Talk:Heptalogy

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)

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)

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)

Re-propose removing the incorrect NEO tag

Does anyone other than the editor who placed the tag agree that it should be on this article? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Yes, I do, for reasons already explain. This is an article about a topic that, with the exception of a line in a tabloid newspaper has never before been discussed. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But no one agrees with you, at least not and said so here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And only one person disagrees. My objection stands and I am entitled to place that tag there. The original research tag should not be removed by the article's creator, and several other users expressed similar concerns in the AfD. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Two: Me and Paularblaster.[1] See also WP:BRD -- you are entitled to boldly place it, it can be reverted, and then you should discuss instead of edit warring. Your objection stands, but the tag needn't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

JHunterJ, you are the editor who created the article that I and several other editors have suggested is original research. You don't get to be the one to decide the objection doesn't apply. I am happy to discuss my objection to the article but removing templates while the discussion is ongoing is just bad manners. You could solve the problem quite easily by providing an actual definition as a reliable source for your original research and not just a collection of articles that use the term. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(reducing indent)I would like to add that, while you were being bold by removing the template, when it was replaced that was your signal to discuss and not to revert.
On the subject of what's wrong with the article. I haven't objected to the limited use of the term in, for example, List of film heptalogies. My objection is to the existence of an entire article founded on a word whose use is at best marginal and to the implication that this would give that a heptalogy is in some way a recognised genre. I would like to propose some sort of compromise: that we use the term in this article but that, in recognition of the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this should be an article about films and books with seven parts, rather than the word itself. The phrase series of seven should be given as an alternative and it should be pointed out that while the word heptalogy has been used, it does not appear in any dictionary. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not being bold by removing the template you just boldly added; disagreeing with a bold edit is not bold. Re-adding the template without discussing is contrary to WP:BRD. I have no original research on this article; everything I've added is sourced. I'd like to suggest this compromise: since you have so far been unable to get any consensus for a deletion or move, we leave this article here, and I'll agree to its deletion or move if you follow the AfD or RM processes and get consensus for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

JHunterJ, as I recall, you "boldly" removed the template. I boldly put it back. Anyway, this is all very pedantic. How long have you been an editor? Removing OR templates while discussion is ongoing is bizarre. It's completely contrary to any normal practice, surely you know that. At the moment you seem to want to remove the template without discussing. I'm going to go ahead and make further sourced changes and I would prefer it if you discussed them before reverting. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

2 years, 9 months, and 3 days. Adding OR templates to articles that make no uncited claims is bizarre. At the moment you seem to want to add some template, any template, without discussion. Of course I won't revert any useful addition to the article, but I would prefer that you stop making the disruptive template edits unless you can build some consensus first (such as some other editor's agreement that the guideline on neologisms is a guideline not on neologisms but on terms in general, or pointing out what uncited OR is in question). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As you appeared to express no objection, I have made the changes I suggested above. This seems to me like a reasonable compromise, certainly I would not have nomitated the article if it had appeared in this form. If you have objections, please explain them here, rather than just reverting. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 14:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A lead section that leads with heptalogy would be better. Perhaps "A heptalogy is a series of seven creative works connected by a common storyline, although the term "heptalogy" is not widely used and does not appear in any dictionary." (with the current citations). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried all along along to co-operate with you and I disagree that my addition of the template was disruptive, but it's gone now and I think we should forget the matter. We seem to be moving towards some sort of consensus at last. I'm not sure heptalogy should take precedence over series of seven. One appears to be roughly a thousand times more common than the other according to Google and with the repetition of the word "heptalogy" that opening wouldn't be as consise as it might be. That said, an opening that contains the word "is" would be preferable. How about "A series of seven, sometimes called a heptalogy, is a common format in art and literature. The term heptalogy is not widely used and does not appear in any dictionary..." --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that this article is Heptalogy. "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." WP:LEAD. It's certainly possible here. (And not all series of seven are heptalogies. And "Literature" has even more Google hits than "series of seven", but I don't think it should be the subject of the first sentence either.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, (I presume that is the grammatical subject) the opening sentence could still read: "A series of seven or heptalogy is a common format in art and literature. The term heptalogy is not widely used and does not appear in any dictionary...". Not all "series of seven" are heptalogies, that's quite right, and my Google search does appear to have returned far too many false positives. In the case of this search [2] however, the results are nearly all true heptalogies and there are more than 700,000 of them, so I do think that should be mentioned first. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is there some benefit from listing them in the order of Google hits, rather than the simpler "A heptalogy is a series of seven..."? The simpler structure has the benefit of being, well, simpler. The "series of seven or heptalogy is a format" has the drawback of being stilted. See also Trilogy, which does not lead "A set of three or trilogy is a format..." -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Google test is fairly frequently used in naming conflicts; it's why, for example, Scotland is currently called a "country". The problem with giving priority to the more marginal term, as your wording does, is one of undue weight, something that clearly wouldn't apply in the case of trilogy. If you find the above stilted but you accept (as I assume you do) the validity of giving the more common synonym alongside the less common, how about: "The term heptalogy is sometimes used to describe a series of seven works of art or literature, although its use is not widespread and it does not appear in any dictionary." Or if there's something wrong with that, perhaps you could suggest something that might be acceptable to us both? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You've tried to apply guidelines on neologisms to a term that isn't neologisms, and now guidelines for naming conflicts where there's no naming conflict. (I'm assuming Scotland is currently called Scotland.) The issue here is the lead section, which has its own guideline, which I've quoted above. If you believe there's an article naming conflict, please follow the WP:RM process to move the article to the correct name. Heptalogy is "only" used to describe a series of seven, not "sometimes" used. "The term" is not needed in the intro. But other than those, sure, I'll edit it to "A heptalogy is a series of seven creative works, although its use ...." -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me. All I said was that checking the number of Google hits is a widespread practice that has been accepted on talk pages in many different circumstances: naming conflicts was one example I gave, the discussion about whether Scotland is a country or a nation was another. There are many more. There's no reason to dismiss its use when it can give a relevant insight into the relative frequency of two different terms. I'm not resorting to naming conflicts. Your reading of the sentence as I suggested it is impossible; what it says is that if one wants to describe a series of seven books, one might sometimes use the word "heptalogy". That is the only possible interpretation. If you think it's incorrect, try substituting "always" for sometimes, as you suggest. "The term heptalogy is always used to describe a series of seven creative works..." - clearly false. I'm pleased you've suggested "creative works"; that's much better than anything we've had so far. However, the word "term" is important because it makes clear the two are exactly synonymous; at the moment it might be interpreted as meaning a heptalogy is a type of series of seven creative works. If you think the phrase is merely superfluous, rather than detrimental, surely you won't object to its retention. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My reading is not impossible; it is one possible reading -- saying it sometimes means a series of sevens has the other possible reading that it other times means something else. A heptalogy is a series of seven works in the same way that a trilogy is a set of three works. The "type" of series of seven is one in which the works are connected by a common storyline, so I don't understand your objection, and I find the use of the structure "The term XXX is ...." in Wikipedia leaves room for improvement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(Reducing indent) Please understand, I'm not insisting on the use of the word "term" just to be disagreeable. I avoid that wording where possible too, but in this case it does serve a useful function. Although we can safely assume most people know what a trilogy is (they are looking for information about trilogies), most people have never heard the word "heptalogy" before. The problem with saying, "A heptalogy is a series of seven works..." is that it can be understood in the sense that, "Harry Potter is a series of seven works...": not as a synonym but as a subset. If the objection to the phrase is purely cosmetic, I really do think it needs to be left. I inserted the word "sometimes" because this article isn't a dictionary definition of the word "heptalogy"; it is a discussion of seven part works of art. Series of seven is a valid, and far more common, synonym. The article shouldn't appear to be about only one of the two definitions. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a subset. Not all series of seven are heptalogies, right? That was the point of specifying the "common storyline" part, to avoid having every group of seven things tossed in to this list. What's the other definition of heptalogy? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that "heptalogy" is synonymous with "series of seven creative works"; it isn't a subset. Adding "is a term..." makes this clear; the current wording does not. Again, if the only objection is that it's a bit cumbersome, or that you don't see the point, I think meaning must always have priority over style. As for the meaning of "sometimes", I really don't understand your interpretation. The article says nothing about another definition - it doesn't continue "... and at other times...", after all. If I were writing, "Heptalogy sometimes means..." I'd agree that the existence of another definition is implied. The current wording neither excludes nor implies the possibility of another definition, just as "A heptalogy is..." does not exclude the possiblity that heptalogy might be something else. In the case of soulmate:

Soulmate (or soul mate) is a term sometimes used to designate someone with whom one has a feeling of deep and natural affinity..."

Would you say this wording implies "soulmate" is sometimes used to designate something else? I would say that wording tells us nothing at all about whether there is another defintion, nor does any other article, as far as I'm aware, say explicitly that a word has no other definition. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying "a heptalogy is a series of seven" does indicate that there is a series of seven titled "A heptalogy" -- that would be "A Heptalogy is a series of seven..." And the intro goes on to give an example of a heptalogy, which wouldn't make sense if the heptalogy were an example of a series of seven. Yes, meaning has priority, but when meaning isn't at issue, then less cumbersome has priority over awkward. Part of the requested cleanup for Soulmate would be to reword the intro: "A soulmate (or soul mate) is someone with whom one has a feeling of deep and natural affinity, friendship, love, intimacy, sexuality, spirituality and/or compatibility." Simple and correctly meaninged. You have a solution in search of a problem, unless someone else chimes in that they did indeed think that a heptalogy was being used as a specific example of a series of seven works. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, "a solution in search of a problem" might accurately be applied to your objection to the word "sometimes", which as I have explained does not really indicate what you say at all. We're both objecting to parts of the wording on the grounds of marginal interpretations; we both insist they are possible interpretations. In the case of my objection, I would point out that the existence of an example does not solve the ambiguity. If I write: "An opera is a piece of music. One example is the Magic Flute.", have I said that "opera" and "piece of music" are identical in meaning? What is to prevent the current page being read in the same way? The interpretation is not impossible. You keep appealing to a lack of support for whatever I say, and even calling my edits disruptive, when you have consistently acted in the same way. What you probably realise it that we are the only two editors here, which is why we need to work towards a proper consensus. As I have said, the reason I thought this article could work is that it can be turned into a properly sourced article that concerns pieces of art with seven parts without promoting the use of the obscure "heptalogy". If we are bolding two definitions, we should give them parity. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can always unbold "series of seven" if that's the issue. The article is about heptalogies, so yeah, it's "promoted" despite its rarity. I have consistently opposed you here, but I do not think the situations are parallel; the AfD failed and no move has been requested, but it seems you might settle for diluting it enough. But if we can compromise on the clunkier "term" structure, I'll go for it. "A heptalogy is a rarely used term[1] for a series of seven creative works that are connected by a common storyline.[2]", and place the "doesn't appear in any dictionary" bit inside the [1] citation (along with its source)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right to say I'm trying to dilute the term. The problem with creating articles about extreme minority ideas is that their very existence can be a contravention of WP:WEIGHT because they give the impression that something is more widely-accepted than it really is, which is why I objected to your re-creation of the deleted article. I think your compromise is a reasonable safeguard, and I would be happy with that wording. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as a matter of style, a heptalogy is a series of books but "heptalogy" is a term. I've not included the indefinite article. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lensman Error

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)

Weis and Hickman and King

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)

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)

But to my knowledge this is an arbitrary and silly rule, either remove this page or else accept any series of seven books (and exactly seven books). Dirk math (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Notability tag

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)

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)

Removed the tag based on the citations given and the previous discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Usefulness of this page

The present requirement of an unbiased reference to the term 'heptalogy' before inclusion is nonsensical. Either 'heptalogy' is an accepted term and then every cycle of seven books with a common theme should be included, or otherwise 'heptalogy' isn't a valid English term and then this page should be removed immediately. Dirk math (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Calling the current consensus (see the above talk) "nonsensical" is not a stellar beginning. "Heptalogy" is an accepted term and then any cycle that has been referred to as a "heptalogy" in a reliable source may be included -- this is perfectly sensible. -- JHunterJ (talk)

Are you saying that a seven-novel series isn't a heptalogy unless a random website specifically calls it a "heptalogy"? If that's the case, then the definition on the wiki page needs changed to: "Heptalogy - Any series of books called a heptalogy by someone on the internet." A reliable source mentioning that it's seven novels is reasonable, but refusing to acknowledge that synonyms exist, or perhaps a journalist's lack of vocabulary is a little pedantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.156.159 (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No, not a random website, but yes, a reliable source. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

So, you are admitting that you think it's not a heptalogy unless a random person (sorry, reliable source) calls it one, because dictionary words don't depend on the definition of the word, they depend on people using them. Ignoring the entire concept of Linguistic Redundancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.13.91 (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional heptalogies?

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)

I believe the Foundation series may also count, as Asimov added two prequels and two sequels to the original trilogy.185.13.245.98 (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Restore "only term in common usage" sentence?

"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)

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)