Open main menu

User talk:Cycn/Archive

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Cycn!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

--Ricordisamoa 07:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)



Template:Autopatroller/text/en Snow Blizzard 10:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Cycn (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


For merging items, you can try the new Merge.js gadget. --Ricordisamoa 09:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea, but either I am using it wrong, or it doesn't work on this computer.Cycn (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


Hello, I want to nominate you to adminship. I just made Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Cycn. If you be interested to be an admin in this project please add your comment there after Candidate acceptance. Regards,--DangSunM (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence. I have to read a bit into it to see if this is something for me, but if you think it is, it very well might be. Cycn (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!Edit

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | Nederlands | português | русский | +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades... (our gift is better than the one at Commons or Meta)

You have your gun; now here's your badge: {{User admin}}/{{#babel:admin}} and {{Admin topicon}}. Enjoy!

Cycn, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Wikidata. Please take a moment to read the Wikidata:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Wikidata:Project chat and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikidata-admin @ If you need access, you can flag someone down at #wikimedia-wikidata @ You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading, although it doesn't always completely apply here at Wikidata. You may also want to consider adding yourself to meta:Template:Wikidata/Ambassadors, and to any similar page on your home wiki if one exists. (WT:Wikidata/Wikidatans on En-WP.)

Please also add/update the languages you speak to your listing at Wikidata:List of administrators. You may also like to add your username to this list if you would not like that items you delete at RfD get marked as deleted automatically. Again, welcome to the admin corps!

--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hartelijk gefeliciteerd.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hé, wat goed. Ik zie nu pas dat je hier moderator bent. :) Gefeliciteerd nog en dank voor de verwijdering! Trijnstel (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Handig he... En ik heb er niet eens zelf om gevraagd. Cycn (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi Cycn, thanks for telling me LucaBiondi (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


The dutch Village Pumps mainly looks like a playground for EdwardsBot, therefor I choose to post this on a nl-N WD-admins user_talk instead. If you feel unconnected to this, just ignore or post it somewhere else.

nlwp has two articles Horsta (Q2573599) and Laggarberg (Q10553245). The corresponding articles on svwp has been merged under the item Laggarberg (Q10553245). There is a Bonnie and Clyde-relation between Horsta and Laggarberg and Laggarberg östra. They are both Swedish småort. But before 1990, they were together the tätort (urban area) Laggarberg, therefor my merge. I have created a separate item for Laggarberg östra (Laggarberg east) under Laggarberg (Q14629605). Horsta (Q2573599) is Bonnie and Laggarberg (Q14629605) is Clyde in this relation. Together they are Laggarberg (Q10553245). All three should be kept here nomatter how you prefer to do on nlwp. I have connected svwp-redirects to both Bonnie and Clyde here.

You do however you like with your articles on nlwp, but my recomendation is to move the Laggarberg-article to the "Laggarberg östra"-item and optionally move the article to a better name. The alternative is to do as I made on svwp, and merge the articles under the item Q10553245. -- Lavallentalk(block) 17:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata items shouldn't link to redirects, as Horsta and Laggarberg and Laggarberg östra now do on the svwiki. I think Q14629605 will eventually deleted, as no actual article is linked to it. Cycn (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Laggarberg is one village, with two statistical units (småort). Therefor we need three items for one article. I created the redirect-sitelinks to be able to use "Laggarberg östra" as a link. If we do not have these redirects the subject of "Laggarberg östra" will have no link or a false red link when the link is constructed by templates/modules based on Wikidata-information. Observe that these redirects on svwp contains categories.
Q14629605 will be filled with such information as population, area and other things as soon as we have number-datatypes and time to do the job. Adding that information to Q10553245 would imply that those numbers are valid for all of the village, but they are not.
The alternative would be to add both information about S7731 and S7695 in the same item, but it would make it more or less impossible for robots to add population etc. -- Lavallentalk(block) 07:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
(these) småorts won't get their own articles on the svwiki? Cycn (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
In most cases yes, but in some cases, like this, when there is two småort in one village and the area of these two småorts where one tätort 1975-90, it becomes easier to describe the history if the subjects are merged in one article. Småorts are statitical entities with artificial borders, and they are sometimes difficult to describe in a natural way. Unfortunate is the description of the borders copyrighted in 15 years. Maybe, we can convince SCB to publish them under a better license in the future. -- Lavallentalk(block) 10:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Naamruimte er graag bijEdit

Hallo Cycn, Dit is volgens mij niet de bedoeling, we vermelden juist overal wél de naamruimte waarin een pagina zich bevindt, dat doen we in alle talen. Niet meer weghalen dus en graag de volledige paginanaam invoegen. Dank! Romaine (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Volgens mij heb je ongelijk. Als je een nieuw item creeert wordt de naamruimte ook niet toegevoegd, enkel de naam van het sjabloon. Niet meer toevoegen dus, graag; het staat al in de omschrijving. Of dit is onlangs aangepast; dat heb ik dan niet meegekregen. -Cycn (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Het lijkt erop dat nu inderdaad wel de naamruimte meergenomen wordt; in elk geval bij de paar items die ik nu net aanmaak. Ik hou even in de gaten of dit voor elke taal zo werkt. Voorlopig zal ik de naamruimte bij sjablonen laten staan. -Cycn (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion requestEdit

I remember that you just neglect my deletion request of Q12609746. So wikidata doesn't care although there's one link in each data? Were there any concessions before as guidelines or policy? --관인생략 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why the entry was removed, it wasn't moved to another item or deleted from the local wiki. So I restored the entry after which the item wasn't empty anymore and shouldn't be deleted. I did not look at the content of the one entry on its local wiki. -Cycn (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well I thought that I've wrote the reason before - the article on are now discussing for deletion(Afd), so it is no longer needed. --관인생략 (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Items will not be deleted until the last item is deleted on the last wiki that has an entry. So, in this case, the nomination can be put on hold until the deletion if finalised. Cycn (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


Please change in MediaWiki:Gadget-autoEdit.js the phrase

'gl':'modelo Wikimedia',


'gl':'modelo de Wikimedia',

. Regards and thanks. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  Done. -Cycn (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Census 1970Edit

The reason I asked the older item to be deleted, is that there were more inlinks to the newer, and there still is links to that (now deleted) page. -- Lavallen (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Did I get them all now? Cycn (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, yes. -- Lavallen (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Great! good thing you noticed it, I oversaw in my first attempt that Alby had more than one link to the item. -Cycn (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
And the old item did not have all the properties of the new, but it's fixed now. The old was created by me as a test, long before we had datatypes to create it "for real". -- Lavallen (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Empty items from bs-wikiEdit

Hello! I made a page that laid out around 1000 links to empty elements of bs-wiki (similar to my last big requests). Maybe it will be more convenient? --Art-top (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Merging itemsEdit

Merge.js is good when there are two pages which already have interwiki and have to merged but for pages with no interwiki it is a bit complicated since it requires first to find item on wikidata and search doesn't seem to work for some words. BTW is there any tool which lists categories without interwiki? --Ivan Bajlo (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata category subclassesEdit

Hi, I saw you adding category subclasses (e.g. subclass of (P279): Category:Poland politics and government templates (Q7017790) ). I thought of that before, but I never started since someone explained me it will get mixed up with the local category-tree. So, I guess it is not a good idea to add subclass categories to categories. Or if you do, what wikipedia is 'leading' for creating your subclass tree? Michiel1972 (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Subclasses on Wikidata could very well be different than those in different local category trees. I don't see any problem with that, but maybe there are. I did not encounter them, yet, and in doubt I don't add them. If you know someone that can comment on the dangers of mixing up anything, please let him or me know, so I can be explained why this would be a bad idea. -Cycn (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I ignore the local trees and follow this logic: A navigational template category is a sub of the template category of exactly the same subject. A category with a subject for a specific country is a sub of the same time of category (navigational templates, for instance), unless another category could fit in between. political party templates for a country fit in political parties, so I use that one if it exists. The more detailed, the better, and when in doubt, I skip the whole thing. Cycn (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Final Fight:StreetwiseEdit

You deleted this page instead the other one like i requested [1]. Now there are not link between the various wikis. May you correct this mistake, please? Thank you. --Limonadis (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The was a link left on Wikidata:Video games task force/2006 video games and now I fixed that. Nothing is pointing to the page I deleted any more, I believe. If you happen to find a link and you cannot fix it, please post a link to it and I will try to fix that as well. I see the merge (by Ymblanter (talkcontribslogs)) did not move the actual entries, so I added them manually. The ptwiki entry is a redirect now, so I left that one out (see Wikidata:Notability). -Cycn (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your help :) --Limonadis (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

ReːMerging itemsEdit

Hello Cycn, Thanks for the tip, but I already use Merge.js. I didn't use the option to always merge to the lowest number, because I was following the merging policy - sometimes I merged to the item with higher number because it was used more often. While we're at it, I would like to ask: should I use the option to automatically nominate empty entries for deletion or rather try the StreamDeletion? The latter is said to be an experimental feature, and I couldn't find any documentation on this topic, so I just used the former option. Thanks again for your comment. Kind regards -- Adoomer (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I also use merge.js by the way, with the option of lowest number.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Cycn, thanks for this tip. I have picked up this merg.js on my profile. I will try to use it in my future merging edits. --Bestiasonica (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Cycn. You have new messages at Frlgin's talk page.
Message added 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


There're more true duplicates lasted for nearly half a year in that page.--GZWDer (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw. I solved a few allready. There's some work to be done in that area, I see... -Cycn (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


Do you mind if I use it? :-) --by ReviTalkCMG at 05:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, go right ahead. How did you find it? -Cycn (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Special:Prefixindex with NS:User and your username. I saw you use almost same message on merge.js message, so I thought there is some page to copypaste. --by ReviTalkCMG at 10:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Nice trick. I see the message helped a number of people and I noticed that I placed almost the same message each time, so I thought a template would be useful. It don't think it matters who sends it, so I do like your idea. -Cycn (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Now at User:Hym411/Merge with some template tricks and addon. :-D --by ReviTalkCMG at 10:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Very good. I like the improvements. I may wish to take over some if not all of them in my template. -Cycn (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Take it :D --by ReviTalkCMG at 11:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI: I noticed that you call the lower number as the "preferable" recipient item there. While that is totally reasonable in many cases, there are cases where it's better to merge to the higher one, e.g. if that one is linked more often. This is why I changed Help:Merge#Select recipient item to suggest to use "the item that is used more often" as the recipien item after this short discussion in August, with the fallback "best choose the one with the lowest Q####, as it is the oldest item" if someone can't tell. --YMS (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not 'better to merge to the higher one', it's just easier. If you prefer 'easier' then it is preferable to merge into the higher number in some cases, as it can be done quicker, solving the request faster. -      - (Cycn/talk) 10:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There also may be external links to our items (other databases, Wikipedia articles referencing other items' statements, Wikipedia discussion refering to certain items, etc.). Usually we don't see those links at all, but if we have item 1 with one sitelink and no statements and item 2 with docens of sitelinks and the full set of statements, it's far more likely that such links exist for item 2 than for item 1. So if we merge those two items to item 1, we're likely to break some things somewhere else (without noticing), while if we merge to item 2, likely nothing will break. Surely the number of external links is quite low currently (my second example isn't even possible technically yet), but while there is this chance of breaking external stuff by deleting the "smaller" item, I don't see any benefit of the rule that we should always keep the older item. --YMS (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
External factors are not easy to take into account. Something, somewhere may link to the higher numbered item, but something else may be linking to the lower one at the same time - what to do about that? So: if you know of just a link and we can assume there isn't one for the lower numbered item, then mention it in the request. Even then, when another item is found by someone that has a lower number that the one that was kept it may get merged into that at a different moment. So taking into account all theoretical scenarios we cannot check isn't all that practical, it's for the external party to manage that if they wish to use Wikidata. -      - (Cycn/talk) 12:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course we cannot check all external factors and we are not responsible for those. But in a scenario like the one that I described, the chances are high that item 2 is externally used more frequently than item 1. So chances are that by merging into 2 less links will be broken than by merging into item 1. Also, more of the item's history will be preserved if we merge into the item with more history (the history of Wikidata items isn't that important, as it's not needed for re-using the item, but still it's better to have it than not have it, e.g. to find who added statement X or to find all items edited by vandal Y). Both these advantages may not be that huge, but what's the advantage of merging into the older item? --YMS (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I move all the local links, whichever I would chose, so locally there shouldn't be any problem on Wikidata and most sister projects. Moving also leave a message with a link to the kept item, so broken links aren't that broken. I think it's logical to assume, when no other information is available, that the oldest item has more (if any) external links to it. But maybe you could clarify this scenario with an (theoretical) example (you would have actual numbers, I assume)? Also, if there is a reason not to merge into the lower number, please add it to the request, otherwise most admins would not see any advantages not to merge into the lower numbered items, exept that it may be a bit more work, and assume any advange would be towards the older items as it had more time to collect unnoticed external attention. -      - (Cycn/talk) 16:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
To "assume any advange would be towards the older items as it had more time to collect unnoticed external attention" is totally valid if we're talking about real differences in the age of the item, like if someone creates a duplicate of Albert Einstein's item today, it's quite sure that Q937 had had more attention. However, the very most of our several million items have been created within a range of just the six months of last December to May. There are plenty of otherwise empty one-sitelink items that are actually duplicates of items with many sitelinks, statements, labels, a longer contribution history and so on. In just my recent contributions I did of course not find the perfect example, but I recently merged e.g. Q1626065 (one sitelink, no statements) into Q2056531 (four sitelinks including enwiki, five statements including an external database identifier) or Q2536215 (one sitelink, three statements) into Q4115332 (five sitelinks including enwiki, six statements). --YMS (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
These are useable examples. When I have the choice and there is no indication it's better to merge into the higher number I will still choose the lower one, but I will take the things you mentioned into into account and look out for such indications. I also removed the suggestion that one should always merge towards the lower number from User:Cycn/Merge, as it's not as obvious as I suggested. -      - (Cycn/talk) 12:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi, please restore Q12646602, it is about satellite. Q486250 is about navigation system. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be empty? -      - (Cycn/talk) 08:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. As I see you find some articles for it. Sometimes items present concepts that have no articles currently. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Empty items should still be deleted. But in this case, it worked out fine. -      - (Cycn/talk) 20:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

More precise title for 'Instances of human' RFCEdit

Hi Cycn, thanks for creating Wikidata:Requests for comment/Instances of human. "Instances of human" and the introduction to that RFC lead folks to believe the discussion is about whether 'human nonperson', 'nonhuman person' and 'human person' should be deleted. However, the motivation for that RFC was not about those specific items. The motivation for the RFC is more precisely the procedural, much more mundane question of whether items linked in an archived RFC can be updated. More broadly, the motivation is how we can better handle links using the Q template to items in any archived discussion.

Given that, would you be OK with changing the title of that RFC to "Preserving labels of deleted entities in archived discussions"? Thanks, Emw (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the title to Improving handling of labels of deleted entities in archived discussions. I left a note at the top of the RFC and changed the title in Wikidata:Requests_for_comment. If there's any issue with that, please let me know or feel free to change the title as you see fit. Emw (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that's fine, I just cooked up something when I created it. -      - (Cycn/talk) 08:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Merging MDMA with EcstacyEdit

Hi :) Thanks for removing the obsolete entry after the merge. I was just wondering if there was a reason why you (or the script) changed the labels to the obsolete name. I think the original name (MDMA) should be kept in these cases as they are the main article in those particular languages, and "Ecstacy" is typically redirected to them. --Farzaneh (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The script may do that. Feel free to change it back. -      - (Cycn/talk) 17:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Great. I changed the en label, but am not sure how to change all the others back. Could you please give me some pointers? --Farzaneh (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Update - It can be done with the labelLister gadget :) Case closed. --Farzaneh (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Carlos FinlayEdit

Thanks alot for your help ;) I tried to read the faq, but as I read it it wasn't possible to do, without doing it manually. TherasTaneel (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging itemsEdit

Thanks for the advice. I'm not 100% on how to use the Merge.js gadget, but will figure it out before I do my next merge. Regards,--Aa2-2004 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Cycn. There are a couple of QDs ready for deletion at WD:RFD. Can you please check it out? Thanks. JianhuiMobile talk 09:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the RFD list is being watched by one or more admins as we type, so don't worry, your request done with will be handled shorty. All request done with merged.js will be handled quite speedily, because the gadget makes it quite easy for the admins to check and process them. -      - (Cycn/talk) 09:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I see User:Penn Station just deleted the items. -      - (Cycn/talk) 09:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I have changed all the links now. You can go and delete them. I still have 220+ more to request deletion. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 08:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Where can I find them? -      - (Cycn/talk) 08:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Special:ShortPages keep updating short pages to request deletion. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 08:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Cycn. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
I have no idea where I would be able to find this mail. -      - (Cycn/talk) 09:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Your wiki confirmed mail. --by Revi레비 at 11:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I have no idea where I would be able to find my wiki confirmed mail. -      - (Cycn/talk) 11:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
On your Special:Preferences. --by Revi레비 at 01:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging itemsEdit

Hello. I understand but it doesn't work with me. I think I'll stop to merge items. Lykos (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I just added your talk page to my watchlist and replied there. -      - (Cycn/talk) 09:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:Merging itemsEdit

Sí, ya conocía el gadget Merge.js, sólo que yo hice mis ediciones de otra forma más larga, esto es, moviendo manualmente los interwikis al elemento con menor ID y luego solicitando el borrado del elemento vacío con mayor ID. Si en vez de fusionar elementos, dejamos elementos vacíos, estos podrán ser reutilizados.

Gracias por el aviso. --Zerabat (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


Hello Cycn, I try to sort the different limestone and marl items. Maybe a bit confusing, but it's not the same. Holger1959 (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Merging itemsEdit

Hello, Cycn. You have new messages at HYH.124's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--HYH.124 (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Merging itemsEdit

O.k. Ik had deze gadget gezien, maar ik ben niet een experte van Wikidata. Hartelijk bedankt. Dag!
davide (een editor van de italiaanse en de venetiaanse Wikipedia) --Davy1509 (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: Sorry voor mijn Nederlands! --Davy1509 (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

ˑThanks for the info, I'll try to use this gadget in the future.--Szilas (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the merge help. I had intended to merge to the lower ID, and only now notice that I should merge from the page you want to lose not the page you want to keep. Will ensure I get it right from here. Feel free to undo any changes I just made. Smb1001 (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Zohar FortEdit

I have no idea what's going on but I changed the original category to a capitalized "Fort" on CommonsWiki and it won't show it here but instead a lowercase "fort" for some reason. Plus you made a lot of merge requests and editconflicts with me, so you ended up adding then removing the sitelink to the same category page. How best to move forward and avoid the editconflicts? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you are trying to add category to this item, but this item is for the articles with this name. commons:Category:Zohar Fort should be added to an item labled Category:Zohar fort, which should be linked (Property:P910) to Zohar Fort (Q6774709). I believe so items exist for the coresponding categories, and no commons:Zohar fort article exist, so no such link can be made. Only the commonscategory can be linked to Q6774709 using Property:P373. -      - (Cycn/talk) 10:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh ok, I don't know relevant policies for this sort of thing, but I go by what I saw on other item description pages, and some other pages have the commonscategory along with the Wikipedia and Wikisource links in their mainspace. I also originally thought that if there was a commonscat without a commons-gallery we were allowed to link to the commonscat until a proper commons-gallery was created. Commons-galleries on the other hand are very difficult to maintain, especially when some of them redirect to a category. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the commonsgallery option should be used restictively and usually Property:P373 suffices to link the commonscat to the item. I don't know if there's an actual policy. I think that a category on Commons should be linked to the category item, and a galery to the item, otherwise you might get interwiki conflicts. When a gallery or category is 'missing' on commons I think it's best to still do this as missing items can always be created on their wikiproject. -      - (Cycn/talk) 11:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides the fact that this would place a burden on respective projects to create a corresponding article/gallery page or category page to suit the needs of the other project, I've found a relevant policy page here which is very vague in describing this problem. I don't think interwiki conflicts are too much of an issue, as I prefer linking to a commonscat if a corresponding commons-gallery page does not exist, and then changing the link later if/when a such a gallery is created. But anyway, that's my opinion. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding "Imported from" reference.Edit

Hi, I see you've replaced some "reference URL" sources (for example in Q78994) with "Imported from". These are reference URLs that I added to indicate that the information can be supported by the content of the page/URL that I refer to. Perhaps I am mistaken (being fairly new to Wikidata), but I would think that "Imported from" indicates that a (fairly large) data import has been run from an external Wiki like the English and German Wikipedias. Isn't it a big difference whether the data has been automatically imported, or manually added? What I've intended by adding these URLs is not much different than adding a citation/reference in a normal Wikipedia page, as support for a claim, and this is not the same as an import. What do you think? Thanks in advance for your reply :-) Fred Johansen (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

One cannot use Wikipedia content as a source or reference anywhere, because of the very nature of these projects. The URL- option is for pages that could be used as a source for any kind of (scientific) paper. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello Cycn, can you please take a look at the edits of the new user BlackKoro? He or she has removed a lot of links to otters categories in many wikis and created two new items, now there are three of them, but in every one there are just two or no links at all. Where have all the links gone? Q15984079 (history), new item with no links at all, Q15984268 with two links (en and th), Q7045023, item with no links, but many have been removed. I don’t see where those links are now (except en and th) and I don’t understand what has been done there. Regards --October wind (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think those links are all gone now. For example, ro:Categorie:Lutrinae hasn’t any interwikis any more, but Lutrinae are otters (Latin name). I fear, all those edits have to be reverted and the two new items have to be deleted. It doesn’t seem to be the same as Q7150879 (de:Kategorie:Marder, but en:Category:Mustelidae) and Q9032831 (de:Kategorie:Mustelidae), where two categories exist in German with the Latin and the German name, and the links are mixed up in the two items, because both items lists Category:Mustelidae, but it isn’t possible to add to the item Q9032831 the English description „Category:Mustelidae“ which would be right there. Why aren’t all the links to categories with the Latin name „Mustelidae“ in the item Q9032831, but just a few of them? Also svwiki has two categories for Mustelidae: sv:Kategori:Mustelidae and sv:Kategori:Mårddjur, but enwiki only has one and the other wikis, too. What does Wikidata with those categories? --October wind (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, in German Wikipedia all those taxa articles are categorized twice: The articles all get a category with the German and the Latin name, these are two different category trees, and links go from the Latin categories to the German and back. Maybe svwiki does also something like that, but enwiki and other wikis only put the articles in the category with the Latin name (or either the local name). So, it isn’t clear, which category link the English category (and the other wikis) should get here, and that makes chaos between the items. Anyway, I don’t think that the edits of BlackKoro have anything to do with this confusion, because then the categories would have other links now. And there doesn’t exist any category for otters in German Wikipedia, neither is there one in Swedish Wikipedia. --October wind (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  Comment i think I have fixed the Lutrinae issue. Holger1959 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) --October wind (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

President of Veneto (Q7241299)Edit

Thanks for your corrections. --Oursana (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

New itemEdit

Hi, I want to help someone out by linking the page they have just created on hi.wikipedia, hi:न्यू आर. एस. जे. पब्लिक स्कूल, with the parent article at en:New R. S. J. Public School, but I see there is no item here for the latter and I can't figure out how to create one. Could you possibly do it for me? Sorry to be such a doofus; the interface here really defeats me. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

On the hindi page, under भाषाएँ (when it is expanded) there should be and option कड़ी जोड़ें. Then you get a pop-up. After भाषा you fill in the code for the other language, in this case en. Then you fill in the page on that wiki: New R. S. J. Public School and save. This will create a new item on wikidata. 12:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that worked. All I was seeing at either article was a "Languages" link that offered me the possibility of changing the language of the page apparatus, no way to get to Wikidata. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
That option only appears once at least one other wiki is linked. -      - (Cycn/talk) 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I am cleaning up all the wikidata for Bantu categories. Please don't revert my edits. HelenOnline (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@HelenOnline: - You were merging pages and categories and you are threw away data, please just stop and think about what you are doing. -      - (Cycn/talk) 09:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I am readding the data where it belongs (was trying but your reverts made that impossible). If I don't remove it first, I keep getting error messages. Reverting me without discussion makes the whole job which is an absolute nightmare much harder. Please let me know when I can proceed without interruption. See w:en:Category talk:Bantu peoples for further explanation. HelenOnline (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@HelenOnline: - You threw out pages from Bantu people (Q173371), which is for articles, and nominated it to have Category:Bantu people (Q15286137) merged it, which is for categories. Why did you empty Q173371 when you are working on categories? 09:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There are no pages/articles for "Bantu people" collectively (note singular "people", for individual Bantu people), only categories. There are both pages and categories for "Bantu peoples" (note plural "peoples", for groups vs individuals). It is confusing I know and the reason for the mess I am trying to sort out, but I did not invent the Wikipedia naming system. HelenOnline (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I overlooked the "Category" difference here and see now I should have kept the other one instead. HelenOnline (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
You cannot merge articles and categories; the other point I get: persons versus ethnicities, that's a hard one. -      - (Cycn/talk) 11:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, FYI I will revisit this after month end. I have a lot of other Wikimedia work to do this month and this is not an easy job and my brain is not cooperating at the moment either. I will check with you before I make any further edits. HelenOnline (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi and thanks, I see you and some bots and other editors have been fixing links. Commons and Wiki-en seem to match which is my main concern (and it is hard for me to follow what is going on in many other languages). I am otherwise out of my depth here so I am not going to fiddle any more here. Hopefully any incorrect links will right themselves eventually. HelenOnline (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


  The Barnstar of Dilligence
Thanks for your hard work at RFD!   Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Jianhui67 (talkcontribslogs). -      - (Cycn/talk) 09:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Q15829892/GmbH itemsEdit

Hello Cycn, you deleted this item after it was merged into Q460178. Now we have a mixed item with a unclear definition (it was well sorted before, when i last looked at it). Please can you have a second look and restore (and/or improve if needed) the former arrangement of items?

GmbH is a form of a company typical for D-A-CH countries, so dewiki is naturally the one with the most differentiated articles. We have

  1. Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Q16726180) disambiguation
  2. Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Q1518609) GmbH in Austria
  3. Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Q1518604) GmbH in Liechtenstein
  4. limited liability company (Q1518608) GmbH in Switzerland
  5. Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Q460178) GmbH in Germany
  6. And we had the now deleted item "GmbH in general in different countries" (for wikis describing 2.–5. in only one article).

Now 6. was merged into 5. which is misleading or not precise, as if one merges "fruit" into "banana" ;) It also seems that some (or many?) items that formerly linked to the multi-country item Q15829892 were changed and therefore maybe some items wronly link to the German GmbH now. Holger1959 (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo @Holger1959:,

I have undeleted Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Q15829892) and undone the merger. Can you check which of the items in Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Q460178) should be moved to the general item? -      - (Cycn/talk) 07:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have checked the dewiki situation. the same applies for BV/BVBA in Dutch and SARL in French. There are combined articles and the dewiki has article per country rather than abbrevation. I used the Property:P279 to link those articles to the combined articled. 08:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thank you, also for sorting out the BV links! Using P279 is a good idea. i noticed your "ping" in the log comment [2], but only by looking at my watchlist, not as a notification (i think ping does generally not work in logs). Holger1959 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for informing me about the ping ineffectiveness, that will prevent incorrect assumptions. -      - (Cycn/talk) 23:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd propose to merge 1 and 6 (as they are about 1 topic and the only difference is purely technical - small template). --Infovarius (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You'd propose to merge a disambiguation page with an article? -      - (Cycn/talk) 09:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course. The reason is in the parentheses. Infovarius (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


I don't understand why you delete Property:P1080 from fictional elements? We need it to generate in-universe lists and it was created exactly for that. Reasonator and most tools can't use it if it's a qualifier and not a property (in which cases I can understand your suppressions, because of the redundancy, even if we still need it), but you also deleted when P1080 wasn't used at all, even as a qualifier, so I just don't understand. Can you explain please? --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why would we need "in-universe lists"? What is a "Reasonator" and what is it problem with qualifiers?
But let me explain what I can without these questions answed with these examples:
Reasonator is a tool so frequently used it was integrated in a gadget wikidata. There are many tools which can't read qualifiers. Maybe you don't need to create in-universe lists, but some of us do. There are wikipedias which use wikidata generated lists to complete theirs ; there are external sites which use wikidata-generated lists. We have a property designed to do exactly that: mark each element as belonging to a precise fictional universe. When this property is used, all external tools work, we can generate all the in-universe lists we want. When this property is deleted, most of the tools (I don't say all because maybe one I don't use still work?) don't work. The lists are the next phase of wikidata, it seems rather counter-productive to hamper their generation ([3]). The arborescence is good, but doesn't serve the same objective. With P1080 I could generate a list of all the elements of the Legendarium, or a list of all the Children of Ilúvatar or whatever I want with the existing tools ; I have no idea how to generate a list like this without this property. The day we have tools which can read five or more levels of arborescence maybe it wouldn't be so useful, but it's actually very useful and very much needed. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks you for the clear explanation. I don't see a problem with using the P1080 property like I explained in the Doriath example to create a Tolkien specific quailifier 'fictional country in Tolkien's works', and have the P1080 qualifier as a separate item as well for the functionality as well. The P1080 should include a bit more of the explanation you gave me to make clear that it is used for searches and tools. I won't remove any single Property:P1080 Tolkien's legendarium (Q81738) entries any more, only when I find Q81738 used for other properties, as I did before, I will remove the other property. -      - (Cycn/talk) 08:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just an adviceEdit

Hi Cycn. When you want to nominate someone for RFA next time, I think you should ask the user first before creating his RFA page, in case he does not want to be an admin. Thank you. Regards, Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh and if the nominee forgets to transclude the nomination page to WD:RFA, you can do it for them. Thanks. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


  • @Cycn: Could you please change your signature? It links me to File Viewers instead to your userpage. Vogone (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    And please also add a "subst:" after adjusting it. A real life signature on a document also won't be ever changed again. Vogone (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'm using a subst. But I'll try to mend my signature to solve the linking issue... -      - (Cycn/talk) 06:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 06:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Hm, if I look at the source text it seems to me you aren't. Your last signature right here above: {{User:Cycn/Template:Signature}} 06:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC). --Vogone (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    I see what you mean... I'm going to move this discussion to my talk page, if you don't mind, and fix the issue, at least partially, asap. -      - (Cycn/talk) 06:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Moved to here, as threatened. -      - (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, now, with gadget "show flags of the user" c (A) y (A) с (A) n (A) looks awful. Infovarius (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    @Infovarius: I replaced it with writing, that should be a lot better, I suppose? cycŋ - (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, it works now. Infovarius (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


With reference to this, it looks to me that the it, de and fr pages deal with the overdot in general, as a diacritic mark that can be put on many letters depending on language, while the en and nl pages deal with it as the dot on a lowercase i or j. I think the latter pages deal with the subject in a very anglocentric way and just need to be expanded. This way they'd cover the same subject as the it, de and fr pages (also note that the English page states «A tittle or superscript dot is [...]», which couldn't be a more literal translation to the Italian equivalent "punto sovrascritto"). Ultimately note that a tittle doesn't have to necessarily be on a lowercase i or j, but it looks like it has two different acceptations: «A small diacritic mark, such as an accent, vowel mark, or dot over an i.» and, more generally, «a dot or other small mark in writing or printing, used as a diacritic or punctuation.». Hope I could drive the point home. Regards! --Adamanttt (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Dutch wiki denies this: "De punt op de <i> en de <j> wordt doorgaans niet als een diakritisch teken gezien, maar wel als deel van het letterteken zelf." (nl:Tittel), but I've known the Dutch to be wrong on other occations. The English wiki, however, states: "In Turkish, the dot above lowercase i and j (and uppercase İ) is not regarded as an independent diacritic but as an integral part of the letter. It is called a tittle." (en:Dot (diacritic)). I agree that both the French and Italian articles describe the tittle (Q13586558) as well, but more than that, and the Dutch and English wikis claim the tittle to be different than or, at best, a subklasse (Property:P279) of overdot (Q16798246). -      - (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the tittle could be a subclass of overdot, which is a subclass of dot. However, as long as (just like doesn't have a standalone page for the overdot, I think it would be common sense to just link up all the pages, as they share pretty much the same subject. Also think of this syllogism: what is called the dot on a lowercase i in English? A "tittle"; what is called the dot on a lowercase i in Italian? Un "punto sovrascritto"; well, this is why a few days ago I expected to find "Tittle - English" among the interwiki links when I opened Punto sovrascritto. I don't know if this line of reasoning works on Wikidata, but you sure do know better than me, so I'll leave it up to you. Nice talking to you. :-) --Adamanttt (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi Cycn,

A disambiguation item got merged into a given name item. Would you restore the above? Thanks. --- Jura 17:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

All six items in Jean-Jacques (Q728200) are disambiguation pages about the given name Jean-Jacques, so this seems a valid merge to me. Or is there a wiki that has two disambiguation pages with one specifically for the given name and another with people with the given name? cycŋ - (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cycn and @Jura1: I saw the last edits to Q728200 and i think it's one of our common problems: how one defines disambiguations. There are different "traditions" in the different Wikipedias. enwiki's page is categorised as a set index article (note the bold "A set index article is not a disambiguation page." there), and nlwiki's page claims (by Categorie:Jongensnaam and absence of disambig template) that it is a "normal" given name article. From a German Wikipedian perspective i would call all set index articles and also the nlwiki page pure disambiguations too, because both have nearly no real "content" or background information about the name, only 1 (!) sentence and a list. But i'm not the one who decides how other projects classify their pages. So what i learned from lots of cases like this: it is best to reflect what Wikipedias state, not to interprete their pages to much. Another point is maybe, that all given name or family name items, i think, are generally notable as structural elements (at least if linked from other items). This means such an item does not have to have a Wikipedia link to be kept. Hope this helps a bit. Holger1959 (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

en and nl are not disambiguation pages, but pages on given names. This is not the case for the other 4. --- Jura 16:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
In any case, we would need to separate items, one for disambiguation and item for the given name (to be used with the specific property). --- Jura 16:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If Jean (Q7521081) and Jacques (Q941049) don't need seperate items, why would the combination of these need it? cycŋ - (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
They are at Jean (Q1684580) and Jacques (Q977622). --- Jura 04:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Good, so these can be merged as well... Q7521081 and Q1684580 seem to be the same, Q941049 and Q977622 look different, as Jacques seem to have other meanings as well. In that case I understand the need for 2 items, but I well check the Jean pages in all different languages. cycŋ - (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Q7521081 and Q1684580 are not the same, as some articles are about the French male given name and others about the English female given name and the surname as well. Only the Ukrainian wiki had a different disambiguation page Жан, but none of the items on that page translate back to Jean, so I removed it from the page. The Russian page Жан is about the name, it seams, and Жани is one of the items on the Ukrainian disambiguation page Жан, but there is no Russian disambiguation page for Жани.
In essence though, both Q7521081 and Q1684580 are the same as Q728200, both disambiguation and given and/or names. Maybe there should be a separate item for a given name item and for a surname for Jacques, and for Jean as well, but I don't think there's a need for a surname item for Jean-Jacques. cycŋ - (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The disambiguation items are about identically spelled words, "given name" items are about the meaning. --- Jura 18:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Of the six items about Jean, Jacques or both only Q977622 is disambiguation page. In this item the dewiki entry also doubles as a surname item, so as far as I can see only the enwiki in Q977622 and en ukwiki entry Жан were actual disambiguation pages. Q16831989 contained a dewiki entry about the same given name as the five entries Q728200 were about, so why shouldn't they have been merged? cycŋ - (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The items around "Jean" seem to be a bit of a mix-up and need clean-up, but clearly en:Jacques (disambiguation) and en:Jacques can't go on the some item. If a Wikipedia marks a title a disambiguation page, it should go on a disambiguation item. These shouldn't be mixed with pages that are not disambiguation pages. It can be that for some given names, we have no Wikipedia article to link to. --- Jura 21:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but all six Jean-Jacques items were items about the given names, even the german one. And all given name pages are disambiguation pages. I have not found a disambiguation page for Jean-Jacques that's not about the given name. If a separate item would be needed, it shouldn't be one that was started as a given name disambiguation page like the other five are. en:Jacques (disambiguation) is clearly different and there may be a page like that for Jean, next to the page for the given name and one for the surname. but is one actually needed for Jean-Jacques? (with or without any items linked to it). cycŋ - (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It can be that all articles listed on a disambiguation page are there because of a given name, but they remain disambiguation pages (exemple: the pl one). They could include other things (exemple: the de one). On the other hand, it can be that in one language, there is only an article about the given name, but no disambiguation page (exemple the en and the nl one). Theses shouldn't be linked to disambiguation pages in other languages. --- Jura 22:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It does not seem to apply to Jean-Jacques, in the cases that are now in Q728200, so I still don't see why the merging of Q16831989 should be reverted. But the issue with given names, surnames and unrelated or overheading disambiguation pages is a tricky one and will need careful attention, in the mentioned and in other cases. cycŋ - (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, tricky indeed. In this case, it might be easier to fix it starting from a consolidated item. Some other are so throughly messed up, that I don't even know how to start ;) --- Jura 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


Hey, can I ask why when I accessed to Viwiki from Enwiki, the link worked correctly (en:Siesta to Ngủ trưa and Nap to nothing) but not the other way around? From Viwiki vi:Ngủ trưa (lit. Sleep at noon), it goes to en:nap (means ngủ ngày in Vietnamese).

There were 3 links on the viwiki page, they replace the links in de Wikidata items, so I removed them from the vi:Ngủ trưa page, so it should be working correctly, now. cycŋ - (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thanks :) Squall282 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello, i think this item (name Flemming) had links in it when you deleted it (sv:Flemming and some others, which are now lost and not present on Wikidata). The item was also used, but BeneBot changed the links in the meantime so that some P734 statements now point to the Flemming disambig item.

Could you please have a look and restore if possible? Holger1959 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The German entry was the odd one out. I checked the original page, that included most of these pages and the Finnish and Russian pages seem the same as the Swedish one you mentioned. There is no reason Q1428005 should be a disambiguation item and not a given and family name page. Most of the other items that were originally in Q1428005 are now in Q1427997. cycŋ - (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
now after your action de:Flemming is lost (it's in no item) and the disambiguation page fi:Flemming is in a name item. It's only a question of time until bots find their ways and create a third item for dewiki again, and mark Q1428005 (which you changed from disambig to name) as a disambiguation. I think this is not what we all want, or? Maybe ValterVB or other admins can have a look? Holger1959 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
fi:Flemming is a disambiguation to given and family names like the others, so why shouldn't it be in here? de:Flemming is about the last family name, as de:Flemming (Vorname) is about the given name and in the item Q1427997. There is not item about the family name, but one could be created, containing only the german item. It's becomes a mess because pages about names are interpretted as non-disambiguation, even when they disambiguate between people with a certain name. cycŋ - (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Elliott (Q4798594)Edit

Hi Cycn, please can you help me again. His Commons page and category appear to be linked to his Wikipedia article but when I click on the wikidata link it takes me to the w:Arthur Elliot dab page instead. I don't know how to fix it.HelenOnline (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Both items on Commons had a manual link to en:Arthur Elliott. I fixed it on the category page and removed it from commons:Arthur Elliott, that fixed the issue on both. - cycŋ - (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much! HelenOnline (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If you edit (the source of) the page you should be able to see one or more links at the bottom of the page starting with
That's a hard interwiki and those take presedence. Try to remove the line and check your edit (middle button). The interwiki should have been changed to the one in Wikidata. If that's the correct one you can save your edit and you solved an issue like this yourself. On commons they sometimes use the hard interwikis to like pages to categories, which are different items in Wikidata, and these have to be update manually. If possible categories in Commons should be liked to categories items in Wikidata, but a lot of subjects only have categories in Commons, so they have no real interwiki. That's probably why they hard link pages to these categories. 12:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks, it never occurred to me to check the source code for interwiki links will remember to do so next time. HelenOnline (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi Cycn, I've corrected The Source of Labor (Q16080182) and reverted unintentionally your edits. You've used volume (P478) as a qualifier. Help:Sources recommends to use it as a property. Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Strange that Help:Sources would recommend using it as a separate propery, as that makes it uncleare what it would be a volume of. I'll look into that and inquire why such a weird suggestion would be done, if in fact it is. - cycŋ - (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --Kolja21 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Hoi Cycn, Ik zag dat je een aantal pagina's op WD:RFD die ik in een redirect had omgezet hebt verwijderd, bijvoorbeeld Q15975792. Ik meen dat dat niet de bedoeling is. Het heeft voorzover ik weet de voorkeur om een redirect aan te maken, zodat externe partijen niet op een verwijderde pagina stuiten. Ik zou op prijs stellen als je eerst even checkt voor je verwijdert (of liever zelf een redirect aanmaakt). Groet, Lymantria (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ik begrijp het nut van redirects op locale wiki's maar niet op wikidata. Ze zijn hier ineens ingevoerd -ik maakte per ongeluk een paar aan in plaats van dat ik de items in kwestie verwijderde- en ik zie hier ook alleen maar nadelen. Als je toevallig weet waar dit besproken is dan ben ik erg benieuwd want misschien zie ik wel iets over het hoofd wat toch enig nut verklaart dat de problemen die de redirects hier veroorzaken waard zou maken. - cycŋ - (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Related discussions have been taking place at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Merge.js#wbcreateredirect and Wikidata:Project_chat#Redirect. whym (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
hmm. this is a really, really bad idea. And it's the new policy? If that's the case I should hand in my adminship forthwith. I have not found the original discussion, the links are about implementing this, but I will try to find it and base see if indeed I should. In the mean time I think I'll just handle cases where creating a redirect isn't a possibility, and ignore all the cases where this is an option. - cycŋ - (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Even while it is not policy, I dislike to be overruled when I apply it. And I must agree, until now creating redirects seems to make it more difficult to monitor merges. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your issue about being overruled, and I will take that into account. I will, however, oppose the very existence of redirects on Wikidata and if and when redirecting items rather than deleting them becomes policy I will withdraw myself as admin. I won't press the issue by overruling you, or another admin, again. Sorry for my previous acts of overruling. - cycŋ - (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI#2: Wikidata:Project chat#Deletion vs redirect would be a current and better venue for a wider discussion. (I somehow missed it earlier.) whym (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will read the discussion and, if I think it's needed or it can help, let myself be heard. But Lymantria (talkcontribslogs) is right that I should not have overruled him on this point, and I won't remove such redirects again until consensus about that has been reached on this point. - cycŋ - (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Cycn. Lymantria (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Lev MeiEdit

Can you please stop the unexplained reverts on Lev Mei? What you're doing removes the interwiki links to all his articles at his Commons cat and replaces it with nothing. INeverCry 23:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you add articles to categories or vice versa then I revert it, as it's obviously a mistake. Can you please stop repeating making the same mistake again after you are corrected. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 07:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you did these edits, but they are incorrect. Because you put a lot of time in it it pained me to have to revert your work. There is a solution for the thing you are trying to fix on Commons itself:commons:On Wikipedia, which will add links to the articles on the category pages, but still leaves the interwiki room for the other categories (if there are any). This way you will have both sets of links without having to choose or disrupt Wikidata with exceptions to the articles-with-articles/categories-with-categories system. I hope this will satisfy the things you hoped to accomplish.

With regards and good luck on Commons, - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 12:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

New merge policyEdit

Hi Cycn, the Wikidata:Deletion policy was changed after Wikidata:Requests for comment/Redirect vs. deletion. Could you please redirect (and not delete) items like Q7267351 in the future? Also see Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Close a RFC. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that ond Wikidata:Deletion policy and I definately do not agree with such a policy. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 08:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The option to delete an item after merge was removed. You don't have to agree with it, you just have to follow it. Multichill (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I still have this option, so it wasn't removed. And I won't be forced to implement a policy I reject furiously, I would sooner hand the rights that enable me to delete pages and just nominate instead and have others process the nominations as they care. This does mean I won't assist any longer on the Wikidata:Requests for deletions, but I won't help implementing this idiotic policy. I don't see this policy, I only see an action on the RfC where this idea was discussed, and I can see that in fact it is not (yet) implemented. If it is indeed implemented, though, show me and I will have my rights revoked forthwith. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 09:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Multichill:, I see it has been implemented, so I just filed the request to have my rights removed: Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/Cycn. You don't have to worry about me deleting any items in the future. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 10:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Alsooo, your "Merging items" notice can be updated. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I won't be using that any more. Let's delete that (or make it a redirect or whatever. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 08:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


  The Wikidata Barnstar
It's sad to see you give up your tools. I give you this for your hard work at RfD. Sincerely, --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I am glad I could be of help and it's nice to see it was appreciated. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 14:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of rightsEdit

Hi Cycn, sorry to see you go... but anyway, the proper place to resign is m:SRP. Sorry also for the confusion, but that is the proper place. --Rschen7754 07:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Cycn/Archive".