User talk:Declangi

Hello, Declangi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Lake Whillans. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Declangi, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Declangi. Thanks so much for writing Chong Mek; I was reading through it while patrolling new pages. A lovely article. Hope you like it here! Keep up the good work :). Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Great use of photographs in articles! Bruno Russell (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For all of the nature stubs you have created. --Forward Unto Dawn 10:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good to see additions to the lists of botanists by author abbreviation. Please note that Wikipedia requires an en-dash not a hyphen to be used in the first and last places in an entry like

* '''Pit.''' – [[Charles-Joseph Marie Pitard]] (1873–1927)

(but not in "Charles-Joseph" which is rightly a hypen). If you're not sure how to enter an en-dash, just copy a line from above and modify it. Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peter. Good that you let me know about this before I added more people to the lists. The hazards of cutting/pasting from IPNI. Declangi (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand. I'm not endorsing Wikipedia's somewhat fiddly rules on hyphens/dashes, just noting them! :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Baissea multiflora, Declangi!

Wikipedia editor Matty.007 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good new page

To reply, leave a comment on Matty.007's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

I hope you're not put off by my merging the articles you created on monotypic genera with the articles on the species. You've been doing some fantastic work, but there really isn't much to say in an article about a genus with a single species that doesn't also apply to an article about the species itself. You can save yourself a little effort by keeping the genus and species in the same article when the two ranks cover the same plant. Either way, thanks for the work you've been doing. Plantdrew (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Apologies from me for your trouble of having to do those merges. Makes perfect sense re: monotypic taxa and I should have been following the already established guidelines under WP:FLORA. Thanks for your work on this. Declangi (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tesseract
	Great job on creating many stubs about various plants. — Carnivorous Bunny (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're doing really well, I've requested you be given autopatrolled rights. Keep up the good work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you both. To Carnivorous Bunny for the fine Tesseract. And to Dr. Blofeld for the possible upgrade to autopatrolled rights. - Declan Declangi (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You now have autopatrolled rights! Keep up the good work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Declangi. I see that you've recently created Ilex glomerata and added it to the list of species at Holly, but for reasons I cannot fathom, your addition currently shows as a red link. Are you able to perceive why? I'm somewhat at a loss. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see the same behaviour. The redlink and lack of autocomplete in the search box. But by every other measure the page is there. Clicking on the redlink brings me to the page, typing the full name in the search box the same. And search results show it as already there. I'm also puzzled for now. Declan Declangi (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, that redlink occurs due to the page store in cache, since your editing means, by definition, you’ve been viewing the page frequently. This page store cache is what the Purge menu item fixes, as it empties the cache so the latest copy of the page gets retrieved directly from the server. Once we know this small point, it’s all too easy! All the best --Macropneuma 15:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just by chance discovered that article you created almost a year ago, and de-orphaned it. Quiet good for an article on such a small topic, much better than most of the Tambon articles someone mass-created without knowing anything about Thailand. Since I try to keep tracks of the articles on the administrative subdivisions of Thailand - especially using Wikidata, I wonder if you have created any other similar articles on Thai villages or Tambon which I may have missed? andy (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy, thanks for your comments. The only other similar article I've created is on Chong Mek. I've done more extensive Thailand articles on a number of its national parks and temples. Declan Declangi (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dysoxylum alliaceum, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.asianplant.net/Meliaceae/Dysoxylum_alliaceum.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dysoxylum parasiticum, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dysoxylum parasiticum was named in the mistaken belief that it was parasitic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dysoxylum parasiticum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Canarium hirsutum, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.asianplant.net/Burseraceae/Canarium_hirsutum.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great job on dams in Thailand! NortyNort (Holla) 12:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this and for your additions to those articles. Declan Declangi (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to pop by and say thanks for working on the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. I started working on re-aligning the flora categories a while ago but didn't get very far. If you haven't seen it yet, I compiled the list of categories and the WGSRPD hierarchy at WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 15:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ryan, I appreciate this. For some time now I've wanted to improve the geographical categorisation of plant articles in the Southeast Asia region. I'm now working on bringing this into line with the WGSRPD hierarchy and have been using your excellent compilation as a guide. First up for me was Category:Flora of Indo-China. I hope to work south and east from there. – Declan Declangi (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Declangi, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Xe Pian National Protected Area. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 07:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Anupam. And for your timely review of the new article. Declangi (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Declangi,

I'm slightly confused by this edit. In particular, you replaced Category:Flora of Tropical Africa with the less precise Category:Flora of Africa. (The other changes also seem to be towards less precision or similar precision.) Why is that? --Stemonitis (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis, because Flora of Tropical Africa is not a WGSRPD category and the alternative was to add the four regional WGSRPD Africa categories that the species is native to, at least according to GRIN. Category:Flora of the Himalayas is covered by WGSRPD Category:Flora of the Indian Subcontinent and in turn by Category:Flora of tropical Asia, which also encompasses the Indo-China and Malesia distribution. Category:Flora of China didn't seem covered by the prior categories so I added it. I thought about adding the four Africa regional categories but it seemed that the number of categories would get a little long. But I'm happy to do that in the interests of being more specific. - Declan Declangi (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I thought there must be a reason, but it wasn't clear from the edit summary. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: the edit summary was no help there. Mentioning in particular Flora of Tropical Africa vs. WGSRPD would have been better. Declangi (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I should have realised, but I have never got my head around WGSRPD! --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trees of Yemen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 18:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bullata (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not really a disambiguation page anymore once you eliminate partial title matches

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{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. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Excelsus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Once you remove the partial title matches, there is nothing left to disambiguate

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{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. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sarasinorum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Once you remove the partial title matches, there is nothing left to disambiguate

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{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. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sarawakensis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Once you remove the partial title matches, there is nothing left on the page

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{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. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Setosus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Once you remove the partial title matches, there is nothing left

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{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. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bullata (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullata (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that revert. I hesitate to edit Lathyrus linifolius to add Lathyrus montanus as a synonym, though I have put a redirect together. I note the image on the Ll page is Lathyrus linifolius subsp. montanus and would hate to mistake a subspecies for a synonym. Perhaps my SSSI citation was being a little casual, and should have specified the trinomial Lathyrus linifolius montanus? Anyway: pleased to be put right; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your message and understanding of my undo. After your message, I added synonyms (per The Plant List/ILDIS) to Lathyrus linifolius, including L. montanus. Thanks for creating the redirect from L. montanus, all accepted synonyms should have such a redirect. I created redirects for the other synonyms. I made a minor change to the type of your redirect: this now places it in alternative plant scientific names - a more specific category.

The image for L. linifolius was confusing to me, captioned as being for a subspecies but perhaps originally being of Pisum montanum, an unresolved species. I changed it to an image being more definitely L. linifolius. Regarding citation, I think you may be referring to your article Barrow Burn Meadows? If so, your referencing L. montanus in the text looks fine to me. Makes it easy to compare with the source. And the beauty of redirects is that clicking on L. montanus takes the reader to L. linifolius. Very nice articles on the SSSIs, by the way. Declangi (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Declangi, for going the extra distance to improve L. linifolius & redirects. I take my hat off to those like you who have a clue when it comes to botany; I'm constantly amazed at the blue-links that appear when I link SSSI binomials. All most gratifying. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you start articles which are not stubs can you add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon list rather than the challenge? We'll accept new articles for the main list, not just destubs, it's all a general improvement drive (and currently need over 1200 entries to reach the target), so decent new articles which are sourced are welcome though not part of the contest itself. The articles will join the challenge at the end of the contest anyway. Feel free to move the start class ones you've done into that list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: thanks for suggesting this move. I took a look at the articles I added to the Challenge and on review I thought only one suitable for transfer. This is due to the 1.5k prose criterion in Stubathon vs. the 1k criterion Challenge mentions in its introduction. Before now, I hadn't really thought that my articles were suited for the Destubathon and didn't read its rules in detail. Now that I have, I tried to stick to the letter of those rules on size, so only a single transfer. I've left my article vs. stub designations on Challenge as is, per its guideline, but can change all my existing entries to stub if that would make things clearer. Thanks for your all your hard work supervising and contributing to these worthwhile challenges. Declangi (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work too! Yes, OK then. You're welcome to also destub articles as part of the Destubathon. People who don't want to win prizes can just add their entries to the list and skip the entries page. Keep up the great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Declangi. Thank you for pointing out the listing criteria of the Trees of the Indian Subcontinent category. However, I've also noticed that similar categories share species for the sake of more refined searches (e.g: if I only were to look for tree species of Nepal I'd wish to have all the Nepali species listed, including those that are also present in neighboring countries). Because of that, I suggest we keep Dysoxylum excelsum present on both lists. Thank you. Frank R 1981 (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion thread returned to origin at User talk:Frank R 1981#Plant_categories)

Hello and thank you for your message. The county Derry is known by British establishment as LondonDerry. In the Republic of Ireland, the city and county are almost always referred to as Derry, on maps, in the media and in conversation. Please see any road sign in the Republic of Ireland. I applied the change to incorporate all views for a balanced inclusion and to inform readers . For references please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Londonderry. Perhaps inclusion of both names is the solution. Thank you Scamallach (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scamallach (talk • contribs)

Hi Scamallach, I understand the concerns you raise above and that (in real life) indeed the city and county are referred to differently depending on context. You've raised what is a Wikipedia controversy of long standing. In my own, and previous, edit summaries for List of loughs of Ireland the Wikipedia guideline WP:DERRY is referred to. I hope you have a chance to read this guideline. It is a compromise solution, arrived at in 2004, to avoid using the awkward compound term "Derry/Londonderry" (or "Londonderry/Derry") at every reference. You might also look at the opening paragraph of Limavady to see an example of references to both County Londonderry and Derry. This is in keeping with the guideline. Guidelines like this are arrived at by consensus, an important part of building the encyclopedia. I realise that as a newcomer some guidelines may seem puzzling, but the aim is an ever-improving encyclopedia for all readers and I hope you won't be discouraged. Thanks Declangi (talk)

When checking the false positive reports, I saw you reported http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?2688 as being alive. When I checked it, I found the page wouldn't load and ends up timing out. Please be careful when reporting URLs and check to make sure they are alive.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you delete everything I add to articles?

GolfingIreland (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello Declangi Sorry to bother you, but I noticed, while reading the page on Ficus Benghalensis, an incoherence in the "Notable Specimens" section, and also in the "Kabirvad" page (which is a specimen of Ficus Benghalensis). In both pages, that specimen is said to spread over 3 square kilometers, which is not possible according to other data on the same pages. The second source in the "Kabirvad" page says "3 kms", but with a circumference of 610 m it is not possible. The person who edited the page seems to have been deleted, that is why I contact you, since you seem to be active on the page, and you seem to know better than me what to do in such a case. I apologize again if I did not react in the appropriate way. And I apologize for my language, English is not my native language. Thanks. Ulugunu (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)UlugunuUlugunu (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ulugunu: you have a very good point and that figure seems much too big. After a little investigation, I could find no other source than Gujarat Tourism for that figure. It's an enormous area and far beyond that of other record large banyan trees. I propose to remove the statement from both pages, but I've put a message at Talk:Kabirvad first, in case others have thoughts. Declangi (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @Ulugunu: I've now updated the canopy area here and at Kabirvad, based on the paper by YD Bar-Ness. Declangi (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Declangi, I'd be interested in revising the categories for some of the flora in the Pacific region as there's some redundancy. As there were both Category:Flora of the Northern Marianas Islands, Category:Flora of the Marianas, and Category:Flora of Guam I opted for the more specific category that treats Guam and the CNMI as separate geopolitical entities; moreover, some species are found in only one or the other (Eugenia bryanii and Solanum guamense today are only found on Guam; Osmoxylon mariannense, Nesogenes rotensis, and Drypetes rotensis are found in the CNMI but not Guam. I'm fine with lumping Guam and the CNMI together as Category:Flora of the Marianas, but I don't think it'd be necessary to have the other two categories otherwise. Let me know your thoughts Manila folder (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Manila folder: For Serianthes nelsonii , the lead says the species is native to Guam and Rota. Category:Flora of Marianas consists of only two subcategories: Category:Flora of the Northern Mariana Islands and Category:Flora of Guam. Plant species are normally categorised by the most specific category that encompasses them. Therefore to include both Guam and Rota, Flora of Marianas is needed. Osmoxylon mariannense and Nesogenes rotensis look to be correctly categorised as they are endemic to Rota, therefore Flora of the Northern Mariana Islands. Detailed guidelines on the geographical category scheme and the hierarchy, including the above categories, are at WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD. Thanks Declangi (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manila folder: it is important that, as Declangi says and as has been agreed, we keep to the distribution categories of the WGSRPD. Many taxonomic databases, including the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families and the IUCN Redlists, only give distributions in terms of these categories. See also List of codes used in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see a good example of the mess that has been created with flora distribution categories because of a lack of overall coordination, look at Barringtonia asiatica. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed @Peter coxhead: this one is "another fine mess" as Laurel and Hardy would say. A mix of continents, regions and countries. A mix of ecozones and WGSRPD. All in all some 20ish geographical categories which collectively only serve to confuse. It doesn't help that the species is distributed across half of the tropics, inviting piecemeal category additions. You've helpfully been adding advice to individual category pages as to when the various levels are appropriate. In recent months I'm seeing a welcome overall decline in addition of geographical categories against consensus. Hopefully the tide is turning. Declangi (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your useful additions to some WGSRPD distribution category pages, explaining the exclusions from the political geographical entity. Ideally these categories should have different names, but I don't have the energy to push for this at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be any plants described in 1751, since all formal plant descriptions date from Linnaeus in 1753. It will be deleted more quickly if you propose it for deletion by putting {{db-g7|rationale=incorrectly created category}} (or some similar rationale) on the page, rather than me proposing it, since you are the only one that edited it. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Peter, I shouldn't have created this category at all. I've tagged it for deletion as you suggested. Declangi (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I created Category:Spiders described in the 16th century (tagged for deletion). When you're used to creating new categories as you work, it's very easy to act automatically without thinking! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that a very high proportion of the plants in Category:Flora of India should actually be in Category:Flora of India (region) – editors have, quite understandably, misinterpreted "India" in sources like WCSP to mean the country. It would be mammoth task to fix this, though. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a mammoth task. A glance at Category:Flora of India and about 1,000 articles would have to be reviewed (including the Trees and Endemic flora subcategories). Declangi (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: On some further review of Category:Flora of India, it seems that many of the articles got the category on original creation by Polbot and so would predate WGSRPD categories. A couple of my personal bugbear categories are Category:Flora of Indonesia and Category:Flora of Malaysia. Indonesia especially, as the national boundaries encompass such a diversity of floral regions, many high in endemism. With your WGSRPD clarification of Category:Flora of India in mind, I've added similar clarifications to those two. Fortunately those categories have less daunting totals of about 100 articles each. Declangi (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting re Polbot. Looking at the category intersection with PetScan at [1], there were about 139 such articles. Those I've looked at so far were based on the IUCN Red List (or were genus articles created along with creating a species article – genus articles should only be put in distribution categories if endemic). The IUCN does use the WGSRPD, but in a 'mixed' way: it uses the lower level biogeographical units from the WGSRPD, but because of the national laws, uses political boundaries at a higher level. It would be possible to go through the 243 articles assigning them to the WGSRPD subareas of political India, since the lower level units are given, but whether it would be worthwhile is another matter.

I agree with you re Indonesia and Malaysia; the political boundaries make no biogeographical sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting PetScan, a very useful tool I hadn't known about. As a starting point on India, I've reviewed all articles in Category:Endemic flora of India. About 20 were species native to Himalaya/Assam/Andamans, which I updated to those categories. The remainder should all now come under India (region). So I'm wondering if we might do something similar as for Assam, i.e. a category move from Category:Endemic flora of India to Category:Endemic flora of India (region). Declangi (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems the right approach to me, so I'll go ahead and do it. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I left Category:Endemic orchids of India just under Category:Orchids of India. I'm doubtful of the value of subdivisions of flora categories like these. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Peter, great work here. I'd forgotten that this kind of operation is more than just renaming the category - all the members have to be moved individually. I wasn't trying to offload that part onto you! I'm going to check out Cat-a-lot myself, having not yet used it. Declangi (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cat-a-lot makes it much, much easier. I think you have to have "extendedmover" privileges to be able to move a category without leaving a redirect, which is what was needed first of all to create the new category name. After than cat-a-lot moves batches of files very easily. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: a followup here: I've gone through the articles under Category:Flora of India and Category:Trees of India and recategorized many to better categories. Some to more specific ones like the endemism-rich categories of Category:Flora of Kerala, Category:Flora of Tamil Nadu, Category:Flora of the Andaman Islands etc. and others to the more general regional/continental categories of Category:Flora of the Indian subcontinent and Category:Flora of tropical Asia where appropriate. The remainder I then moved using Cat-a-lot to Category:Flora of India (region). There are a few articles remaining in the two 'of India' categories above but hopefully most India-the-country articles are now in better categories. Declangi (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen and appreciated your efforts to sort this out. A definite improvement! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bullata (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullata (disambiguation) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

Not all vandalism! One was a rollback that didn't roll back far enough :) Sarah777 (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Your rollback was a good start, but on looking at the vandalism edits, the simplest thing seemed to be a restore-last-good-version. Poor Knockbridge is weathering a bit of a vandalism storm this past month. Declangi (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Declangi,

Thanks for creating List of towns and villages in County Kerry! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Declangi (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am querying your removal of certain towns and villages in county Limerick. Boher is a village located on the N24 road midway between Limerick and Dromkeen. Coolcappagh or Coolcappa is located between Rathkeale, Ardagh, Kilcolman and Newbridge. This village features a school, church(St. Kierans), cemetery, shop, community hall and a gaa club(St. Kierans) which also has a ground in Kilcolman. Loghill is located on the N69 midway between Glin and Foynes. Glenosheen is a small village located near Ballyorgan and Ardpatrick not far form the county Cork border overlooked by the Ballyhoura Mountains. Monagea or Monagay is a village located between Newcastle West and Strand. The village has a cemetery, church, school, gaa club. Barringtonsbridge is really more of a hamlet than a village as it is very small collection of houses. Ballingaddy is a hamlet that has a church, cemetery. Nicker is a hamlet located beside Pallasgreen. Pallasgreen is made up of the old village (Old Pallas) and the new village (Pallas Grean New). Templebraden is a hamlet on the Tipperary border that features a church, cemetery, Sarsfield's Rock. Knockane gaa, bar and school(Garrydoolis N.S.) are located in the neighbouring hamlet of Garrydoolis.

I removed those places from the list as not being listed under the logainm references as towns, villages or population centres, or included in the 2016 census as settlements. The places you note are listed in logainm but as townlands or parishes or electoral districts. While this doesn't preclude these places having their own articles, their place in the list is determined by their being in the list's logainm or CSO sources. Declangi (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. It is weird though how the official Logainm and CSO sources refer to civil parishes as being distinct from villages even though civil parishes have no legal standing.

I don't understand why you removed a synonym from Euphorbia hirta with the comment that none are "accepted by Govaerts". All those listed here are accepted by Rafaël Govaerts, in as much as he curates the entry in the database of WCSP. I used PoWO, only because it doesn't separate the homotypic and heterotypic synonyms so is slightly easier to extract from; I also omitted the infraspecies, because the list is long enough already. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, when I looked at the entry for Chamaesyce hirta in the WCSP synonym list, it has "Accepted by" and "Not accepted by" tabs. For "Not accepted by", there are two entries for Govaerts (and two other list entries). The other synonyms similarly have Not accepted by listings that include him. But then, as you say, he does curate/compile the overall WCSP entry. Anyway, I was unsure if that synonym (and others) are currently disputed or were disputed but now accepted and so on. I started this by adding WCSP as source for the binomial authority, I then looked at the WCSP synonym list, seeing the above. I probably should have just left the Wikipedia listing as is and checked into this question a bit further, with you for example. As I'm belatedly doing now! Declangi (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: sorry to have wasted your time on this one. I now realise that I was exactly wrong here. I hand't gone into the individual WCSP synonym records before and seen these tabs. The accepted/not accepted refers of course to the species name, not to inclusion of the synonym. Thanks for adding the synonym list. Declangi (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now what the issue was. The varying terminology and layout in different taxon databases can be confusing. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involving reverting what in hind sight appeared to be a correct IP edit on Westport, County Mayo... ([3]) James-the-Charizard (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@James-the-Charizard: no problem at all and thanks for getting in touch. I have a number of Irish town pages on my watchlist and quite often the additions to People sections involve either someone with no Wikipedia article or just vandalism. In this case, I'm not surprised that the IP addition raised alarm bells given how it was pushed in before the header and without a wikilink. But I just thought I'd check a bit further and see if this was someone with an article and a Westport connection. Declangi (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it always signals trouble when edited like that. I usually act fast when I find edits that look like vandalism on Huggle, and that had seemed like one. James-the-Charizard (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the user who edited Ballydesmond and I don't appreciate your leaving messages on shared IP accounts. Can't you people just lock this site that "anyone can edit" already since you're even trying to chase away the readers now. 80.233.60.22 (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, we have over 44,000 stubs! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if I had a nickel for every time I had to deal with a well-meaninged editor who did not understand that "extant" is both a real word in English, and is the opposite of "extinct," I could accrue enough metal nickel to nickelplate San Bernardino County.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apokryltaros: thanks for your message. Agreed on extant. And when I see an edit summary like "added facts" on a mature article like Nautilus, a deeper look is warranted. Declangi (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does one do a "not to be confused with"? Wimbledon32 (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done 10+ edits, but am having trouble starting Crookhaven River. Have article in Sandbox to put into Crookhaven River. Wimbledon32 (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:for for examples of adding this template to an article. In this case it would be something like:

{{For|the river in Australia|Crookhaven River}}

But before thinking about using such a template, write the article first. For writing the article maybe you could use Shoalhaven River as an example. Or some of the river articles in Category:Rivers of New South Wales. Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers has a general guide on how to structure river articles. However, I would also suggest maybe starting with some more minor edits, e.g. to articles in the above NSW rivers category, before embarking on bigger tasks. Walk before you run, if you will, as a way to learn the basics. Declangi (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating the text for several moves/renames in my Sandbox page (User talk:Wimbledon32/sandbox). Once moved, I will delete the unwanted lines. Wimbledon32 (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe why did you reverted the revision to the original one,I corrected the information and you undid it. Please explain why. User3749 (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which article you're referring to. If it's Pinguicula cyclosecta, it was an unexplained change to a Taxobox from a Speciesbox by the IP editor. The same edit added unsourced content to an already unsourced Description section. So the entire edit looked suspect and better to restore the previous good version. Declangi (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also,please explain why you undid my revision in Nepenthes jamban. User3749 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the extra information,and you removed them,please explain why User3749 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The material you added there was unsourced. Adding a paragraph of content like this needs a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, the added material seems to partially duplicate the first paragraph of the following section "Related species". Declangi (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Nepenthes jamban,that edit does not need sources,that's what I think. So I'm not sure what you mean,and I do not understand removing content that doesn't have citation. User3749 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User3749: all non-trivial content needs sources; it's a clear policy. See also WP:Five pillars: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, ..." Peter coxhead (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including one week dedicated to the top half of Africa, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 11:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now how to add some citations like, a specific lines from certain book can be written in doublequote like this. --> "Lorem ipsum ..." from this book <book name> < ref > something </ ref > <-- in the source editin??? Machinexa (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to fully read the message on your talk page regarding copyrighted material. That message is a statement of relevant Wikipedia policy, not my words. Regarding quotations, note that the guidelines say to only use very small amounts of a source. I don't think that would work for Alstonia scholaris as you were copying a few paragraphs of scientific material. See MOS:QUOTE for quotation guidelines. In general, the best approach is to add content in your own words, based on reliable sources. Declangi (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying, on the page Nepenthes danseri,that I added the image incorrectly. But the thing is,I copy and paste the url of the image and I think there is a problem. So how to fix that? User3749 (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image must be a file in Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia. Enter the filename in the Speciesbox:image field. See the Template:Taxobox#Images section in Taxobox documentation for specific details (works the same for Speciesbox). Declangi (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert chemical composition of voacanga africana? What is 'unclear relevance'? What is meant by: unclear relevance of chemicals

Also, chemical composition doesnt harm anyone, does it? Nor did it break any wikipedia rule.

P.S.: If it ain't broke, don't fix it https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_it_ain%27t_broke,_don%27t_fix_it

@Machinexa: in the "Chemical Composition" content I reverted: for Bark there was just a list of chemicals/compounds, lacking context as to what these chemicals are, if they are unique to this species, what uses they have etc. While this may be discussed in their respective articles, some indication of their relevance here to the species article is needed. Ibogaine is already discussed in the Uses section. The references are bare URLs, lacking title, authors, journal etc. "See also" sections should follow WP:SEEALSO guidance, mainly that it be clear how links are relevant to the subject of the article, not be too numerous and not include red links. Declangi (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There neednt to be removed, many wiki pages have chemical constituent while their function and uses arent described but described in own page. Such pages are Asparagus_racemosus and Dioscorea_composita I was trying to do same Machinexa (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC) I m trying to make list of chemical constituent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machinexa (talk • contribs) 06:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Declan, I've revised the short description to note that the species has other common names --Pakbelang (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the problem with the photo I added on the Olea brachiata page. I have signaled the issue in the discussion page of the french page as well. Natematic (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spent ages compiling those common names. I used two sources, the Dictionary of Trees Vol. 2 by Grandtner and Chevrette, and the Flora Do Brasil database. You really want unattractive citations next to each of them. Now if someone wanted to dispute which common name was correct, then that is another matter and by all means we can slug it out with the referencing. That's not the point of an overview. The nature of "common names" is that they are unofficial. But hardly burdensome to include. How you think your mass deletion is an improvement is beyond my comprehension. PametUGlavu (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PametUGlavu: reliable sources are especially required for common names. These names are a frequent source of original research and misplacement. If a species article exists, a common name may be mentioned there first, with a reliable source. Where a species article does not yet exist, a common name may be mentioned at the genus, again with a reliable source. Declangi (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Declangi: Ok, time to raze just about every other fruit genus article because the common names aren't cited. Start with Artocarpus, then move onto Annona and Ficus. Then I'll have another 99 for a world-improver such as yourself who arbitrary enforces rules. Or maybe if you put your thinking cap on, you might come to the conclusion that perhaps there is an easier way to ensure the same standard. PametUGlavu (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamerUGlavu: vernacular names are not an exception – why would they be? All non-obvious information must be sourced. Verification is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Further, there has to be a good reason for including vernacular names – see Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. A good test is whether the name is in reasonably widespread use or has some historical significance. So there's nothing arbitrary about Declangi's action. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you please edit and remove the incorrect information as it appears I broke a link with my edit and update.

I had removed information on the Gap of Dunloe Access that was incorrect. The sign in the photo was erected by Kerry County Council www.kerrycoco.ie and not jaunting car operators.

I removed the part where it says jaunting car operators are being accused of signs being illegally erected as this is not factually correct either and the reference used does not refer to signs being illegally erected. Daisy chain twine (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daisy chain twine: you should use the Talk page at Talk:Gap of Dunloe to discuss what you feel is incorrect. Content in Wikipedia articles needs to be supported by reliable sources, see WP:V. My revert of your edit was because it broke the page layout, not whether the information is correct or not. Declangi (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for letting me know Daisy chain twine (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for creating articles on Sabah forest reserves. I think these might be good candidates for the WP:DYK process, and encourage you to submit them. Alternatively, I would be interested in submitting them if you are unsure. However, they need to be 1,500 characters long, and there is a time limit of one week since creation, so the Tempok and Tawai articles would have to be acted on quickly. Let me know your thoughts, CMD (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CMD, and many thanks for your message. And for your excellent additions to Tenompok and Tawai. I'm not very familiar with the details of the DYK process and I don't think I'll try for it myself. However, if you wish to do so yourself, do feel free. Declangi (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just glad you found some time to give this topic attention! Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Tenompok Forest Reserve if you would like to make any comments or suggestions. CMD (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I changed the picture because with the new one you can see and check details of the tree and leaves to identify and check the specie. Using the current picture you are not able to identify any characteristics of the plant. Can you reaply the proposed picture? Rodrigo Padula (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rodrigo Padula: I did change the Speciesbox image back to the previous one of the mature tree. For plant articles, I think the first image on the page should give a view of the overall, mature plant. Then further along in the article there can be more specific images of leaves, fruit, bark etc. I've added your image to the gallery of images. Declangi (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I will upload a better photo of a mature tree, with bigger resolution to improve the article soon. Best regards! Rodrigo Padula (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Category:Taxonomy articles created by Polbot as you are doing here, here, etc.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: because? It's a useful category when the original is little changed, but not otherwise, at least in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: because it's called..."Taxonomy articles created by Polbot". If you'd like to suggest a new name and/or scope that encourages depopulation after a considerable change, please bring it up & gain consensus at WT:TREE, pinging all original participants that found it useful.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: I don't have strong views either way, but I am interested in why the category might be useful once an article is updated. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: I had viewed this as a maintenance category, particularly for the articles' Polbot-created IUCN references. On which script-based fixes could be run to standardise those references and/or update them to a current assessment. Like Peter coxhead, I'm fine either way. But I too am wondering: if Polbot issues are addressed for a particular article, then are there still some needed fixes that are separate from just being in categories like Category:IUCN Red List endangered species? Thanks Declangi (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites "logainm.ie" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•3 16:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: I believe the issue you're referring to was introduced with this edit by @Nmclough, who may wish to take a look. Declangi (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...for your work on the Musa images of doubtful copyright status. I did quite a few, but got bored and intended to return to them, but you had done it already. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: many thanks for your message. A couple of Musa articles were on my watchlist and then I saw that there was a bigger issue. The User:‎CommonsDelinker bot does remove such images once they've been deleted from Commons. But I thought I'd see what other changes might have been made to those articles. Declangi (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks for your work on the neglected R roads Sarah777 (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah777: thanks for your message. For my part, just a few small additions here and there. And while I've created some R road articles in the past, no comparison with your own extensive efforts in this area! Declangi (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Declangi, I'd like to let you know that I have boldly added four Sabahan forest reserve articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge attached to your name. Please let me know if you'd like it to be removed, or add other articles you have worked on that may be relevant! Best, CMD (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: many thanks for this. These Challenges are a great idea and in the past I've added some articles to the Africa Challenge. I just added Klias Forest Reserve to the Asia list. Declangi (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered creating Category:Forest reserves of Sabah to contain these articles? The Malaysia Forest Cat and the Protected Areas of Sabah Cat both seem large enough that a more specific subcat would help. CMD (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Created and populated as a subcategory of Category:Forest reserves of Malaysia and Category:Protected areas of Sabah Declangi (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather Indian pennywort, which exists. Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and good catch! Of course common names should be lowercase. I've now put the list of species at Indian pennywort, with a spelling redirect at Indian Pennywort. Declangi (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Declangi Please will you stop removed the sections on N70 and N69 road which I expanded the page as your undo is vandalism. Please stop vandalism undo 80.233.56.129 (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi how are you @Declangi , can you take a look here and review this article and if it is ok can you move it to main space thanks a lot عمر بن عبدالعزيز الزهراني (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I can't really help with your article, it is outside of areas that I normally edit in. All I can really do is to direct you to the guidance at Help:Your first article, which you may already be familiar with. Declangi (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked as a sock of a very prolific self-promoter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Declangi, you recently contributed helpfully to the Talk discussion on the 'Ireland' page - specifically in the 'Second-largest island in the British Isles' section. Discussion here has rather picked up in recent days (since I have come across it). You might like to view this and put in additional comment...and invite like-minded users to do so also. Best regards, Wikifiveoh (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your edit to Geum triflorum. While it is widely distributed in N. America, removing all the subordinate flora catigories from a page also removes it from the listing in those state, provincial, and World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions catigories. I added back the ones you removed and also added all the other appropriate catigories. MtBotany (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MtBotany: I have categorized this and other plant articles using the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. In the case of Geum triflorum, the relevant section of the guidelines is "Using the categorization hierarchy", specifically "If a species has a wide distribution that approximately matches the boundary of the largest scale geographic categories (e.g. continent or larger countries), then place it only in those top level geography categories and exclude it from child categories of those." For such a broadly distributed species as this, the continental category, or perhaps the eight or so regional categories, is the appropriate categorization. Declangi (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I think I understand those guidelines differently than you do. I interpret this to mean that if a plant had a distribution throughout North America from Canada to Mexico and only missing a few locations then it should be only put in that category. However, in the case of Geum Triflorum it is entirely absent from Mexico and Flora of the Southeastern United States. It is also only present in half or less of Flora of the Northeastern United States, Flora of the North-Central United States, Flora of Eastern Canada, and Flora of Subarctic America. This is why I think it should be listed in multiple lower level categories. MtBotany (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice - have added three species, would take much work to name all! Morton1945 (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Morton1945: Thanks for adding those to Rathlin Island. A few examples allow the interested reader to explore the species further. I did some formatting on the species list and expanded the book citation. Declangi (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However two of the species are not entered in Wikipedia and I therefore did not enclose them in square brackets [[]]. I have further ideas as to more additions. Morton1945 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Morton1945: see the second paragraph of WP:RED; since species are inherently notable, they should be wikilinked even if the articles don't exist. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did not know of this! However I'll bash on confident that you or others will put things right. I do not like the way I referred to the book using my name. The reference used by Declangi correct my entry is long and I will have to study if I am to use it! Morton1945 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this very clear SPI report. Made dealing with it very efficient! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: many thanks for this. But a greater thanks to you all at SPI who do the painstaking work of investigating these. Declangi (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Keep up the good work. jengod (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jengod: many thanks for your nice message and for taking the time to do this. Declangi (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Declangi. I hate to break it to you, but MOS:IMOS COUNTIES doesn't say what you think it says. It says not to use Co. or Co in County names; it doesn't say that every reference to a county must be prefaced with the word "County". Some of your edits, such as this one, are good, since "Killard, County Clare, Ireland" is the appropriate use in an infobox; others, such as this, merely serve to make the text more clunky without adding useful information. I suppose there's no point in asking you to revert your 500+ edits, but at least please stop now. Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scolaire: for the two edits you've listed, the first one did seem clearer for having the full county name. For the second edit, yes, clutter could be an issue in having numerous full county names close together, so undoing that is fine.

Regarding the guidelines at MOS:IMOS COUNTIES, my edits have been based on the second paragraph: "Use the full county name (i.e. County X) when referring to counties, rather than abbreviating to short name (i.e. X)". I see the second paragraph as a second guideline, separate from the first paragraph/guideline, and not related to "Co" or "Co." usage. With the example to use "Galway" for the city and "County Galway" for the county, thereby avoiding ambiguity. Declangi (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! You're right. I didn't notice that. Sorry about that. Scolaire (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I do appreciate your follow-up message. Declangi (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Aralia chinensis (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

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 {{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 {{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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No way the population number of 293,298 could be of 2021, regardless that "census 2021" is written abobe, seeing the page build.nisra.gov.uk saying it's about "Custom table Settlement 2015, Settlement 2015 Code, Settlement 2015 Label". Or, does that number "2015" mean it's just an statistical area code and no year: if that would be true, I'm sorry, I was misguided. Puzzling... ThomasPusch (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThomasPusch: "Settlement 2015" is a unit that NISRA uses, as described here. 2015 refers to the year the unit was developed, not a census year. There are numerous population figures for Belfast, depending on what unit (extent) is used. As also in List of localities in Northern Ireland by population. Declangi (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Trees of Brunei indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I've been going through your contributions and they're some excellent work and im new to Wikipedia so it's nice to learn from some great veterans like yourself so I hope you wouldn't mind explaining how the uses I wrote contradict with the source Gbo 65 boi (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbo 65 boi: the FDA reference you used in the Malva neglecta article is a warning letter to a company against making medical claims about Malva leaves and other ingredients in their tea product. Medical claims in Wikipedia articles should be supported by sources in line with the guidelines at WP:MEDRS. Declangi (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ohh thank you so much. I get it now. I didn't check to see that it was a warning letter. my bad Gbo 65 boi (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed a "notable person" from the Gweedore article. First I just want to say I have no issues with the removal. The only thing to be aware of is you quoted WP:CITSTRUCT as the justification. The CITSTRUCT agreement however only applies to US, UK, Canada, Indian and the Philippines. Not sure on why other projects didn't get into it, or there wasn't further agreement on it, but it states that it only applies to those 5 countries. As a result it wouldn't apply to Gweedore in Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 13:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: Fair enough. Would the general principle there apply to Ireland though, especially that of needing an article? That part of WP:CITSTRUCT in turn refers to WP:NLIST. WP:WTAF also seems applicable. Given that it can often be newcomers/IPs who make additions to "Notable people" sections, I'm wondering what might be the best guideline to mention? Thanks, Declangi (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'd still remove people with no article as being non-notable and ask people to create the article first, we just can't point to CITSTRUCT as the justification. Actual policy is harder. WP:CSC can be looked at but WP:NOT is also good for what we're not as we're not a directory or a indiscriminate list of information. I'm not sure there's a specific policy about it, however if they're unreferenced then that's a good reason to nuke them. I usually in those cases use WP:RS and say it's unsourced. Canterbury Tail talk 19:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Payena ferruginea, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. A really cool tour (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A really cool tour: I have restored Declangi's perfectly correct edit. Authorities for biological names require a secondary reference; using only a primary one is not acceptable. The reason is that an original source may have inadvertently used an existing name or made some other error in publishing the name under the relevant nomenclatural code. So we must have evidence that a secondary source, such as Plants of the World Online, accepts that the name was validly published with the given authority. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that A really cool tour has now been blocked. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: many thanks for this. It looks like the account lasted about 15 minutes. Andy Warhol had a point! Declangi (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]