User talk:Anomalocaris#Please be aware...

{{Archives | archivelist = /archivelist | search=yes}}

History of ethanol fuel in Brazil

History of ethanol fuel in Brazil has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"

|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 65px

|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you! User:Hiroooooo

Hirooooooooo (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

List of sovereign states in 2008/09

Could you please remove all the {{Tlx|capital}}s in Draft:List of sovereign states in 2008 and 2009, thx. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:This conversation continues where it started on your talk page at User talk:ColorfulSmoke#Lists of sovereign states. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi there. Yes, I completely reset my page and started adding all the userboxes back. It was edited before and I wasn't used to the syntax having not formatted tables for several years! I was going to fix it eventually, thank you for getting there before me! Bobo. 12:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it impolite to..

Is it impolite of me to edit (the original versions of) userboxes for spelling and grammar? Many of the userboxes here, for example, are missing apostrophes and such. Userboxes aren't usually my area so I don't know how precious they are to the individual. Bobo. 12:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

:Bobo: In my opinion, it is OK to edit original userboxes in the user namespace. If there is a comment in the userbox markup asking others not to edit it, don't edit it. If the owner asks you not to edit it, don't edit it. I have edited thousands of pages where someone might claim ownership, and I would estimate that there are complaints less than 1% of the time. So go ahead and insert the missing apostrophes and use the subjunctive ("This user wishes the Bluebuck weren't extinct") as you see fit. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

::Now I look at it, the original creator of the userboxes in question has been permablocked and the userboxes in question are not transcluded on anyone else's page(s). Bobo. 20:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User: Jhenderson777/cities

Ok technical errors like that should be fine to edit on. Whoops on my part! I was not completely done but I was also not working on it for the time being too. Jhenderson 777 07:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 PDC Players Championship 1

Hi Anomalocaris, my draft page Draft:2022 PDC Players Championship 1 has now been fixed from your recommendations. Do we know roughly when these pages will be created and moved? Thanks for your help, kind regards! GlenTheYid (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

:GlenTheYid I'm not on the team that reviews and approves draft articles. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Ciarán Strange

Thank you for attempting to help me on Draft:Ciarán Strange, but the decisions you viewed as errors, were intentional! As a result, I'm reverting it - and wanted to explain, at least in part - I use the archive bot to fill in the "archive-url" field at the end of my work on a draft so I don't need to run the bot multiple times. Intentionally including the 3 fields for archives, including url-status, when I paste in the source template I use, saves me from needing to go back to manually place them to direct the bot where I want them placed at the end.

"use dmy" was also intentionally left without brackets, for an elaborate reason that is best summed up to be my latest attempt to develop a more efficient "process" for myself while writing a draft.

Wasting editors' time is something I try to avoid, and I can seem like an odd duck of a Wikipedian - as this is the first time a Wikipedian I'm not directly collaborating with has chimed in, over a silly nuance to my editing... to prevent this misunderstanding from reoccurring, I could utilize my namespace for drafts going forward? Thanks, Canadianerk (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

:Canadianerk: Thank you for explaining your reversion. I came to Draft:Ciarán Strange because it was (and is again) listed at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/deletable-table-tag?namespace=118 Table tag that should be deleted] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/fostered?namespace=118 Fostered content] lint errors, both for the same reason: a table was "closed" with }} instead of |}. I fixed that error, and as long as I was editing it, I fixed other things, including the issue you noted that puts the page in hidden :Category:CS1 maint: url-status. (In preferences, on the Appearances tab, under Advanced options, check "Show hidden categories", and you'll see them too, which is helpful if you are editing.) Anything in the Draft namespace is fair game for anyone to edit, and if a draft or any other page is listed on a lint error page or any maintenance or tracking category, that will attract attention and someone may be motivated to fix the problem. Editors may be less likely to edit something in User space, but even there, lint errors and membership in maintenance categories will attract editors. There are 8 types of Lint errors that do not currently exist in User space, and that is because Wikipedia editors have eradicated these errors from User space. You are always free to develop drafts in your User space, but then you miss out on whatever help other editors may provide, and you'll have to move it to Draft space anyway when you're ready to submit. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

::I was aware there were maintenance categories - but never realized they were this extensive. Thank you for the information, and I'll do what I can to limit triggering them!

::Userspace drafts will give me the chance to use Template:Userspace draft so I think I'll take that approach. I appreciate the forewarning re: help from others, but as I'm not utilizing the AfC process and the articles I'm writing aren't that complicated, I'll take my chances at least for now. The articles I'm making, the bulk of the work is in the filmography, a process I've made quite efficient for myself, and am only getting better at. The only area I really sought help was for the writing aspects, the biography writing - which I'm moving towards independence on, such as on Krystal LaPorte. The benefits of draft space will be more useful to me once my editing focus shifts to more complex topics. Thank you for your time, I appreciate it! Canadianerk (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

English pronunciation

Where did you get the idea that in English 'words starting with "th" are voiced and all other "th" are unvoiced'? The words "the", "that", "then", for example, do indeed start with voiced "th", but "thin", "think", "thistle", "theocracy", for example, don't. On the other hand "either", "brother", "bathe" etc have voiced "th", while "ether", "method", "bath", etc, don't. If you are a native speaker of English then just listen to the difference when you say "thin" and "think", for example, or "bath" and "bathe". Better still consider the pairs mouth/mouthe and thigh/thy, where the only difference is unvoiced versus voiced "th". Alternatively, look a few of them up in any dictionary which gives pronunciation. JBW (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Having seen your subsequent edit summary, I have checked in a couple of dictionaries and confirmed that, very much to my surprise, the pronunciation /wɪθ/ for "with" is usual in American English. However, I suggest it is better to avoid using an example which depends on a particular variant of English. Would "both thick and thin" work for you? To me, both "both" and "thick" have unvoiced th. JBW (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

: JBW: My first edit summary was wrong, as I acknowledged right away. (I once saw somewhere that "th" at the beginning of words is voiced for grammar words and unvoiced otherwise, and I gave a bollixed version of that in my first summary.) "both thick and thin" is OK, but let's keep thinking and try to find examples without extra words. How about "both thighs"? There are 334,000 Google results for that, with quotes. Maybe we can find good international examples for voiced also, e.g. "lathe that" ... —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

:: I agree that it's better to use examples without extra words, and on that basis just "both thick" would be better than "both thick and thin", but I liked the idea of one where "both" is actually relevant, because it refers to a pair of things or concepts. However, "both thighs" has both of those advantages, so that's fine. "Lathe that" is OK, but it would be nice (although not essential) to find an example which is more of a natural expression, if possible. Since we agree on "both thighs", I will put that into the article

:: I find it truly astonishing that I had never noticed that the pronunciation of "with" with unvoiced "th" is the more common one among Americans, considering that I must have heard it countless thousands of times. Now that I think of it, I realise I had in fact occasionally noticed that pronunciation, but just put it down to an idiosyncrasy of the particular person. No doubt for such a basic and usually unemphasised word well over 99% of the time one hears through the sound to the meaning, without being conscious of the sound itself. JBW (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding [[Draft:MacNaughton Run]]

File:Information.svg Hello, Anomalocaris. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:MacNaughton Run, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding [[Draft:Michael Ross George]]

File:Information.svg Hello, Anomalocaris. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Michael Ross George, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"Bollixed" table

A nested table should begin on a new row and the "||" placed on the previous line. Your edit also conformed to this, but it was formatting differently. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

:Trigenibinion: Thank you for getting back to me. As an aside, when you comment on my talk page, it's helpful to mention the page in question, Template talk:Flaglist, so I don't have to look in my contribution history to find it. Help:Table has a section Help:Table#Nested tables, which shows a table with 5 nested tables. Markup for each of the nested tables starts on a new line. When a nested table is first item in a table cell (2 of the 5 nested tables), the line above the table markup starts with a pipe; the pipe is needed for the {{tag|td|o}} element. If there is also style markup for the cell containing the nested table (both cases in this example), there is also a pipe at the end of the style line, basically corresponding to the > of the {{tag|td|o}} tag. When a nested table isn't the first item in a table cell (3 of the 5 nested tables), the table starts right up without any pipes at the end of the previous line. The entire Help:Table page has 9 example lines where the table row line (|-, corresponding to {{tag|td|o}}) continues with other markup; each of these 9 times, the additional markup is row style markup that doesn't end with a pipe. I don't think table row lines ever need two, or even one, pipe at the end, or that any such pipe or pipes on the |- line can be used to set up for a nested table. Anyway, I don't accept your theory that two pipes are required on the line before a nested table (except at the beginning and end of a line with style or colspan or rowspan markup in between). Your markup generates 2 lint errors: a Table tag that should be deleted and a Stripped tag. My theory is that somehow, this bollixed markup causes a display effect that you are trying to achieve. But it's not OK to generate display effects through error behavior. Please find markup that generates your desired display without lint errors. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

:P.S. I agree with you that my version was formatting differently, but my version did not conform to your theory about two pipes placed on the previous line. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

::It was 2 pipes because it was not just a line consisting of one pipe. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

Trigenibinion: Can you find a reference that provides for nesting a table with the markup |- ||? Refining my earlier point, I believe the only markup that goes on a line starting |- is style markup that applies to the whole row. You're using a pipe to mean {{tag|td|o}}, but that can't go on the |- line. Here's an experiment you can try:

class="wikitable"

| row one cell one

row one cell two
| row two cell onerow two cell two

generates:

class="wikitable"

| row one cell one

row one cell two
| row two cell onerow two cell two

Notice that row two does not appear. If you insert a line break after |- ||, this generates a Fostered content lint error, which I don't want here, but you can test that on your own. The fostered content, "row two cell one || row two cell two" isn't in a table cell, so it displays before the table. This confirms my position that you can't put any wiki markup on the line starting |- except style markup for the table row, and definitely not a pipe for "table cell" or {{tag|td|o}}. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you please check it for me

Thank you for your edit on the drafted Amhara Genocide article. I merged multiple reference to improve the section and wondering if you check it out for me Petra0922 (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

:Petra0922: On talk pages, it's customary to add new sections at the end, not the beginning, so I moved your section to the end. I edited Draft:Amhara genocide again. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

::You are awesome! Thank you so much for the thorough edit as well. I will need to carefully watch the example edits you have done- to understand what you mean by {{citation}}/{{cite}} vs {{cite}}... I appreciate your help! Petra0922 (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

:::Petra0922: My edit summary included "unify {{citation}}/{{cite}} to {{cite}}", which means, this draft used both, but only one or the other should be used, and I "unified" them to {{cite}}. (In an different edit summary I might say "unify while/whilst to while", again meaning that I chose one of the two words to use consistently.) See Wikipedia:Citing sources, especially the section Citation style, which explains to use a consistent citation style. Some further points: I strongly believe that when a reference is produced by an organization, for example, Human Rights Watch, the organization's name should appear, not in italics, and not its website name (hrw.org). The same applies if the organization is a news or media company such as Deutsche Welle (not DW.com) or Al Jazeera (not www.aljazeera.com). For a publication (The Guardian), or a website (Huffpost), use the publication or website name in italics, and not some form of the URL, like theguardian.com or huffpost.com. In {{cite}} templates, {{para|website}}, {{para|work}}, and {{para|newspaper}} display the name in italics; {{para|publisher}} displays the name without italics. There are borderline cases that may be hard to decide, but mostly it's not hard to figure out. When a story appears on a bona fide news site, I use {{tlx|cite news}} not {{tlx|cite web}}. YouTube videos use {{tlx|cite AV media}}. {{Tlx|cite journal}} is only for academic journals; {{Tlx|cite magazine}} can be used for magazines. When a news story title includes extraneous information, such as "News analysis" or the name of the publication or organization, it's best to use just the story title and not the extraneous parts. These are some of my editing habits. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

::::Exactly what I need!! This look excellent editing 'habit." Thank you so very much for sharing. I know there is a lot in here but certainly I will go over the sections you edited and the ones not, to follow similar citation styles. I am still curious about the method you have used to "unify." I hope you dont mind if i come back to you with a question or two.

::::Thank you again! Petra0922 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

:::::I use the regular Wikipedia editor to edit articles, without any special tools. So, if I need to unify {{citation}}/{{cite}}, I determine which one I want to use, and then I change all occurrences of the other to the one I want to use, one at a time. In a recent edit of Draft:Amhara genocide, that meant changing {{citation...}} to {{cite AV media...}} with no other changes required, but sometimes, the parameters of the two template aren't the same and further changes are necessary. As long as I'm giving editing advice, I'd also suggest clicking on preferences, and then in the Appearance tab, under Advanced options, check the box for Show hidden categories. Then, when you preview or save an edit, you'll see certain hidden maintenance and error categories, if applicable to the page. For example, some pages have reference markup like {{cite web |title=Archived copy |url=http://mywebsite/lost.html |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20010401194058/http://mywebsite/lost.html |archivedate=2001-04-01}}, where "Archived copy" is used in place of the real page title. Such pages are automatically placed in hidden :Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title, and if you set your preferences to display hidden categories, you will see such maintenance categories at the bottom of pages, and then you can fix whatever is causing the problem. I haven't seen any any hidden categories in Draft:Amhara genocide, but often do find and fix hidden category issues in other pages. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

::::::Super helpful! Big thank you. I like to explore the Hidden Categories tip. Thank you for checking and confirming that the Draft doesn't have Hidden Categories as well. I appreciate the awesome job you did on {{citation}}/{{cite}}. So consistent conversion to (cite AV media}} and all the other citation and typo edits too. I did some manually but ran into some errors so I had to leave some of them as-is for now. I submitted the draft today so I think I need to tap into editing other Drafts. Time to explore the Wikipedia editor:). Thank you again for all the help! Petra0922 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

::::Hello. I want to share the good news- the article has been created yesterday with some encouraging rating. Thank you very much for your outstanding work editing the draft and ensuring quality. You are the best!! Have a wonderful day! Petra0922 (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"

|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px

|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you so much for fixing the titles in Draft:Thich Dieu Thien. I appreciate it! ZenSunflower (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

[[Draft:Pablo Grandi]]

Hello, I would like to know if the article is okay now? Thanks a lot. 186.5.212.161 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

:Improved. While the suggestions I offer on drafts may be helpful, I am not on the committee that approves drafts. Good luck! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

My userpage

Did you even look at the how the page looks with your changes? It looks ridiculous, the userbox section is all down at the bottom for some idiotic reason. If you're going to fuck about with other peoples' user pages without asking (and why do you need to?), at least take the time to make sure it looks the same in the end. ♠PMC(talk) 07:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

:And unless you know them well, you should ask first. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

::I noticed that you did the same yesterday on User talk:LordBossMaster100 to one of my talk page messages. You shouldn’t really edit other peoples messages even if you are trying to help as that could be seen as impolite. Judging by the comments above, you have been doing it in other places too, and as you can see, the user in question did not take kindly to it. If you have an issue with other peoples messages/user pages, take it to their talk page and suggest that they change it. Please bear this in mind and feel free to contact me should you have any questions, have a great day! Blanchey (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

:::@Premeditated Chaos I guess we could block them from user pages although that would affect theirs. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

::::From Blanchey's comment it looks like they are refactoring other peoples' talk page comments as well so I'm not sure that would even be effective. It appears that this user is so focused on correcting lint errors that they believe it goes above the common courtesy of not mucking about with other peoples' comments and personal pages.

::::@Anomalocaris, specifically pinging you as you have not responded to this discussion in any way - can you explain why you think correcting lint errors is more important than respecting other editors? ♠PMC(talk) 18:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

{{Outdent}}

To all participants in this discussion: Wikipedia:Linter#How you can help specifically approves editing user pages and user talk pages for the purpose of eliminating lint errors. Wikipedia editors routinely do this, without asking first, usually without complaint, and often with thanks after the fact. However, in the case of Premeditated Chaos, I acknowledge that I didn't follow the instruction "Especially on User and User talk pages, try to minimize disruption by getting your fix right on the first try." Worse than that, after my edit, I still didn't notice that I had messed up the page.

Premeditated Chaos: I am sorry I messed up your page in the first place, and I am sorry I didn't notice that I messed it up. I didn't reply right away because I wanted to

do some further research about what happened and offer some additional thoughts, but I haven't had the chance to do that. But again, I am sorry, and I'm glad you were able to quickly revert.

Doug Weller: Thank you for your thoughts. I have edited thousands of talk pages, fixing lint errors, usually preserving the appearance exactly or very closely. I have received very few complaints and numerous kudos. In the past 4 months, I've received 5 notifications from users thanking me for editing their user page or user talk page. That's aside from older thanks, thanks in other ways, and thanks regarding edits of user comments on pages other than user and user talk. I do not agree that editors need to ask first, but editors should get their changes right on the first try, and if they mess up, they should fix it right away.

Blanchey: I stand by my edit on User talk:LordBossMaster100. It looks fine to me. The display of {{Tlx|User alternative account name}} is no longer indented; I don't think that should be an issue and I'm sorry if it bothers you, but in my edit summary I offered the suggestion (perhaps you meant {{Tl|User alternative account name}} ...?", because sometimes editors intend to mention rather than display templates. I don't know what you intended, so I offerered that as a possibility.

Premeditated Chaos: Again, I'm sorry I messed up your page. Aside from that, I believe that I have consistently followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Refactor. In particular, when fixing lint errors involving user comments, I am scrupulous to preserve their actual words, except in rare cases where the obvious intent was to name a template rather than display it. I do not think it is fair to suggest, as you did, that I was "mucking about" User talk:LordBossMaster100. That was a clean edit, even if it turns out that Blanchey is unhappy that a formerly indented template is no longer indented. In any event, I don't think my edit of User talk:LordBossMaster100 was disrespectful.

To all participants in this discussion: Lint errors are a big deal. They can result in bizarre appearances, for example, content nested inside tables, or inside the wrong table, rather than where it is supposed to be, and many lint errors can affect the display all the way to the end of a page. It is good to fix lint errors and one doesn't need to get permission first. However, if an editor has said, "please don't fix lint errors on my page," such requests should not be ignored. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

:Ok sure, what I wanted to do was display the template to show the editor in question what it would look like, the code code be found in the source. Blanchey (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

SS Lusitania (1871)

Thanks for helping me with SS Lusitania (1871) because i was having a lot of trouble (i’m also planning of retiring) so thanks for that. Fourostrich8696 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

nbsp syntax

Hello Anomalocaris, please use the correct syntax for non-breaking spaces. It is "&" immediately followed by "nbsp;" and not "nbsp;" only. In

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium-233&type=revision&diff=1108945796&oldid=1103648717 i just corrected it. Himbeerbläuling (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

:Himbeerbläuling: Thank you for catching and fixing my missing "&" in Uranium-233. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Harrisia brasiliensis (plant)]]

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Harrisia brasiliensis (plant) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no plant named Harrisia brasiliensis. This article is the result of some confusion within Wikipedia between Harrisia (plant) and Harrisia (fly). The plant genus article was created in 2005 (at the title Harrisia). The article for Harrisia brasiliensis (fly) was created 15 April 2009, and a half hour after it was created, the creator changed the content of the Harrisia article from the plant to the fly genus. This was quickly reverted. The taxobox for the fly species continued to link to the plant genus until 30 January 2011, when a disambiguation page was set up at Harrisia. At that point, the article about the fly species was edited to claim that it was a plant. That was an error. In May 2014, a disambiguation page Harrisia brasiliensis was established, along with Harrisia brasiliensis (plant).(basically forking the history of Harrisia brasiliensis (fly), which claimed it was a fly from 2009-2011, and then incorrectly claimed it was a plant from 2011-2014).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Plantdrew (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Harrisia brasiliensis]]

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

|width=20%|align=right}}

A tag has been placed on :Harrisia brasiliensis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

:::*disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);

:::* disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or

:::*is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Harrisia+brasiliensis|deleting administrator}}. LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)