Talk:List of words with the suffix -ology

Links to DAB pages
Please can editors of this page check and if necessary fix their bluelinks? This page currently links to 41 DAB pages - which isn't the record in that particular Hall of Shame, but it's well up the leaderboard. Thanks, Narky Blert (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just created it yesterday, will try to get around to that sometime in the near future.  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 00:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary
I was originally thinking "gee, this belongs in Wiktionary", but I healed from that delusion. I've done some wiktionary-related additions to some of the entrys at User:Ceyockey/sandbox_ology_words-tuneup, namely a) renaming the first column, b) adding a wiktionary link column, and c) linking to wiktionary for synonyms. All links to wiktionary appear as blue when rendered in wikipedia, so I had to resort to strikethrough for terms for which a wiktionary term has not yet been created.  Do you think this would be a useful extension to this list? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason for having a Wiktionary column, and perhaps those links that don't link to a Wikipedia article could link to a Wiktionary article? Because some studies are very notable and should definitely link to their corresponding Wikipedia entry IMO. Also I'm glad you believe this article belongs to Wikipedia, it means a lot to me!  Nik ol ai h ☎️📖 04:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

ologyendingology ?
How do you name the the intellectual disciplin of studying the words that are ending with -ology ? I didn't find it in the list. Thanks -- @Éric38fr (come chat &amp; let's share a drink), Grenoble (France), 03:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Eric.LEWIN I don't believe such a study exists.  Nik ol ai h ☎️📖 21:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that making, or even reading, the list in the adjoined article, can NOT be considered as studying ? There are worse things that certainly do have this pretension, I think. Just read the list, even if you need not to study it deeply :-))). -- @Éric38fr (come chat &amp; let's share a drink), Grenoble (France), 11:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to List of words with the suffix -ology. Consensus established at alternative title, List of words with the suffix -ology. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

List of words ending in ology → List of words ending in -ology – Per my reasoning given at Talk:List of "-gate" scandals and controversies, where I have discussed this page move. QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the dash would be necessary if the title were to be "List of -ology words" or something of the sort, but since the phrasing of the current title explicitly states that these words end in "ology", the dash is not needed. Also not the italicization of ology in the title.  Nik ol ai h ☎️📖 14:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * ? —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to List of words with the suffix -ology per BarrelProof as compromise, second choice move as proposed. Support moving the article somewhere though.  SnowFire (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move to List of words with the suffix -ology, which more precisely describes the intent of the list. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Nasology
There if no such science of study of nose called "nasology". If there were one, Wikipedia must have an article. Dictionaries are not foremost sources on sciences.19:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries, especially Merriam-Webster and Collins are considered reliable sources. Wikipedia does not have an article on all scientific studies.  Nik ol ai h ☎️📖 15:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as absolutely reliable source. If you cannot find an evidence beyond a dictionary about a science, then there is no such science and the dictionaries are in error. - Altenmann >talk 17:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. here is a "reliable source" error I run today. OED writes "The earliest known use of the noun plexus is in the mid 1600s." However in Wikipedia we have a document, "Annals of Quedlinburg that uses this word dated to March 1009: half millenium error, colleagues.- Altenmann >talk 19:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't even mention OED. I suggest you contest the entry nasology on the sister project Wiktionary as well if you are certain it is incorrect.  Nik ol ai h ☎️📖 15:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the fact remains that if nasology is a science of any no s te then it should be easy enough to cite a source other than a dictionary. A source other than a dictionary would likely also be more informative to readers interested in the subject. DonIago (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: Please note that I am procedurally declining a request for a third opinion at this time as there is no evidence that this dispute has been thoroughly discussed, a requirement as noted at WP:3O. Edit histories are not a substitute for proper discussion. Editors are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution, or file a new request once there has been some discussion. DonIago (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)