Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-logy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Didn't we just do this for ology or something similar. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

-logy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article


 * The article name is invalid; article names in encyclopedias are supposed to be nouns or verbs (and not even adjectives), so it violates WP:MOS, whereas affixes are valid articles in wiktionary.


 * The topic is invalid as well, the topic is supposed to be an underlying concept and not purely a word or purely lexical- that's what dictionaries do, and do it far better than we can here.


 * The article contains a simple list of words that happen to match a particular lexical pattern- again, dictionaries do it much better, and are usually more complete as well.


 * There is a good wiktionary article that covers the same ground: -logy, and there's a large list of -logy's derived terms there.

This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is a dictionary entry with no realistic chance of recovery. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete invalid word isn't a dictionary. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 00:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Soft redirect to Wictionary as a probable search term. WP:NOTDIC, but according to, the page gets roughly 5000 views per month. — Rankiri (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think Wiktionary will accept/keep most of this information. They transwiki "encyclopedic treatments" back to us. No time this morning, but I'll try to find the old threads where this was last discussed, later. Secondly, it'd be good to get some input from WikiProject Etymology, on afds like this. I'll leave them a note. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * None of that is important. The policy is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not that it is not Wiktionary. This article clearly a dictionary topic. Point of fact, wiktionary has over 200 suffixes.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —Cnilep (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect per Rankiri. The Wiktionary article seems to cover most of the same ground. Also, the fact that all of the sources are dictionaries suggests that the topic is appropriate to a dictionary. Cnilep (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. High-importance etymology articles and articles about linguistic topics should not be pushed out using the WP:NOTDIC policy. This is the place for encyclopædic information, the article may need work to be more encyclopædic, but it isn't invalid. WP:MOS is a red herring here, this is an obvious common-sense exception. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but which part of the naming guidelines which states that titles are supposed to be English words does this meet? This is a word-part. Are you proposing we should have other articles as well, such as 'k-' for all the words beginning with k?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that this would need to be an exception. There's no title that would really fit for an article about a bound morpheme. WP:IAR and WP:COMMON both still apply to WP:MOS. We do, interestingly enough, have K. We should have K, and we should have -logy. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IAR is intended to help you improve the wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. I can just about accept IAR for the letter 'k' (although I'm not completely sure why, and this could change if I thought about it some more), but not for words starting with 'k' and when you do this for word endings when we have a perfectly good lexical companion, that really pegs my crud meter. Beyond a certain point, adding inappropriate things to a piece of work tends to destroy the cohesiveness of that work, and this is a very fundamental policy you're trying to IAR.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, this isn't a very fundamental policy. It's not in, for example. I'm not saying the article needs to be left alone, because articles on letters and morphemes here on Wikipedia can, and should, cover much more than would be appropriate in a dictionary article. That's why keeping them is beneficial. A dictionary should cover the etymology and definition of a word. Here on wikipedia, we can explain other things, such as linguistic trends. Compare  to K. The Wiktionary page discusses only the meaning and pronunciation of the symbol. Here on Wikipedia, we discuss the history of the symbol, and things such as it's usage in transliteration of other languages. I'm gathering the information, but there's no reason that -logy can't discuss the historic use of -logy versus other endings. It's use in new words (Scientology comes to mind.) to give these neologisms a certain feel, the similarities and differences between how different languages use the suffix, &c. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy that covers this is the very top, most important policy in Policylist, Wp:Wikipedia is not and is very near the top section 2.1, and the policy is enlarged upon in its very own subpage of that policy. This is a very important policy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As to your second point, history and usages of a term are perfectly acceptable in a dictionary, but is not sufficient for an encyclopedia. Comparing and contrasting with other words is perfectly acceptable also in a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not like you have any text that you feel has to be included in the wikipedia that requires this entry; it seems to me that IAR doesn't work unless there's a clearcut gain, whereas on balance here I think the wikipedia is if anything somewhat harmed by the pointless inclusion of this article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing that I've found that has to be, but there's things I think could and should be. The article needs work, not deletion. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a no. You have not found anything that requires a separate encyclopedia article from the wiktionary one.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And what's wrong with -logy and -ology exactly? What's special about this article that it should be kept, or in your view should the wikipedia really duplicate over 200 suffixes? WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is there for a reason I think.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but we should still keep useful encyclopædic information here. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTDIC is there to keep out micro-stubs that do nothing but provide a dictionary definition. Not to prevent articles on words and word-related topics. Eg Category:Words.
 * As for the title of this article, that can be adapted, and is not a reason to delete. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A slight misconception, actually WP:NOTDIC does not ban definition only articles, but does strongly deprecate them. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary gives criteria for what a dictionary article is, and bans those. Note that not even adjectives make for valid encyclopedia articles, never mind word parts like words starting in 're-'.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article only discusses the etymological aspect of the suffix and references nothing but various etymology dictionaries. Why can't this information be kept at Wiktionary or why should it be duplicated here? Also, please recall the first example in WP:NOTDIC. I don't think that it's only applicable to micro-stubs. — Rankiri (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary until an encyclopaedic article about ologies is written. The current page duplicates the Wiktionary entry (which, being a dictionary, does a far better job of presenting dictionary definitions than Wikipedia ever can). Almost everything encyclopaedic about the suffix -logy is actually encyclopaedic information about ologies, of which a brief treatment of the etymological derivation of ology through -logy is a part. Do feel free to improve the Wiktionary entry in a dictionaric manner though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there already is an ology article: ology ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is a dictionary entry about the word "ology", there is not yet (as far as I am aware at least) an encyclopaedia article about the concept of "ologies", and I believe there is scope for both. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article on ologies, it's an article that is purely on lexically adding the suffix -logy to something.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is why my !vote reads "Soft redirect [this title] to Wiktionary until an encyclopaedic article about ologies is written [at which point it should be redirected to that article]". This isn't an article about "ologies", but there exists the potential for one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Soft redirect via wi per Thryduulf Rankiri. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I read the article and the one over at wiktionary, and over there it is simply a brief definition. Here there is more information, which forms a valid encyclopedic entry.   D r e a m Focus  19:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article violates several of wikipedia's policies, including WP:ISNOT and does not seem to be significantly different to the wiktionary article. If the wiktionary entries can be improved by transwiking the information that is not a reason to continue to violate the wikipedia's policies.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve article. Firstly, I fail to see that the Wiktionary article covers the same ground as the WP one – the former contains only two sentences plus two definitions (plus lists of derived terms and translations, which admittedly belong only to Wiktionary). Secondly, there are any amount of exceptions to WP:NOTDIC: see the subcategories of Category:Affixes, not to mention Category:English words. Should all of these be deleted or transwikied? Some of these are really good articles, so the bad or stubby ones like -logy should be improved, not deleted. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact many of them have already been deleted such as -ism and -itis.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's nice. You remind me of WP:OTHERSTUFF, delete the remark and then violate OTHERSTUFF as well using -ism and -itis as arguments ;-) Okay, to avoid OTHERSTUFF: According to User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words, there is no consensus whether articles about words should be kept and I am under the impression that this is really the case; so I doubt your second reason for deletion ("not purely a word or purely lexical") holds. Nor does your first argument ("The article name is invalid"); that could be solved by moving to Ologies or the like. (I am not saying I would like such a move; -logy is clearer and more succinct in my opinion.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The essay you mention BTW was moved out of wikipedia space last year, it's neither a policy nor a guideline, it has no power here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to be agreeing that this is a dictionary article in the wikipedia, but you want to keep it anyway???? I don't think it works like that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but where do I say that I think it is a dictionary article? I think it is a poorly written article with potential for improving (and I hope to make a start at that next week if I have time, and provided it will still exist then). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you can point out something in the article that cannot be moved to the wiktionary, then I don't see that your argument makes any sense. Nobody has been able to do that, nor suggest anything that is missing that would do that. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about Wiktionary, but this can be tested. I asked at the tea room whether the information from the article would be appropriate on Wiktionary. If they say yes, I am convinced. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that almost all the content of the article is suitable for Wiktionary, though, of course, formatted differently. Wikt already has much of it, as others have noted. The only things in the article that I see, at a glance, would be unfit for a Wiktionary entry are the (encyclopedic) fact that "Books, journals and treatises about a subject also often bear the name of this subject (e.g. Ecology (journal))" and at least some of the external links.—msh210 (admin@enwikt) 02:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clearly something for a dictionary. The keep arguments appear to be variously WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:WAX. I42 (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is blatantly not a dictionary definition. It is an encyclopedia article that discusses the use of a suffix in the English language. As far as I know, Wiktionary does not include this kind of information, so transwiking would lose most of this article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummmm... -logy, in particular check out -logy. Also note that English suffixes gives over 200 other different suffixes. There's also the minor point that encyclopedia articles are supposed to be directly translateable into foreign languages without losing anything very much. How does that work if the translated article talks about English? Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be about underlying concepts.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How stupid do you think I am? Of course there is an entry for it, but Wiktionary entries don't include the kind of encyclopedic material our article includes. And it is perfectly possible to discuss suffixes in foreign languages, comparative linguistics would be in trouble if it were impossible. Just because you don't like articles about suffixes doesn't mean we all have to agree with you. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "encyclopedia articles are supposed to be directly translateable into foreign languages without losing anything very much". Basis for this claim? --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See Encyclopedia which references - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

--Bentbrain (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC) — Bentbrain (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep and add this discussion to the clarify the fact that definition is limited. In fact, anything that has the potential to expand the alleged meaning, application or understanding of any linguistic characteristic, falls outside the boundary of what is supposed to be "defined". If any meaning is to be meaningful, then should not discussion of meaning outside of definition have a place also, like here. Otherwise, how can understanding be advanced unless the the pursuit of anal-ology gets formalized by policy that is used to trump critical thought. The discussion of -logy sic-ology would not take place if not for this venue. Keep it, edit it, because without it I have no clue what it means.


 * Note to closing admin - only edit made by User:Bentbrain, probable vote stuffing.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what spa is for :) --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep suffixes of this sort have a meaning that is more than just the descriptive information in a dictionary. The use of this, and the connection between the use and the development of modern ways of thought and education is significant. encyclopedia articles are supposed to be about concepts, and this is a concept as well as a word suffix.  There is no firm boundary between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. Certainly the distinction isn't firm enough to justify changing dozens of links to the article ahead of time. .   We clean that up afterwards.  DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, how dumb am I? I naively think that something written in a language that was not English should not link to an article about an English suffix. Am I wrong?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW if you don't know the difference between a word (hint: a collection of letters) and concept (an abstract thought construct), and between a noun/verb that might identify a concept and a morpheme (hint: a collection of letters that make up a word, or in this case, not even) then, no I guess you wouldn't be able to know the difference between an encyclopedia entry and a dictionary entry. This article is a concept fairly and squarely about the letters 'l' 'o' 'g' and 'y' and when they should and shouldn't be put on the end of a word, and the history of those letters going there. That's a purely lexical thing. Lexical things go in dictionary entries- every dictionary has specific prefix and suffix entries.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're serious about this, feel free to AFD WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What you're describing DGG sounds to me like a cross between an encyclopaedic article about "ologies", an encyclopaedic article about language, and things that could be said about every word that is not purely a lexical or syntactical word. Thryduulf (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree there is potential for more than one article. but we have to start somewhere. The first step is not to discard the article we have, but to expand andthen consider dividing it.   DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly not a dictionary definition. Article goes into the notable concept behind the suffix. In fact, barely any of the current content would fit into a dictionary. Consisting of linguistic content is not the same thing as being a dictionary definition.  We have many articles about notable linguistic content and this is, and should remain, one of them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Still no, the article is centred on the suffix 'l' 'o' 'g' 'y', not the single underlying concept. This suffix comes from two entirely different word roots, but the article covers both definitions. That's invalid in the wikipedia. You're only supposed to cover one definition per article (you can stretch a bit if they're synonymous and the definitions overlap... which these don't.) Only dictionaries are allowed to do that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to respond to every single keep vote. Your view is quite clear already.  Mine is different, but that doesn't make me wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just that the more I look at this, the worse it gets. The fact that the article contains two very different definitions of the suffix just puts the cherry on top.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which would make it a candidate for disambiguation, not deletion... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could split it into two articles and that would make it encyclopedic, because it would about the greek definition/concept, but if you split it along obscure ancient greek lines, this would improve things for the users over the dictionary article how exactly? Aren't we much better off just pointing the users to the increasingly excellent dictionary?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I actually went around and looked at the links to this article, and I have not found a legitimate link here, due to this issue; all the words ending in -logy end up saying which greek word they are derived from, and they pretty much have to link to that, not here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedia articles are about concepts, not words (with a few very extraordinary exceptions).  Powers T 17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -logy and ology as an exception - The derivational suffix -logy and its connecting vowel -o- is an element or morpheme out of which words can be described. The element -logy or -ology is not a word in itself yet appears in many English dictionaries attributed as a suffix to describe an ending to a word occurring originally in words adapted from Greek. An abridged description appears in Wiktionary.

In the Oxford Universal Dictionary On Historical Principles p1162 describes a brief history of the -logy morpheme and on p1367 -ology, Ology is also entered separately as suffix and quasi- substantive.

In the same way an abridged version of a word, element or morpheme acceptable in many dictionaries is represented without its history, is it not equally important to preserve that history in a venue that can relate the details back to the word? What better way than to use the efficiencies and popularity of the wikipedia <-> wiktionary connexion.

Alternatively, does not exclusion of the history of -logie and -ologie or any other non-conforming element also depreciate the language itself when taken out of context?

While it may be true that the content of the morpheme is expressed even in an abridged dictionary, but not so the context. Whenever context is left out it behooves inclusion and equal accessibility elsewhere. Thus, grounds for exclusion based on policy and dictionary relevance appear somewhat ambiguous.

I argue that in such cases an exception be made to keep the derivational suffix -logy in wikipedia because it is, at the very least, a way to connect what is lost in dictionary abridgement.

P.S. We all have to start somewhere. I was voting not stuffing. Just trying to be inclusive rather than exclusive. --Bentbrain (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC) — Bentbrain (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Apologies, I may not have followed your word choice correctly... but are you saying that because some dictionaries don't include extensive history on a word or word part, that it becomes Wikipedia's mission to make up for that deficiency? Powers T 00:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep, with the view to improve, i do believe this has a place on wikipedia although im not sure if it should be redirected. Should not be deleted though. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment For closing admin the vote so far is:
 * Keeps: 9 (of which one is SPA)
 * Delete: 3
 * Soft redirect: 4


 * In my opinion the vote is no consensus, arguably delete/redirect according to policy (but I would say that ;-) ). Given the voting, if it's keep I will contest it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Del or soft redirect, dicdef.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 02:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep although the article may be better as a "list of -logies" with each -logy having its own entry, which is how I remember it was when I first edited the article to add molinology. Mjroots (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTDIC Niteshift36 (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a sufficiently important topic in linguistics to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment


 * As you can see from the diagram in the dictionary the subject of an article is a word- a string of characters, in the encyclopedia they are a concept (that is expressed in one or more strings of letters, but the article is about a concept- and there is a difference).


 * Dictionaries and encyclopedia both have articles that contain mention of things that are directly related to the subject of their article. The difference is what their subject is.


 * In the case of "rocket" (a word) the relateds are the synonym "Eruca sativa", rocket vehicles, rocket engines, and rocket (the salad plant). If you go there, that's pretty much what you find.


 * In the case of the encyclopedic rocket the relateds are only "rocket" the word (from rochetta) and rocket engine, and the salad stuff is unrelated. Also other things would probably be related, like chemical reactions and specific impulse and so forth; specific impulse is not related to the wiktionary entry and doesn't appear in the dictionary entry.


 * This is how dictionaries and encyclopedias work; they both list directly related things, and rarely if ever list things that are twice removed on the related graph. If they did so, there would inevitably be duplication, because they're both complete.


 * What this means for '-logy' is that it is a dictionary entry though; the central topic is just a word-part, a string of characters, and so that needs to go in the dictionary. This cannot be fixed by writing more, or trying harder or anything, the center of the topic is dictionariac.


 * Some of the other suffixes in the encyclopedia have been saved by rewriting the article to shift it to point to a concept, like Glossary of philosophy came from -ism originally; but it turns out that there's nowhere to sensibly put -logy other than in the dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.