Talk:Heptalogy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

[edit] References

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)

  • Would it be possible to put in the exact links?DGG (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    Which links are you referring to? I don't know of any publicly-accessible sites that reproduce the newspaper articles listed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I placed a notability:neologisms tag because I believe the link lists requirements that are not fulfilled by this article. You may disagree with the concerns I express but deleting someone else's template isn't very polite. --Lo2u (T • C) 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So, do you want to correct the template, or shall I correct it again? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Stephen King

Now that it's been established that a series of seven books is a genuine "thing", can Stephen King's The Dark Tower (series) be added to the article? (I haven't found a source that calls it a "heptalogy", but the word certainly applies). --Paularblaster (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be original research, anyway the AfD is still ongoing so nothing's established.--Lo2u (T • C) 19:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I can assure you that there are plenty of secondary sources asserting that The Dark Tower (series) has seven books in it - you don't have to count them for yourself or anything. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this is a neologism, the guidelines in that article apply. "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." The same goes for all your observations on the uniquely satisfying nature of the number seven - unless you can find something that not only makes this observation about seven part literature but also relates it to literature in general (not just Harry Potter). It must speak of seven part works as "heptalogies" and say that they have unique properties. This is how Wikipedia works. If you don't do this it's your own argument and not that of a published source - however well sourced you feel it is.--Lo2u (T • C) 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This is actually the appropriate place to discuss information on this article that has been given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heptalogy (2nd nomination). Paula's argument seems to be:
1. A heptalogy is a seven part work sourced
2. Various works including some by Stephen King could be described as heptalogies mostly original research, though I grant WP:COMMON may stretch that far
3. A lot of these seem to be works of fantasy or postmodernism original research, unless someone has made that observation before
4. This can't just be coincidence original research
5. So the authors must have believed there was something uniquely satisfying about seven or thought it has special cultural significance Limited evidence exists that some people have made such arguments in the case of Harry Potter and CS Lewis; to turn these into generalisations about literature is original research and synthesis
Finally, all of this has been put together into a single argument, which is a sythesis of various pieces of sourced and unsourced material. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources yet untapped -- for instance when, in response to being asked "Red Seas Under Red Skies is the second of a proposed seven-part cycle, we heard. Seven parts?! What's wrong with the usual fantasy trilogy, eh?" Scott Lynch says "I'm firmly convinced that the septology [sic] is the new trilogy. Everyone's going to be doing sevens, sooner or later. Shit... JK Rowling and Stephen King have already." (interview in SFX magazine, June 18, 2007); I am somewhat discriminating in the sources I bring to editing, but even more so in the ones I bring to AfD discussions.
But as things stand what we actually have is: 1. sources that show that various authors/composers deliberately planned works with seven parts, whether or not they completed them, and that allege that among the major reasons for doing so number symbolism was a major one - the number seven was not trivial but related to a desire to have one work for each day of the week, day of Creation, planet of medieval astrology, deadly sin, etc.; 2. sources that the name for such a seven-part work is "heptalogy" (the more reliable sources use this term, although less reliable sources, not just Scott Lynch, do sometimes use "septology"); and really that's it. You can try to make a paradox out of finer and finer subdivisions of the two steps, insisting there must be OR in there somewhere, but there are still just two steps.
I suspect from your last post that we're looking at this from diametrically opposite angles. You start with the word, one deriving from a numerical series that you were going through (pentalogy, hexalogy, etc.), and are annoyed that we want to put a bunch of stuff in a box you want to burn; but JHunterJ and I already have a bunch of stuff that bears the right label, and find you wanting to burn the box it goes in. Personally I'd be perfectly happy to let heptalogy go the way of hexalogy and put this under Works of art and literature in seven parts, were it not for the fact that we do actually have a shorter and more searchable word for "Works of art and literature in seven parts", and unfortunately it happens to be "heptalogy". --Paularblaster (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In any case, I notice that someone bolder than I has recently added King's "Dark Tower" to the article, without even a reference to this particular seven-part work having been called a "heptalogy" by anyone else (I happen to know that it has been, plenty, but so far as I've been able to see only on blogs, fan-forums and amazon). I'll leave it to the two of you. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Every post you make seems to delve deeper into the realms of original research. These arguments are doubtless very clever; they may be obvious; they may even be true. The fact remains that you are the first person to have made them. You can't put lots of sources together to show that a heptalogy is significant. It has to be there. Explicitly. This isn't a pedantic interpretation; it's a fact. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If something is obvious and true (never mind clever), I'd have thought one could apply a bit of common. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And phrased rightly some of this might be suitable for the article on seven. I'm not saying that your views are ridiculous or anything. I think they'd make a very intelligent essay but they are no more than that until that essay has been published. --Lo2u (T • C) 20:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OR tag

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)

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)
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)
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)
List of heptalogies is fine by me. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)