Talk:Heptalogy

message: Sorry I missed the AFD (which appears to have been closed after less than 5 days of discussion, although SNOWBALL would certainly appear to have applied).  "Heptalogy" has certainly been used in print to describe series of seven works, in particular the Harry Potter series.  
* Alexandros Kotzias's obituary in The Independent (London), September 25, 1992, mentions his proposed heptalogy.
* Daily Mail (London), October 20, 2007; The Observer (England), July 22, 2007;  The Toronto Star, January 7, 2007; Canberra Times (Australia), January 2, 2007 all refer to Rowling's heptalogy (and Canberra mention's Lewis's as well)
* The Statesman (India), April 10, 2006 (Ashok K. Banker)
* Financial Times (London), November 4, 2000 (Gore Vidal)
* Sunday Times (London), January 2, 2000 (Proust)
* Village Voice (New York, NY), May 18, 1999 (Thornton Wilder)
-- JHunterJ (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just trying to help.  "Neologism" applies to recently-coined terms, which clearly this isn't, since just the cites included go back to 1911. And of course I didn't delete the template; I only corrected it.  -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, sorry if I was a little abrasive. Just like amending others' talk page comments I don't think changing someone else's template is quite appropriate. You may be right in what you say and if so it'll go in time. I think I'll let the AfD run its course now. It's unlikely a consensus will be reached which means it'll probably be relisted.--Lo2u (T • C) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OTOH, templates in the article space (as opposed to talk space) are not yours or mine, but Wikipedia's, per WP:OWN. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I didn't mean to give the impression that I felt I owned the page. My concern really is that when one editor expresses a concern about an article the creator probably shouldn't be the one to decide that those concerns don't actually apply. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone raises a concern that doesn't apply (such as "unreferenced" on a page with references, "orphaned" on a page with many incoming links, or "neologism" on a page that isn't about a neologism), I think that any editor should fix it, regardless of that editor's previous efforts on the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, do you want to correct the template, or shall I correct it again? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just removed it: tags in article space should be removed when the concern has been addressed (they aren't like comments on talkpages). --Paularblaster (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The point of the NEO/OR tag is that that WP:NEO confirms that articles should not exist on words that have never been defined or discussed before. It clarifies WP:OR as well as giving guidelines that apply specifically to words that are considered new. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps one solution to this problem would be the previously suggested redirect to List of heptalogies. It would eliminate the need for an adequate, sourced definition and there seemed to be some agreement at the AfD.--Lo2u (T • C) 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NEO confirms only that articles should not exist on neologisms that have never been defined or discussed before.  It offers no guideline on anything other than neologisms.  If it  is supposed to, it should be edited to do so. The other solution to this "problem" would be to remove the tag entirely; there seems to be some agreement in the earlier talk section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You're wrong about that. What WP:NEO says is that if you create an article about something that has never been defined or discussed before you're doing something that is incompatible with the general WP:OR guidelines. "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, [note that this is not limited to neologisms] must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)" On the second point, would you not be happy for this to be moved to List of heptalogies? You seemed to think it would be a good idea last time it was mentioned - in fact, if I remember rightly, you said you had raised the idea first. A redirect would be in place from the current article. Not sure what the last sentence of your post is supposed to mean. There clearly isn't agreement about the tag. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: List of heptalogies is fine by me. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: "Support for article contents..." is in the section "Reliable sources for neologisms".  Context is important. I see no indication within that section that expands it beyond that section topic.  WP:RS should certainly apply, and has been applied. As for the move, I said I would be happy with it if there were consensus to delete Heptalogy.  Since there wasn't, no, I don't see the need to move it; it serves as a good parallel to Duology and Trilogy. And those lack any sources at all, so would seem to be a better focus of the effort. And note (again) that one of the sources included here is about the term, in that it includes a definition. The entire article referenced does not have to be about the topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: JHunterJ, it is perfectly obvious that this applies to all terms. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. It says "including the use and meaning of neologisms". If the authors had meant to limit this to neologisms they would have written "support for the use and meaning of neologisms..." Anyway this fails the general notability guidelines. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]". Anyway you seem to be the only person who is objecting to the move. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it. This move had a lot of support and only one editor opposed. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it back.  Please see WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves for instructions. And if you can get the guidelines to say what you describe as perfectly obvious.  I find it perfectly obvious that the guidelines are limited to neologisms, based on the title of the article and sections and the text therein.  If the subject fails notability, then the article should be nominated for deletion.  This has already occurred, so there is no current consensus that this fails the general notability guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline I am referring to explicitly covers much more than just neologisms. The one definition you have found does not discuss the subject in significant detail in fact, given that it is part of a list of trivia, I think it's fair to call it "trivial" and to say that it fails WP:OR. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I misunderstood, then; I thought you were still talking about WP:NEO.  I don't think this article fails WP:OR either, though, and I can't find anything on WP:OR that addresses trivia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about WP:NEO. WP:OR says that coverage should be significant and not trivial. I'm going to leave this for now because you indicated in AfD2 that the article needs a lot more work. I'm not in a hurry but I suggest you start by trying to find a genuine discussion of the subject, not just lots of examples of its use. I'm not going to stand in the way of this article if I see something that justifies its existence and I would never have nominated it if it had been a list, a proposal I really think you should reconsider. I'm suspicious of pages that document lots of Google results without referring to proper discussions, and WP:NEO gives a good explanation of why they aren't suitable. This word was a neology when it was coined. It will only fulfill the WP:NEO requirements once a discussion has been written; not when it becomes fifty or a hundred or even two hundred years old. --Lo2u (T • C) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the guideline you're talking about (WP:NEO) explicitly covers only neologisms.  I said the article needs to be expanded, and that's why it's tagged as a stub, not that it needs a lot of work.  None of the citations present on this list are Google links -- many can be found (and verified) with Google Books and Google Scholar or a professional news database, though, but that's no reason to be suspicious of them.  Every word was a neologism when coined, but WP:NEO doesn't apply to every Wikipedia article that has a word or phrase for a title: there is a difference between "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined...", not "Neologisms are words and terms that were coined."  If you think that WP:NEO covers more than neologisms, get consensus to update the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And no. Not every word was a neologism when coined: see calque, loan shift, morphology, borrowing. The difference between this and other words that were once neologisms is that those other words have been discussed and defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias. --Lo2u (T • C) 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The article needs a link to an actual discussion of the word's use. What you have done is to search Google for lots of examples. The guideline in WP:NEO that forbids this sort of thing doesn't only apply to neologisms, as you well know. What WP:NEO says, very clearly, is that any term at all that has an article must also be discussed by some source. There really is no other conceivable interpretation of "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms..." --Lo2u (T • C) 19:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should well know that the guideline on neologisms applies to neologisms.  You are in good faith trying to apply it to words that aren't neologisms, but please do not cast your imaginings as things that I well know.  What I well know is what WP:NEO states, which isn't that the guidelines on neologisms apply to anything but neologisms. I have already pointed out the context of that statement (given by the section header immediately above it).  That interpretation is therefore easily conceivable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of WP:NEO is to explain how WP:OR and WP:NOTE apply to neologisms. What the sentence says is that any article on any topic that has never been discussed before by any source will fail WP:NOTE. This is not limited to neologisms and I don't think I'm taking anything out of context. Nor do I think it's particularly radical to suggest that if there has never been a genuine discussion of a topic in any source, it probably shouldn't have an article - isn't that just common sense? --Lo2u (T • C) 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfD didn't reach consensus to delete.  Your casting of the citations as "never been a genuine discussion of the topic" may not be a widely-held position. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless it is in MOS. There was a consensus majority in favour of either a move or a deletion and the two who were only in favour of moving felt the subject didn't deserve an article. If the discussion had been allowed to continue that probably would have been the result. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR tag 

message: The Lensman series is not a Heptology, as it has only six books. It would, therefore, be held under the subject Hextology, and not this one. I will remove it now for the sake of accuracy.67.189.162.43 (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lensman Error 

message: So, I understand from the above that King must have intended to author a seven-book series *and* called it a heptalogy by name to be listed?  (Well, since he's planning an eighth book, it probably doesn't qualify, I'd think. 
Margret Weiss and Tracy Hickman's The Death Gate Cycle is certainly a seven-book series that should probably be listed, no?  Or do they have to say the word heptalogy in some authoritative venue for this to be reflected here? --Joebeone (Talk) 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that that just about sums it up, yes.  Otherwise, it's just a series of seven.  Rob Sinden (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Personally, I'd love to see this page disappear.  Rob Sinden (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weis and Hickman and King 

message: I am not sure "a rarely used term for a series of seven..." is really suitable for Wikipedia. --John (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been nominated for deletion a couple of times before.  It went away once, but then came back!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the tag based on the citations given and the previous discussions.  -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability tag 

message: Why is septimus heap heptalogy not included?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.90.90 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 July 2013‎ (UTC)
:Because no one's added it (with a citation to a reliable source in which it's called a "heptalogy"). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional heptalogies? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heptalogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128170220/http://www.thebookseller.com/news/51988-rowling-tops-revenue-list.html to http://www.thebookseller.com/news/51988-rowling-tops-revenue-list.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The only term in common usage for a certain number of books, films, etc., is trilogy." Note, in "common usage". This addition was removed by an editor. It's a minor point but sure seems interesting. Google's NGRAM viewer shows the difference between Trilogy and Quadrilogy and between Trilogy and Heptaology. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by BobEnyart (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds possibly relevant for Trilogy or a hypothetical article on the number-of-things-ology philology, but not for heptalogy. What's the reliable source? (the ngrams link is original research.)  -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore "only term in common usage" sentence?