Media franchises Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Literature Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Duology (2) is missing, but then, so is the article; even though The Hand of Thrawn is marketed that way [4]. There's also decalogy (10) which I've seen mentioned for Mission Earth. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop re-adding "duology" into this navbox. There's no article for it (see WP:EXISTING) and it's not really a proper word anyway. --woodensuperman 10:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only category links (see also portals and books) which match the topic exactly should be included in a navbox. We certainly should not be including multiple categories. Category:Literary series is the closest match we have, but note that that any article that this navbox is transcluded on is likely to be in the relevant category anyway, rendering the link pretty redundant. --woodensuperman 10:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]