Template talk:Works series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rather than reverting...[edit]

I think it might be a good idea to discuss what shape this template should take, and what the linked articles should contain. The articles from hexalogy to decalogy would have to contain more than just a definition, and they are vulnerable to deletion because the words are rarely used (let alone discussed as a genre). Xanthoxyl (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely at ease with this template - especially now we are linking to categories "with x entries". It kind of implies that there should be articles for octalogy, ennealogy, etc. But unless well documented by secondary sources, then there shouldn't be. Robsinden (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:CBALL states "Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use". Robsinden (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The words are obviously in use; the question is whether the article would have anything to say beyond a definition and a list. We have the definition (on Wiktionary) and we have the list (the category). To justify an article you would need to show that the octalogy as such is a significant literary form. Xanthoxyl (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Polylogy is an old word meaning "garrulity". It was also the pseudonym of a writer named Samuel Hibbert Ware. The snippet on Wiktionary is a translated quotation from German, presumably containing the word Polylogie, which also means, in general, "garrulity". In French, polylogie means "articulate expertise on a wide range of subjects." [1] The use of polylogy to mean "compound literary work" is not entirely wrong, but it may, on Wikipedia, constitute a neologism. Xanthoxyl (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any documented use to show that this could mean a compound work? EVEN if there was, surely it would be incorrect to use, as everything from trilogy onwards would constitute a "polylogy" - in this case, we're specifically takling about a compound work of more than 10 entries. Robsinden (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's no big deal to me, but here's an instance: [2] (Yes, it would really mean two or more works.) — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It would seem that in this article, the author is suggesting that "polylogy" as an option for a possible word. He doesn't seem particularly happy about "ennealogy" either. Robsinden (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ennealogy exists in dictionaries, and the word polylogy is correctly formed, and the meaning would be legitimate. But I don't think it belongs here. Xanthoxyl (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "polylogy" appears to be correctly formed for its intended meaning, but is it used in this way by any legitimate source? However, in any case, I think we're all in agreement that we shouldn't be using it here. Robsinden (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion[edit]

Decisions concerning this template hinge on this: [3] Xanthoxyl (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

- and the subsequent discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_5#Category:Film_series_by_number_of_entries.
After that, the categories were deleted, leaving only lists.
The lists have just been removed from this template, on the grounds that {{Film series}} suffices. – Fayenatic London 14:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

octalogy and ennealogy[edit]

We're up to 7. What are the chances of having articles on 8 and 9 for the template? How many notable things with that number need to be located to justify an article? Ranze (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)