Talk:Hexalogy

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page was proposed for deletion by Robsinden (talk · contribs) on 11 August 2009 with the comment:
WP:NOTDICDEF - also not a word that is even in the dictionary
It was contested by Fayenatic london (talk · contribs) on 2009-08-12 with the comment:
Consider moving to List of hexalogies - that form of title had support at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heptalogy (2nd nomination)

Lord of the Rings?

Does Lord of the Rings count as a hexalogy? It's technically six books published in 3 volumes (or 1 volume) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.42.146 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Methinks the answer would be yes. allixpeeke (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible move

Maybe this should be moved to List of hexalogies (that form of title had support at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heptalogy (2nd nomination)), or List of book hexalogies, or List of book series with six entries. However, let's wait and see what is decided for film series at Talk:Film series#Requested move, which may go for the third option. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also point out that if the latter is approved, then there will definitely be no need for citations for use of the word "hexalogy", and all the citation-needed tags can be removed. In my view, given that "hexalogy" is defined in the intro, then provided there is evidence that a series has six entries, it does not need a citation to be listed here anyway. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the citation request based on what was going on in the talk page for Heptalogy, as if this page is to describe "hexalogy" (a word that i personally don't like), then it should be clearly defined as to what constitutes a "hexalogy" - they reached a reasonable conclusion there eventually, and I think the same should apply to this page. There seems to be a trend in the community to overuse "trilogy", "tetralogy", etc, for ANY series which has more than one entry, and if something is an "~alogy" then there should be evidence that an over-reaching series forming such a thing is intended. For example, an ongoing series of detective fiction which so far has six books, is unlikely to constitute a "hexalogy", but would be included in a list of book series with six entries, which would be a different page. I don't think a proposed move would get much support, but if it were, then someone would probably just recreate this page again. Sorry - not trying to nitpick - I think we're coming from the same direction - I think this is all a bit of a mess to be honest. Robsinden (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also - compare this article with the article for Trilogy - a reasonably well crafted article which explains reasons for why some things are considered trilogies, and some things are not, without reverting to unsourced lists. Personally, I doubt the validity of words like "Hexalogy" and "Heptalogy" and the other less-common variations, so think that if these articles are to remain then careful consideration should be given as to what constitutes a bona fide "~alogy", hence the requests for citations. But yeah, at the moment they are just lists, so perhaps they should move to "list of..." as you say, and these pages should point to "Trilogy", which should include a paragraph regarding these "connected" words, explaining how they are not in any dictionary, etc. I'm also a little concerned about the template Template:Works_series, which seems a little unnecessary, seeing as the key Template:Film series key exists. Although of course, this will change to a number system if the proposed move of the film series lists goes ahead. Robsinden (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The film series lists were moved to List of film series with six entries, etc. Do we need to list this for formal discussion, or can we decide on a move here e.g. List of literary series with six entries? I suggest "literary" rather than "book" in order to include plays. That would then establish a new pattern to create the missing list for 5. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of amendments have been made to this article citing sources, and it is now slightly more encyclopaedic, so if this article is recrafted to give examples of bona-fide "Hexalogies" and cites sources where this term has been used to describe them as such, then I don't see any reason why it shouldn't stay. It shouldn't be a list-based article though (the Trilogy article is a good example of how this article could be), and all the non bona-fide "hexalogies" should be eschewed. I think a List of literary series with six entries would then be a different article which could include "hexalogies" and non-"hexalogies" alike.

HOWEVER. I personally dislike the word "Hexalogy". I also question the need for list-based articles such as List of film series with six entries, List of literary series with six entries, etc. The problem with the film series lists is that they are not good articles, and people add any old rubbish to these, and therefore they become pretty useless. These things could better be served by categories like "Category:Literary series with six entries" I think. Robsinden (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category idea is the best solution. I've changed Template:Works series to point to categories, and removed the red links for octalogy, ennealogy and decalogy. Pentalogy is in the OED, and I have enough material for an article. Not sure whether there's enough for hexalogy and heptalogy. I'll think about it. Xanthoxyl (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now wait for the outcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 27#Film series by number of entries. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced entries in the list

I'm removing anything that isn't referenced as being called a "hexalogy" by an authentic source. Robsinden (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was premature in view of the above discussion. They would presumably be fine in a "list of series of six literary works" (or similar). - Fayenatic (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, although whatever happens, unreferenced "hexalogies" would be considered original research, so I don't think they belong here. If there were a page called "list of series of six literary works", then they could be added to that. Robsinden (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as it's okay to say in an article on addition that 2+2=4 without citing any sources that specifically claim that "2+2=4" (because it's plainly obvious that 2+2=4, and thus this does not constitute "original research"), it should be okay to say in this article that a given work (which happens to be made up of six distinct works) is indeed a hexology without citing any sources that specifically claim that "[the work (which happens to be made up of six distinct works)] is indeed a hexology" (because it's plainly obvious that whatever work is made up of six distinct works is a hexology, and thus thus does not constitute "original research").

Star Wars

Although plans are in the works to turn the Star Wars saga into an ennealogy, should it nevertheless be listed (at least for now) here, since, at present, it is still just a hexology? Methinks we should. (Of course, as soon as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens comes out two months from now, we'd have to move the Star Wars saga over to heptalogy, but that's not too hard to do, so I think it's worth adding it here for now.) Thoughts? Concerns? allixpeeke (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hexalogy. 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/20120928192647/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jmackenzie.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jmackenzie.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]