Talk:List of words with the suffix -ology

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. Nikolaih^☎️📖 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. Nikolaih^☎️📖 15:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact remains that if nasology is a science of any noste 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)

I understand your concerns about dictionary fallacy (see WP:TSF). Still, as with any list article, there would need to be a consensus about any inclusion criteria that do not match general Wikipedia guidelines. As it stands, WP:DICTIONARIES notes that dictionaries are secondary sources and are, therefore, reliable sources for this article. Of course, you are welcome to add sources that matches your suggestion. The biggest issue I see with dictionaries as sources here is editors copying the dictionary definition directly, without quotation marks are attribution. Rublamb (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Another thought I had: this is a list of words. Not a list of words currently used, widely used, or used by scientists and doctors. As a result, there are going to be oddballs like "nosology" that were used historically but are no longer used by those in that scholarly or medical field. Nevertheless, it is a word that fits the subject of this article. Hope this helps. Rublamb (talk) 00:38, 13 September 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)

Should redlinked and unsourced entries remain on this list?

The list has been tagged since February for needing citations. Many of the alleged words have no Wikipedia articles and no sources provided. Should those words remain on this list? DonIago (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with redlinked words being included in the list. Lists are a great place for content that does not have a Wikpedia entry, and MOS does not require that all content in a list be "notable". MOS does indicate that these need a source. Note that the need for a source is not just for redlinked items but for everything included in a list. Thus, removing the redlinked items would not necessarily result in the removal of the tag for citations. That being said, there are clearly some fake words in this list. Boldly go and remove them. I am going to start with woodpeckerology. Rublamb (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Rublamb. Given that my last attempt to do some cleanup was reverted, I'll give it another couple of days for editors to add sources and/or bluelinks before I reinstate my removals. DonIago (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Previously, the references were dealt with by not have in-text citations for each entry. It seems like it will get quite out of hand, as demonstrated by the recent edit efforts, if every single entry is ref'd. Since most refs are from dictionary type sources linking to each page independently, this will create a massive citation list. I don't know if this is Wiki's policy; I thought the citation style was rather flexible. The "last attempt to do cleanup" was literally deleting a random heading of items completely which doesn't seem especially productive to me. I quite liked the comprehensive list this used to be and am unwilling to lose it so will have to paste a pre-cleansed version somewhere in my user space (if anyone also wants to enjoy the article as it was). Even though some of the words are seemingly nonsense like woodpeckerology, they were all gleaned from somewhere on the web.Nikolaih^☎️📖 13:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The web is replete with unreliable sources, so I certainly don't think we should be using "it was mentioned somewhere on the web" as the selection criteria for this list. DonIago (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Just because someone coins a phrase in a blog (woodpeckerology) or for the name of their business (Wineology), does not make the term an officially recognized word. There is a widely accepted process for word recognition. Furthermore, Wikipedia has guidelines for credible sources; if a word is only found in unreliable sources, it does not meet the standard for this or any article in Wikipedia. Although many editors are flexible with items in a list that are linked to Wikipedia articles, MOS:LIST is very clear that "items on these lists...must be supported with references like any article." That means a long list will have many references; look at any FL status article for examples. Although I prefer to link citations directly to a word's entry rather than a generic database link (this is easier for those reviewing the article or looking for more information), one option to shorten the reference list would be to cite the dictionary and/or its landing page, rather than each entry. Either way, citations are needed for redlinked terms. Rublamb (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm personally fine with redlinked-but-sourced words (though perhaps they should be unlinked), and I'm fine with bluelinked-but-unsourced words (though that may not be optimal as noted, and WP:CIRCULAR inherently applies), but redlinked-and-unsourced items should be cleaned up. DonIago (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I personally have looked at each entry in this list and determined it to be a valid definition (not merely a company name or nonce word) but see how many of those terms could be seen as unacceptable by wikipedia rules. In case anyone is searching for such a list, I have it in my userspace for viewing but see that this article will be altered in the near future. Also, by gleaned from the web I didn't mean any occurrence of an ology word was added to the article, but I mean taken from a dictionary or list, though they may not have met reliability criteria. Nikolaih^☎️📖 17:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That's kind of the root problem; without citations, we don't have any way to determine what the root source for many of these words are, never mind whether they're real words or whether someone was just inserting nonsense terms. Thank you for understanding our concerns! DonIago (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Redlinked updates

I have not finished adding sources for the redlinked words but am more than halfway through. I am trying to use OED whenever possible because it has a doi for each word, making it a stable citation; it also provides details about the era and location of usage. Most of these terms are ancient (for example: 1680s usage only), are rarely used (a synonym for a common term), or are new terms for an obscure niche within a large scientific subfield (think of something like micropaleobiology). I guess the latter could have a redirect to the main field's article but, otherwise, it seems unlikely that these will ever have their own Wikipedia article. Thus, per MOS, we should either remove the redlinks or add redirects. I would like other opinions and/or help with this decision.

Note that many terms I have removed are ony found in Wiktionary or other similar user-generated sources OR are coined phrases used for book titles, pop culture articles, blogs, or business names that have not made it to dictionaries I left some redlinks unsourced because the term appear in scientific articles or on a university website but still need definition verification, either from a scientific dictionary or from a scientific article. However, I found enough to make me think these terms are real and that a source exists. Rublamb (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the work you're undertaking to improve this list! I'd give you a barnstar for your efforts, but I already did that. :p DonIago (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)