Discussions that have been inactive for 3 days and bot messages get archived; please start a new section if the discussion you were looking for has been archived. It is currently approximatley 5:11 PM (update) where this user lives; this user is unlikely to be active between 1 AM and 9 AM.


The word "raciology" is in dictionaries, but its etymology, provenance and historic importance are not discussed in Wikipedia. The word was popularized by a Colonial School formed in Nazi Germany, under the belief that the scientific study of "race" was a necessary component of colonization on non-white countries by Nazi Germany.

I would like to post the same definition of raciology that is found in Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam's Dictionary instead of the summary treatment now given to the word, which does not even include the dictionary definition.

I can post this information within the existing section on scientific racism, but I would like assurance that my well researched study of the German's efforts to study "raciology" will not be removed.

The article is complete and, as you know, I have been formatting and posting it a bit at a time. FrancisLloydHolland (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@FrancisLloydHolland: While I respect that, there are two problems.
  • The format does not fit our manual of style
  • You are not allowed to put links in text IWI (chat) 23:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


  The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Well done on keeping your calm during the onslaught! ;) --Yottie =talk= 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yottie: Thank you very much. IWI (chat) 19:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


ImprovedWikiImprovment, I was going to be working on that article and you auto quick delete template it.. --Dreamlover8 (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Dreamlover8: If you are actively working on an article, you can put a template on it to let people know that. One such template is {{under construction}}. This is not a guarantee that the article won't be deleted, but it might prevent that for a while. If you will be working on the article for more than a day or two, consider creating a sandbox page in your userspace, where you can work on it longer.--Auntof6 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamlover8: Yeah exactly; I had no way of knowing that. From the way the page was at the time, it fit into the quick deletion policy. IWI (chat) 20:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment please don't jump to conclusions. --Dreamlover8 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamlover8: I use the information I have to make the right decision, that’s not jumping to conclusions. IWI (chat) 20:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Even at the first edit, it would not have fallin into that QD criteria. Being short is not a candidate for A1. Vermont (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, Vermont, "Snapple is a flavored beverage in the United States" is not an encyclopedia article. It had very little meaning. IWI (chat) 23:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Short != no meaning. It was a full sentence which accurately described the subject. Expanding an article is always optimal over deleting it. Vermont (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That vs WhichEdit

Spotted this. Interesting, albeit not necessary. In British English there is a tendency to use that and which interchangeably in that type of clause. I thought it may be interesting for you to know, therefore, that it is not necessarily a mistake. --Yottie =talk= 01:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yottie: Hi there. In this case, "which" can only come after a comma. If a comma isn’t there it should say that. It is a mistake, even if colloquially it is often mistaken. IWI (chat) 13:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I beg to differ and suggest reading the University of Oxford Style Guide (see page 12). At least that's what I was taught there! Yottie =talk= 13:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Yottie: There are brackets used there, which changes the syntax. The reason why that sentence was wrong is actually quite complex and is explained well here. IWI (chat) 13:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I looked at the wrong page. Basically, that is wrong. If a comma wouldn’t make sense, then "that" should be used, not "which". IWI (chat) 13:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

New templatesEdit

Hi, IWI. I noticed that you created Template:Bartable without its doc page. Please be sure to bring over doc pages when you bring templates from enwiki. If you'd like an admin to import a doc page for you (or even to import the main template itself), just leave a note in the admins' notice board. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)