do that yourself from the Breton wiki, @Llydawr:, and there is no reason to delete either item". Well, I don't know about deleting or not, I am sure you are right about that because you know more than I do. But I can tell you I didn't manage to link Rummad:Istor Genova (Q9848988) with Category:History of Genoa (Q8518134). When I tried to add one to the other, I read that I couldn't do that because there was already another item with the same name. What am I supposed to do then? Yours, --Llydawr (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Llydawr:,

That's probably because you're trying to do that here on Wikidata, not on the Breton wiki. To merge items here, check Help:Merge. How to merge them from the Breton wiki I posted on your talk page before and I quote:

"In the left column the last option should be "Ouzhpennañ liammoù", then fill out a language code (en, for instance) and the corresponding interwiki [...]. It will then ask you if the Breton item should be added to the existing item; that's how I did it [...]. It will leave the item that contant the lonely Breton entry empty, but a bot will pick it up and make in a redirect to the merged item."

Let me know if it works or how it doesn't. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 20:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your answer. But it doesn't work... In the left column, in the Breton Wiki, the last option is "Ouzhpennañ liammoù" if, and only if, there is an item in Wikidata. Otherwise, the mention "Ouzhpennañ liammoù" does not appear. If there is an item in Wikidata, clicking on "Ouzhpennañ liammoù" opens Wikidata for that item, and then I cannot add another language code (enwiki, for instance), because it will answer that there is already an existing item with a different number... I really don't understand how you managed to do it ("that's how I did it"). There must be something that I don't get, I am afraid. :-( --Llydawr (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Ouzhpennañ liammoù" appears to me in every case, so that's weird. Did Help:Merge provided any new tips you may be able to use? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 05:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

you move the french template "modèle:Unité" from "Modèle:Val" (Q6232996) to "Modèle:Unité" (Q6600892) (See [3] and [4]). Nevertheless, even if the template name is closer to the French name of category Q6600892, the content of the template is closer to the English template "Template:Val" than the template "Template:Infobox Fluss/Maß". Consequently, I think it is better to let the french template "modèle:Unité" in the category Q6232996. Wikini (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

There were modèle:Unité from other projects in Q6600892, so I combined them into one as they seems about similar. Should all Unité templates be moved to Templat:Val? Also, what to do with the Ukrainian case: they have a Шаблон:Unité and a Шаблон:Val, which one would be most compatible to Template:Val and where should the other one go? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know it's difficult to group templates with more or less similar content. That's why, I consider the English templates as the "references" and try to associate to them the French templates which are the closest. Doing this way is useful to translate English pages using templates. Wikini (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The fr:Modèle:Unité was originally in Q6600892, when it was created, and other templates were based on it and added to Q6600892 as well. Some of the wikis that have a Template:Unité based on the french one also have a Template:Val based on the content of Q6232996. So maybe Q6600892 needs to be split in the Unité templates and Maß templates, based on the german template, but I don't believe the Unité templates can be merged with the Val templates as this wil cause interwiki conflicts for the wikis that have Val and Unité templates. The three resulting items could be linked with the Property:P460, it seems. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 14:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I have a question with this. You use list of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film series (Q4992335) as a class, and Lurtz (Q914895) as an instance of this class. The thing is, right now list of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film series (Q4992335) isn't defined as a class, but as a list (and cannot then be used as a value for P31). I agree with you it seems stupid to create a new item "character created for the Lord of the Rings film series" when we already have this one, but I think then we need to change the labels and the properties (it should have P279 fictional character (Q95074). That means we would separate the concept and the way this concept is depicted on Wikipedia (as a list). I have seen several examples where the name of the item on Wikidata isn't the same one as the one used on Wikipedia, but it's more than that: if we do this, we lose the "list" part. I'm inclined to transform list of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film series (Q4992335) in a subclass but I wonder what you think? --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can't it be both a list and a character subclass? I think we need the subclass to prevent these specific character from ending up in character from Tolkien's legendarium (Q15731071), as these are characters specifically not from Tolkien's books. If we make a different item separate from the lists we should have it include The Hobbit trilogy as well, to include Tauriel (Q3297949) c.s, so something like character from films based on J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh I totally agree these shouldn't be mixed with Tolkien's characters. You propose that version if I understand correctly? I thought it was discouraged to "instance of:list" and "subclass of:something" on the same item. That's why we have is a list of (P360) isn't it? If list of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film series (Q4992335) is a list, it can't be used as a class but then we can use P31:fictional character (Q95074) and is a list of (P360):list of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film series (Q4992335) for items like Lurtz (Q914895). Or we can transform the list in a class. Or we can create a new item (and one including the Hobbit films). --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think we best create a new one as the list item is populated already. The items linking to it can easily be relinked: Q19856510. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, what you did with list of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film series (Q4992335) seems fine to me. But then you did that, and here I don't understand at all. It's not defined as a list on Wikipedia! I worked on the Wikidata:WikiProject Middle-earth on a this page, like it had been done for others fictional universes, and with the help of peoples on IRC. It's totally not rigid and if you think some of that should change, I would love to ear it. But I don't understand why you are creating a list out of an item which wasn't one when we mostly have the inverse problem (lists used as subjects items). --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC) It of course impact Mearas (Q2715082) too. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The eswiki entry is very clearly a list, even the name starts with Anexo:, the frwiki entry has a set up as an article, but with almost no article content, just and with list content. The itwiki entry isn't specifically called a list, but lists Middle-earth horses...

I see the Mearas (Q2715082) issue (may also be a fictional species of animal (Q15702752)), but it's basically a character race (Q2607197) of fictional horse (Q2962925). Also mearas is plurar, as it refers to the whole race of horses (a horse race, but without betting options). The current mearas may need to be reclassified as fictional horses with a race specification to indicate the specific race of the fictional horses in question. ethnic group (P172) would work for people, but not for animals. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 14:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

And there's the Brego (Q12304328) issue. That's a fictional horse from the movie, not from the books, so it cannot be a Horse from Tolkien's work as it isn't. All these fictional horses in one way or another and those can be specified, but not all of them are horses from Tolkien's work. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 14:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

So the problem is that the Wikipedia articles doesn't have the same scope. eswiki and frwiki treat of Tolkien's works, itwiki of "Middle-earth" horses. frwiki is an article (a stub, ok, but clearly not a list), itwiki isn't clear (title not but content yes), and eswiki is clearly a list. So we have in fact three different concept "Middle-earth horses" (Tolkien, article) for frwiki, "list of Middle-earth horses" (Tolkien, list) for eswiki, "(list) of horses of Middle-earth" (Tolkien + potentially adaptations, not clear article or list) for itwiki.

Mearas is another question, a fictional species and a subclass of either Middle-earth animals or Middle-earth horses.

I'm not inclined to separate the three wikipedia, because it still around the same subject. But clearly we have a problem of limits. I don't really see the interest of list entries in general and here where it's not even so clearly a list on Wikipedia, I understand even less. The real problem is Brego, then. It could be treated on list of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film series (Q4992335) but itwiki doesn't have this article. But seing it isn't even indicated on the italian article that Brego doesn't appear in Tolkien's works, I wonder if it isn't simply an error. They had problems with cities too, mixing Tolkien's cities and role-playing game cities. They chose to separate them when I asked why they mixed up. Because if Brego wasn't on this italian list, why would we change the wikidata item? And the french and spanish articles are about Tolkien's works, not Tolkien's and adaptations…

We can create "Middle-earth horses", "list of Middle-earth horses", "horses of Middle-earth in Tolkien's works and in adaptations" but I don't see the interest. And if we decide to keep only one of the three, I don't see why the "list", and it doesn't clear the matter of adaptations. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree at all with that. When a fictional item is missing, we create it, we never use the real ones that what is messing things up right and left. I totally don't like the way we treat fictional items on Wikidata right now but destroying the actual organization (however faulty may it be) isn't the way. I have real urge to undo it again but I don't want a stupid war edit. But it's a problematic use. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

You disagree with the fact that it's happening all over Wikidata? I removed a lot of real items after creating fictional ones and while it's by far more preferable to have and use the fictional items, stating that we "never use the real ones" is blatantly denying facts. We should use fictional items, though, as much as possible and if it should be exclusive then we have a lot of fictional equivalents to make... - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I spent months cleaning up these uses, and yes, it still exist, but it's not as pervasive as before. But if people keep adding wrong uses, we'll never finish to correct it. And yes, that mean a lot of fictional items to create (this is why I don't like this system) but it was the system adopted. See Wikidata talk:WikiProject Fictional universes. I don't know one user who continues to link fictional items as instances of real items. Well, now I know you do, but I don't know anyone else, since the end of 2013. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't do it that often and I replaced scores of real items for fictional equivalents, often after creating them, so I'm still in the plus by far. If I do it's basically as a placeholder for the fictional equivalent to be made, so removing it isn't improving Wikidata either. In this case: should there be a fictional breed of horses? And more general: Is a one item fictional equivalent always better than the real one? In that case there won't be any need for me to ever add a real item any more, or it must be to add it, create a fictional equivalent shortly afterwards and replace it. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 16:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, using real items for P31 for fictional items creates constraint violations when others properties are used. So it's now pretty rare to find these uses on items with several properties already. When I find an item like that, it's often because it doesn't have other property than P31 and often no labels/descriptions too: in others words, items no one has probably seen since a long time. When there is others properties, these wrong uses are listed in constraint violations and corrected, often in a few days windows. So no, I don't really see the interest of using real items.

In this particular case, we aren't obligated to create "fictional breed of horses" we can create "fictional breed", since it also a subclass of "fictional horses". --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

fictional breed of animal, works for me: fictional breed of animal (Q19857028) - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 18:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cycn, actually it woud'nt save correctely my changes (wy ?) and I had an error message. Thanks for your help. --Salix (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Salix: What error message did you get on the French wiki? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cycn. I remember something like "sorry an error occured, your change can't be saved..." written into a pink rectangle. Usually I have no pbm, and today it worked with another item. A routine bug ? --Salix (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC) --Salix (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Aren't pink rectangle the errors on Wikidata or do they also occur on the French wiki~, @Salix:? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, actually the message was displayed on Wikidata, while I was tying to link the French article to the correct Wikidata item, even after the fr link has been removed from the other one. --Salix (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I said every time you could simply merge from the French wiki and if you got the error here, not on the French wiki, you still should be able to do that (in future cases). If the French article is not member of an Wikidata item you can simply add one of the other language versions that's member of an item on Wikidata and the French article will be added. If the French article has an item here on Wikidata, but it's the only entry, you should be able to do the same. The French article will be removed from its item, added to the other and the now empty item will automatically be turned into a redirect by a bot is set to notice such actions. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 13:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

When I clic on the pencil-link on a fr article, I am redirected immediately on the corresponding Wikidata item if it does exist. If this item is not correct, I cannot add the fr article to the correct Wikidata item, unless I remove it first form the previous one. --Salix (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm only directed to the corresponding item when it exists AND when it contains more than one entry, so not just one (like in this example). This is how I always add single entry items to others. A few months ago I heard the same you are telling me from someone who's active on the Breton wiki, so it may be a setting somewhere, but I don't know how or why other people are treated differently than me by this pencil-link. In such a case you could merge items on Wikidata with one of the tools from Help:Merge. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 14:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maybe your settings on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, @Salix:? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 14:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have adopted the "merge" gadget. I'll see if there is any difference next time  . --Salix (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cycn. Any notice somewhere to learn how to use this "merge" gadget ?... Nothing ! I found it right above there. --Salix (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Vergeet je niet om een instance of (P31) aan je nieuwe items toe te voegen? Ik kom ze dagelijks tegen bij de controle van nieuwe items. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bij drie heb ik de P31 toegevoegd, bij de anderen stonden ze ondertussen al zo te zien. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 09:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ja: er zijn nog 31.329 items met een koppeling naar nlwiki, maar geen statements. Elke dag probeer ik dat getal omlaag te krijgen. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ik zal proberen er niet meer bij te maken... Heb je trouwens een link naar die 31.000 items? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 09:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Door de meest gebruikte properties weg te filteren, kwam ik op dit lijstje uit welke best accuraat is. Helaas blijven samengevoegde en verwijderde items wel een tijdje staan. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why do you remove sitelinks to redirects? (diff) --Fomafix (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Because they aren't articles. Please post a link to the update where adding redirects has been implemented because the last time I checked there was considerable work to do before this becomes a workable option. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 20:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

dewiki decides to describe this object in an other article and make a redirect. As you can see sitelinks to redirects are possible. It is currently not possible to add sitelinks to redirects directly because of T54564. Adding sitelinks to an article and changing the article to a redirect is possible. But this is no reason to remove sitelinks to redirects. The redirect describes exactly the item and makes an interwikilink from nlwiki to dewiki. --Fomafix (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The redirect doesn't describe anything because it's not an article with content. Once and only once the issue you describe can be fixed redirects can be added like you like it, but until it hasn't I see every reason to keep removing redirects as entries as we have always done here. If, as is clear, you want this practice to change you'd best contribute to the fixing of that issue in stead of implementing something that hasn't been facilitated by the developers, yet. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I already gave the reason for sitelinks to redirects: They link objects in different languages. There is no reason to remove such sitelinks. Do not remove such sitelinks to redirects. --Fomafix (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You gave me reasons but under the current circumstances they are not valid to add redirects. This may very well change in the future, at which point I will stop removing sitelinks to redirects and if I agree with the way it is implemented I may even start adding them, as there will be thousands of items that can have redirects added to them. Before that time, I don't see any reason to stop removing sitelinks to redirects as we have anways done, just because there are some arguments to change the policy. The policy needs to be changed first, and your argument may be helpful to have it changed. So don't direct you arguments to me, but towards somewhere where it can you your point of view some good. I wish you luck with that and I'm looking forward to hearing the results. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think sitelinks to redirects are not valid? Wikidata:Notability#cite_note-5: “Currently, the community has chosen to have redirects allowed, although the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata.” Why do you want to remove sitelinks to redirects when they have to added again, when the software has changed? --Fomafix (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Because, as you quote, "the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata". So both adding and not removing redirects are implementing something that has not been implemented yet. Once it has, then these redirects should indeed be added again. In the mean time they should not be there at all, because "the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata". The keyword being: "necessary"... - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You remove sitelinks because adding is not implemented? There is no causal relationship between the two actions. You can just leave the sitelinks. This is the desire of the community. --Fomafix (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is no reason to assume that sitelinks are the way adding these redirects to items will be implemented, so there is no valid reason to leave them. Once the by the community desired possibility to be able to add redirects (when real articles aren't present, of cause) has been implemented these should be added again, but in the way it's implemented. Once this is implemented hundreds, if not thousands, or redirects can and, at that point, should be added. As it's quite likely to be in a different way than you trying now - why else is it stated that there are "necessary changes ... to be deployed on Wikidata"? - leaving these (currently still invalid - because: not yet implemented) sitelinks ask to be left may very will obstruct the implementation once the ecessary changes have been made. So: It's not implemented, it causes problems, it is likely to be implemented diffently and it may very well cause further and bigger problems when left. So: I see no reason to remove the sitelinks, at the moment. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sitelinks to redirects are invalid? This is your point of view. The direct adding of such sitelinks is not implemented yet or better they are difficult to add. But sitelinks to redirects are possible from technical view and wanted from community view. So there is no reason to declare them as invalid.

Sitelinks to redirects causes problems? Which problems? Show me the problems. Then we can solve the problems.

If you want to remove the sitelinks to redirects then to go back to the pre-Wikidata era and add the interwikilinks you remove to all the Wikipedia sites. If you do not do this I'll revert your remove because you remove necessary information. --Fomafix (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you don't know the difference between facts and points of view I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. Let me know if and/or when you get what I mean with this and we can continue without the danger of mutual assured frustration. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 09:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The fact is that sitelinks to redirects work. Let me know when you can refute that. --Fomafix (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Fomafix:, I'm with you. Just here to remind that there was a plenty of useful redirects removed by Cycn, so there should be some automated tool to revert those removals to create. Cycn, it was good point mentioned by Fomafix: did you add all removed interlanguage links to Wikipedia sites where they were before Wikidata? Because you should have done this. --Infovarius (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

If they were real articles. Only articles should be added to items until "the necessary changes" are deployed. Once they are I should add these "useful redirects" you mention, if they aren't added by bot at that point. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Redirects got interwikilinked long before Wikidata was started. After the basic import of the interwikilinks they got moved manually into Wikidata. Now you want to delete them and add them again when T54564 is fixed. How do you want to find the deleted redirects again? How can a bot find the redirects you delete? Do you want to add the deleted interwikilinks back into all the Wikipedias? And the main question: Why do you want to do this? Is this a technical reason or a community rule. Or do you think links to redirects are not useful? --Fomafix (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think that my opinion on the matter whether links to redirects are useful or not is irrelevant. If the community is in reasonable majority of the opinion on that this should be made possible, it should. It looks like that is the case and (I assume) they are working on it. The questions you ask are valid ones and should be brought to the attention of the developers, so they can take them into account when making the necessary changes and it can be picked up by, for instance, people with bots that can help in implementing these changes.

To take one of your points: "How can a bot find the redirects you delete?" - the same is true of not deleting them, so: How can a bot find the redirects that are linked as it they were real articles? Undoubtedly I, and others that remove links to redirects, have missed a few. And I'm sure there are lots of redirects that could be added, but aren't (maybe because this option has not been implemented, yet?) so these should be imported as well. If those can be found by bots, all the redirects I deleted will be found and added as well. Not deleting them may even hinder a correct import once the necessary changes have been developed. Also if (which is, as I said, very likely) this is implemented in another way than simply adding them like you would add real articles, the entries need to be deleted anyway. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

As far as I see is the majority of the community of the opinion to sitelink redirects. So there is no reason to remove the currently manual created sitelinks to redirects. When you remove such sitelinks and add them not as interwikilinks they are lost for bots and have to find and added manually again. I can not follow your explanations why you think that the current sitelinks to redirects can course problems. --Fomafix (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Then please provide me with a link to the please where you get thus idea from, because until now only links to the view that it should be possible, will be made possible but is not implemented yet ("the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata") are ever provided. It is not yet implemented, and no hint anywhere that all kind of tricks like this should be used to fake the future situation because it will become something like that in the future. You want to do something that should become possible in the (near) future but you're to quite to do do it. And again: Why would you think it be implemented like you would like to do it now with these work-arounds you want me to use or leave around? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You want a link. See Wikidata:Requests for comment/A need for a resolution regarding article moves and redirects#new Proposal zero.

It's a proposal, it's still not implemented... - See: Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion_criteria. Now once you can get them to change this, you (and everyone for that matter) can start adding redirects to items, until then it's still incorrect to do so. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour, je ne comprends pas pourquoi tu supprimes la définition fictional city (Q1964689) pour une ville comme Edoras (Q2069869), c'est pourtant bien ce que c'est. Le fait qu'une liste incluant ces villes existe quelque part (ru:Список городов Арды) ne doit pas changer la nature de l'objet (instance of (P31)). On ne définit pas les objets en fonction d'une Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) qui n'est qu'une page internet sur un site Wikipedia. Cordialement. Akeron (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

list of cities and towns in Tolkien's legendarium (Q4433389) (Cities and towns in Tolkien's legendarium) -> fictional city (Q1964689). Tous les articles dans Q4433389 sont des villes fictives donc Q4433389 est maintenant un sous-classe de (Property:P279) de Q1964689. Je crois que les objets qui sont des listes (comme q4433389) doit tous être divisés: une liste (avec un Property:P360 pour le sujet de la liste) et une sous-classe de fictional city (Q1964689) (avec cette sujet). Alors: Il-y-a encore du travail à faire. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 14:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Akeron: - comme ça: Middle-earth locality (Q20671864)...

Ok pour Middle-earth locality (Q20671864), du moment que ce n'est pas une Wikimedia list article (Q13406463). Akeron (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour (je vois plus haut que tu parles français), j'ai fait une fusion qui me semble justifiée vers cet élément et je viens de voir que tu l'avais annulée précédemment, quel était le problème ? Oliv0 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is the problem. Category:France commune (country subdivision) templates (Q8470939) is just one of the items containing navigational templates about France's subdivisions, Q15952860 represents them all and has Q8470939 as subclass, but also nine others that are clearly not subklasses of Q8470939. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

And earlier today I found a wiki that had valid entries for both items. Q15952860 contained an entry for the ruwiki, I found a subcategorie that corresponds with Q8470939. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

About your rollback, sitelink for redirect are allowed (you can see note n° 5 in notability policy) and is crucial for some template used in it.wiki, without sitelink the template don't work. Please don't delete the sitelink. Thanks. --ValterVB (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I refrain from it right now but please point me to where it's stated that redirects are valid entries. If it's not, it should be removed, and I'm sure it should but I like to be proven wrong any time. But then again, please prove it @ValterVB:, don't just give opinions like I usually get in these cases. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 18:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

In notability, if you see on bottom of the page you can see the notes, note n° 5 say:"Currently, the community has chosen to have redirects allowed, although the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata." Userss normally use some workaround to add redirect. --ValterVB (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

So it's not facilitated, yet. Please let me know once it has. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

A user can't add a coordinate for the Moon or Mars or Venus for technical problem but are not prohibited and we add this kind of coordinate, it is the same for the redirect. I will ask an opinion to other admin users. --ValterVB (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ah, techinical problems might be an issue -the only argument about adding redirects that were even given to me (up to now) were basically just wishful thinking- so I'm looking foreware to such an intervention. I'd really like this issue to be solved and taken out of the realm of people's opinion and get settle one way or the other. It's been bugging for quite some time now; not just me but lots of people, lots of people want to add redirects to items but the possibility just doesn't ever seems to be implemented, even though there was a concensus as some point a while ago on this issue. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 19:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

And so we shall: Wikidata:Project chat#Sitelink to redirect - need opinions

Good morning, please stop associating Italian "Categoria:Architetture ... (of a place)" with French "Catégorie:Arquitecture..." and/or Spanish "Categoría:Arquitectura ...". They may seem the same to you, but they are not. Italian "Categoria:Architetture ..." goes with English "Category:Buildings and structures", French "Catégorie:Bâtiment", Spanish "Categoría:Edificios y estructuras" and German "Kategorie:Bauwerk". Thank you, Ary29 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Architetture is in architecture (Q12271), as are fr:Architecture and es:Arquitectura, so they are the same. The French and Spanish categories include buildings as well, it just seems the Italian wiki just "misses" the category level for buildings. Or does architetture actually mean "buildings" (as well)? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Architettura (singular) means both "arquitecture" and "building". Architetture (plural) means only "buildings", at least as far as it.wiki categories are concerned. Ary29 (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

If the word actually means building, then it's all right. I don't follow 'as far as this local wiki is concerned' arguments (We know it contains this, but we call it that. In such a case you all know it's wrong but you're all still doing it. So, it should somehow be fine and it should be automatically clear to outsiders as well). If the content does not match the name then that should be solved on the local wiki, in which case further misunderstandings can be avoided. But if, as you say, the word actually means both 'architecture' and 'building(s)', unlike the equivalent words in other languages, then we can just follow the quirk of the language and chose the meaning best representing the content. Thanks for explaining. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is not a case of "We know it contains this, but we call it that". Our "Categoria:Architettura ..." are about arquitecture, and "Categoria:Architetture ..." contain buildings. There is no misunderstanding. However, in other contexts outside our categories, you may find the Italian word architetture with the meaning of "arquitectures" - although I don't know if there is a use for the plural of arquitecture. Ary29 (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

Regarding your revert.

I don't quite understand why. en:Private_limited_company lists similar terms in different jurisdictions. Are you saying that each country should have its own wikipedia page? This is confusing. Let's setup a wikidata hierarchy of these terms.

-- Vanuan (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't say they should, but some wikis do. The German dewiki, for instance, has one for each country. Some wikis group some of these together. It's messy but you need to be careful before you try to clean it up as in most cases people merge articles that are clearly not the same. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I didn't delete them, I moved them. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 14:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain the reason of erasing of Wikinews links in list of South African politicians (Q3644193)?

Q3644193 isn't an article, but a list. These categories have the exact same function (unlike the cateries within) as those on other project. Other Wikinews categories containing politicians are also linked to their corresponding category items, like Category:Russian politicians (Q7022193), Category:German politicians (Q7029186) and Category:Israeli politicians (Q7030427) for instance, possibly because there aren't corresponding articles, only lists items. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 14:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Previously, I have talked about Wikinews links (see Wikidata:Wikinews/Development) with a Wikinews administrator (Krassotkin), and I was told to add them either to articles or, if there's no appropriate articles, to lists of the main topic.

Can you link me to this conversation? People state things like this but I have never seen a link, exept to the instruction that Wikinews categories should be linked to articles (not lists). Even though I disagree with this aswell, I leave these links as there is indeed an instruction to do this, so I would need to fight this instruction before going against it. I haven't come around to this, though, so I just leave that for now. I have never sees an instruction to mix categories with list items, though, and that seems even weirder to me. :The possible Wikinews category containing South African prime ministers would be linked to Prime Minister of South Africa (Q1511951), linking it to list of Prime Ministers of South Africa (Q20680057) would prevent it to be linked to the correct article, it would basically create a mess. List items may be linked to corresponding articles, though, so they might be helpful to find the correct article to link the Wikinews category to. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, don't tell me you delete Wikinews links because bots copy-pasting their titles to the item's "label" section. Haven't you tried to manually change the labels instead of deleting Wikinews links and provoking a baseless edit war?--Russian Rocky (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't get what you are trying to say here. Could you rephrase this, please? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 14:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Please don't use edit warring to fight with other editors (1, 2). Any list in Wikipedia is a article. Meta category in Wikinews (for example) is a list too. As stated above we have agreed to the following Wikinews categories correspond to Wikipedia articles and to similar items in other wikiprojects. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • All other Wikinews categories with politicians are linked to Wikipedia categories, even the mother category Category:Politicians (Q5753390), are you going to change those aswell or is South Africa an exception for some reason? The link doesn't mention lists, btw, and as I explained it will get messy if you involve those. I accept the link for real articles but I see that it isn't done for lists, like with all other Wikinews politician categories. Also, I didn't undo an edit, I moved 2 items in accordance to all categories of the same type. You undid my edit so if you wish to accuse someone of edit warring you should look to yourself before you start pointing fingers. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • You're right we have a lot of mistaken linking just because user of other projects do not know the specifics of the Wikinews. Wikinews categories doesn't mean the same then in other projects. These errors had appeared long ago, when some users started robots without the consent of users of Wikinews. But the existence of a plurality of errors is not an argument for not correcting them. Now we link categories of Wikinews with articles of Wikipedia. Please don't prevent us to fix these errors. Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 15:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
      • If you will be fixing all these categories, I will leave you to it. And I won't prevent anyone from moving wikinews categories to actual articles, even though I don't agree with this practice I won't be fighting a set practice like this. But please do not just leave this one as you think it should be an all the others like they are. Just wait until until people start moving all these categories, starting with Category:Politicians (Q5753390), to the items and then move these aswell. I still don't agree wikinews categories should be linked to list items like to normal articles, but if you could point me to a page where this was discussed or could be discussed I can take it up there. In any case: In these "politicians form country" cases there are quite a few instances where there is an actual article and a list, and I think you'd agree in these cases the wikinews categories should be linked to the actual article, so this will be quite a project to get right. I wish you or other who will take it up good luck with that. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Would you please tell me why? There's really a merge proposal on zhwiki to merge zh:Template:國家基礎資訊 and zh:Template:Infobox_country, how do you think that that is also Wikimedia permanent duplicate item (Q21286738), isn't it? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't get what your trying to say. Can you rephrase? And what were you trying to do on Q26168832? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 05:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Cycn: If you really visited zh:Template:國家基礎資訊, you will see 建议此页面与Template:Template:Infobox Country合并。（讨论）(lit. It has been suggested that this page be merged with Template:Infobox Country. (Discuss)), this means in the near future both templates can be merged. How do you believe this is also a permanent duplicate? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/技术#合并模版 @Nickice: suggested again that both really should be merged. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Still don't get it what you're saying. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 11:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Pinging other users that know about zhwiki status of both templates: @Iokseng, Vozhuo, 和平至上, Wcam: --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Someone @ me is zh:Template:國家基礎資訊 and Template:Infobox Country problem, May I ask what it is about? Because two Template role is very similar to the proposed merger. But the proposal has not received much attention.--Nickice (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

If there are issues with these templates than they should be solved on the zhwiki. For now the wiki has 2 template for the same purpose, one with a local name and one with an English name. Hence: Duplicates. If and when the templates are merged on the zhwiki (please discuss there) the remaining one should be moved to Template:Infobox country (Q5621162), if it's not the one that's there already. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Uso il tuo invito a chiedere aiuto in caso di bisogno: ho dei problemi a fare il merge di Louis William Butterworth (Q12726818) con Linux distribution (Q131669). Ho verificato con uno dei contributori all'elemento ed in effetti la prima non ha senso (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q12726818) ed altera la completezza delle interrogazioni. Puoi chiarirmi le operazioni da fare ? Ringrazio anticipatamente --FabC (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

ro:Distribuții GNU/Linux en ro:Distribuție Linux are two different articles on the Romanian wiki, so these items shouldn't be merged. Maybe the articles should be merged but that should be done on the Romanian wiki before these items can merge. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please avoid redirecting items while discussions are still ongoing. Redirecting them makes it impossible to continue the discussion. I can understand that you might not want that given the argument you advance, but this doesn't help us sort it out.
--- Jura 08:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

No it doesn't. We can keep on discussing, even though it's totally clear to me the issue is fixed. Redirecting another item won't affect the discussion, only redirecting the item that has been nominated triggers a bot.

"I can understand that you might not want that given the argument you advance" - Do you really want to go down that road, Jura1 (talk • contribs • logs)? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are correct about the bot. It's true in the other direction. Still, it's unfriendly to merge the items while the discussion is ongoing.
--- Jura 10:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand that if you worried your request was to be archived you felt you the need to revert the actions designed to solve the issue you raised. I didn't see any discussion, that erupted later and I still don't see the problem. But we can keep talking, you can keep the request open to explain why you feel like the solution I (and VIGNERON before me, I see) implemented is unsatisfactory. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 11:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I have recently started to manually add Czech and Slovak binomical names to various biological taxons (birds and insects for start, but I will be moving on to other groups once I am done) and I stumbled upon a few duplicities, leaving me confused as to which one was relevant. I am sure these originate in various species having more than one Latin name, which has changed through the course of time. For example - item Q25345384 is a somewhat parasitic version of Q25394, item Q12951603 is a one-language version of Q27614942, and so on. Can we do something about it? --GeXeS (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't have any knowledge about this, I don't think I could be of use here. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 21:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I've just seen you have removed a instance of (P31)Wikimedia category (Q4167836) from a Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192) (here). At the moment stub categories have usually both statements (20285 now, against 134 with only instance of (P31)Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192)). Last August I raised the problem, but a few users gave contradictory answers. I would prefer only instance of (P31)Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192), like you. Maybe a new discussion would be useful, I don't know in which page ... What do you think? Bye, --Epìdosis 13:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Since a few weeks I'm wondering about the possibility of creating a Wikidata:Wikiproject Categories, in order to coordinate all efforts in this area ... what's your opinion? --Epìdosis 14:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I need some bot needs to be set to remove the instance of (P31)Wikimedia category (Q4167836) from any item with Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192), as P31 should in most cases just have one entry. And because Q24046192 is a subclass of (P279) a subclass of (P279) Q4167836 leaving Q4167836 would be a duplication. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 05:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, thank you. In your opinion would a Wikidata:WikiProject Categories be useful? --Epìdosis 15:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

And what about the use of category combines topics (P971)Wikipedia:Stub (Q4663261) with instance of (P31)Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192): isn't it superfluous? And, when it is the only value of category combines topics (P971), as it is in most cases, it is also a constraint violation (constraint requires more then one single value) ... --Epìdosis 15:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've just removed all the superfluous instance of (P31)Wikimedia category (Q4167836). --Epìdosis 11:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've just created Wikidata:WikiProject Categories. Feel free to join it! Bye, --Epìdosis 10:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Q50356342 is the same topic as Q2971063 (I suspect the manor one may be the older). I'm sorry, but I will not download a gadget. If you are still active, could you possibly merge them? Many thanks if you can. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

There's no download involved in installing the gadget...

And these items cannot be merged, they have different entries for Commons. If you think entries should be moved around you can do that without any gadget... - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I removed links in wikidata to pages on mg: that are empty categories to be deleted.

I do not understand why you reverted that.

Best regards,

Vargenau (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vargenau,

We should wait for the page to actually be deleted. Once it's deleted it's automatically removed from its item. And the page to be deleted is just proposed to be deleted, no one can guarantee that the deletion won't be cancelled for whatever reason. So the policy is not to remove 'to be deleted' items.

You could change them into redirects (and request them to be deleted) because redirects aren't valid entries, so can be removed. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 09:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation. Vargenau (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I must tell you something recently happened on this topic, that we are discussing to merge all railway station infobox templates to one zh:Template:Infobox station, therefore there's no longer having any Wikimedia permanent duplicate item (Q21286738) for this case. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Once the merge has been completed, zh:Template:Infobox Station 1 can be removed from Q38022933, the permanent duplicate tags can be removed and Q38022933 can be merged into Q5898006. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

Can you create en:Template:Azerbaijani political parties in Dutch?

Yours sincerely, Artoxx (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've looked at this for a long time, but I still found no relevant articles, so it would be an all red link template. So, for now, I'm holding off... Once one or two relevant articles have been creatated I'm more than happy to oblige. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 18:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've just noticed that category pages moved in enwiki are no longer automatically being promptly updated in Wikidata. E.g. en:Category:Places of worship in El Salvador and en:Category:Places of worship in England were moved yesterday to en:Category:Religious buildings and structures in El Salvador and en:Category:Religious buildings and structures in England respectively. I manually updated the England wikidata item Q9505752, but have left the El Salvador page for now. See en:WP:CFDW and its recent history for many more; the "places of worship" categories for all countries and sub-national locations were moved. (Some top level categories and those for continents were merged rather than moved.)

Pinging @Ymblanter: as another enwiki category admin who I believe is also active here. Fayenatic london (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Fayenatic london: this is indeed strange. I will ask at the Project Chat now.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata:Project chat#Categories move on the projects does not result in the move on Wikidata?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ymblanter: Thanks. I started comparing Cydebot contribs and found discrepancies. I posted links and examples there. Fayenatic london (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cycn, als in het Frans de aanduiding 'par ville' staat dan kan dat worden opgevat als 'naar gemeente'. Wwikix (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Maar ook wat het betekent: "naar stad" en die categorie bevat veel meer interwiki's. Het is eerder andersom: Dat "naar gemeente" kan worden opgevat als het Franse "par ville", alleen in dit geval heeft de nlwiki ook een "naar plaats" met veel meer ondercategorieën. Wellicht is het beter om ze op de nlwiki te laten samenvoegen... - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 11:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cycn! Thank you! I thought that the second item could be deleted since it has just been created as an error and did not contain additional information. --Jaqen (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd agree, but the community decided on making all into redirects, unfortunately. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 23:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Diese Zusammenführung war keine große Hilfe. Jetzt gibt es eine weitere unnötige Weiterleitung, welche problemlos als Datenobjekt wieder hergestellt werden kann. Dass der Vandale weiss, wie man Datenobjekte wieder herstellt hat er gezeigt, so einfach braucht man es ihm nicht zu machen. Das war der Grund für den Löschantrag. -- MovieFex (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MovieFex: Wenn es sich hier tatsächlich um einen Vandale handelt, dann berate ich Ihnen daß zu melden auf Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Schon lange geschehen -> Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:24.104.204.96_&_User:2604:2000:C815:E00:148E:D399:9C87:C4E0 . -- MovieFex (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cycn,

By redirecting items that are being discuss for deletion, your preventing administrator from reviewing them.

At Q76888101, you repeatedly did that, despite being asked not to do it and not participating in the deletion discussion. Please refrain from doing this going forward.

In general, please refrain from redirecting items when they are not listed for deletion by contributors knowing how to redirect. --- Jura 08:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I was right, but I've been blocked by editing conflicts 3 times while trying to explain it, so I'm done trying to contribute to this nomination. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can I count on you not to redirect other items that are being discussed? --- Jura 09:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that's a reasonable request, that depends on what you concider to be "being discussed". You are basically asking me never to redirect anything nominated on RfD, so to actually never help resolving nominations, just put in votes or arguments? - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 09:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you know the contributor knows how to redirect, I don't think you should redirect directly. Why would you not want to argument your point? --- Jura 09:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I really, really tried, 3 times. And the RfD threw all I typed away because someone changed something else on the page, causing a conflict. You can't really make arguments while people are active on the RfD-page, only short statements or automatically triggered effectly (like creating a redirect) without the page blocking you 50% of the time. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 09:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

You still redirected the item several times and you should know that triggers the bot to archive the section.

I didn't have any problem to comment on the page, but I use "section edit" and didn't trigger the bot before doing that. --- Jura 09:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, when I tried to edit the section it happened to me 3 times in a row, I'm out, I reverted my last redirect, someone else can fix this one. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can we count on you that you wont redirect items mere because you problems editing the deletion page? I don't want to have this same discussion about some other item another time. --- Jura 20:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The problems prevented me from explaining, and because I couldn't provide the explanation I reverted what I did. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you merge items, this precludes your explanations from being read. If you add some note and then merge the item, an administrator never gets to review the item. --- Jura 08:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dag Cycn,

Is er een speciale reden waarom je de nl-koppeling naar de categorieën Haalderen, Ressen en Angeren hebt verwijderd?

Prettige dag verder.

Mvg., Woordenbrij2 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Ze zijn verwijderd op de nlwiki. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Okay. Dan heb ik dat duidelijk. Merci, Woordenbrij2 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Ik heb ze genomineerd voor verwijdering en de 3 categorieën onder Lingewaard die wel behouden zijn bijgewerkt, met name die van Gendt. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Mooi, dan blijft eea. compleet. Nogmaals dank. Groet, Woordenbrij2 (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! thanks for let me know about the use of the merge gadget. I had been using it from time to time. The problem is I'm finding some geographic items duplicated by famous cebuano bot/user which I cannot merge directly because there is always some kind of conflation in the identifiers section. I mean: the statements or the wikilinks point to one geographical entity and the (or some of the) identifiers to another kind of geographic entity under the same label name. I guess there is a ton of these cases. So, I understand that is better try to solve this without increasing the work list of requests for deletion, but I'm not sure if I move the claims from the duplicated cebuano Q to the right elements and then merge without notifying it to administrators´ noticeboard or without taking all the steps of Help:conflation would be the right way to fix this kind of duplicates. Any advise you can give me about this matter would be truly appreciated. Regards. Maria zaos (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I do not know who to ask. Would you help with [Crew United title ID] in Charité (Q23815652))? There are 3 tv series within this tv series. Ehm..got me? --Tommes (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't follow, can you rephrase the question, and if you prefer: Auf Deutsch? - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I'm curious, why did you reverted me to re-add Q702514 P131 Q702514? I saw that you re-reverted yourself later but I'm curious on how people create self-reference statements. Could you tell me a bit more what happened and maybe what could be improve in the interface to make it clearer?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I misinterpreted your revert, saw you were right and actually removed the self-reference, so I re-reverted to remove the self-reference which I should never have added in the first place. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Cycn,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me at kholoudsaa@gmail.com or kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmmFHaiB20nK14wrQJgfrA18PtmdagyeRib3xGtvzkdn3Lgw/viewform?usp=sf_link with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk)

Hallo Cycn, bitte versuche das korrigieren von Wikidata-Einträgen ohne Revert. Ich wurde jetzt schon 20-Mal von dir revertiert und erhielt jedes Mal eine Nachricht dafür. Um eine Weiterleitung zu korrigieren musst du nicht andere revertieren, das geht auch direkt. Groete. --   SpesBona 07:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hallo SpesBona,

Ich verwende jetzt 'zurücksetzen' statt 'rückgängig machen'. Hoffentlich bekomst du darüber keine Nachrichte. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Danke! :) Groete. --   SpesBona 07:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hoi Cycn. Waarom koppel je nl:Lijst van Amiga-spellen los van Q4349021? Die hoort daar toch thuis, lijkt mij? GeeJee (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Of wordt dit op de een of andere wijze getriggerd door de categoriewijziging op het artikel? GeeJee (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Blijkbaar... Ik heb het hersteld want het hoort daar inderdaad. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply