Talk:Tetralogy

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media franchises Low‑importance

	This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

This has now been done. Rje 23:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The references to legacy seem misleading if not outright wrong.

Legacy would simply refer to an ongoing epic as used. It could easily be applied to the 5th or 6th episode of a series as well.

Is there any reference (aside from the examples given which are not reference) that indicates that legacy actually applies to 4 episodes specifically?

Another A. Nonymous: So why havent you erased dis bullshit instead of commenting here?

Trilogy[edit]

The obvious comparison with a trilogy is lacking. Adding it. CapnZapp (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted it. A word or concept does not necessarily need to be compared to another similar one in order for a reader to comprehend it. The rationale that the "obvious" comparison is "lacking" would require an article on triangles to include a comparison to quadrangles, and by extension, every other geometric form. It's simply not necessary. Including such a comparison certainly adds more words to the article, but it doesn't improve the clarity or utility of the article, which should be the only criterion for adding more words. 75.27.41.134 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrilogy[edit]

The OED cites quadrilogy as early as 1865, so I think it's misleading to suggest that it was 'invented' for modern marketing purposes. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source you used is subscription only, so cannot be verified. Other online dictionaries have no entry [1] [2] or redirect to tetralogy [3] therefore removing. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to printed edition now included. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The term 'quadrilogy', a nonce word basing the prefix on Latin prefix quadri- instead of the Greek prefix, and first recorded in 1865[5], has also been used for marketing series of movies, such as the Alien series and Die Hard series.[6]" Source 6 is UrbanDictionary.com. Is that considered a valid source? Probably not. 75.82.201.0 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Urban Dictionary is comprised of user-generated content with no sources. Loads of hearsay, conjecture, and opinion, it's the online equivalent of a "some guy at the bar said..." 75.27.41.134 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like the criticism I often hear about Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonce word[edit]

'Nonce word' is used to mean a pseudo-word made up to serve a purpose for which no current word exists, which isn't the case with quadrilogy. If any qualification is necessary I suggest a more neutral one like 'infrequently used'. Or we can seek a third opinion. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find a good way to point out how "quadrilogy" is not really a correct term. Unfortunately, I can't verify your OED reference, but in my opinion it probably was a pseudo-word made up because someone wasn't aware of "tetralogy". We must be careful not to give "quadrilogy" more weight than it deserves. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I suppose that acknowledging the 1865 use, in the same sentence that 'nonce word' is used, is enough to stop a reader being misled into thinking 'quadrilogy' has only been used as a modern marketing term. Incidentally, the online (latest) OED has additional citations from 1972 and 1994. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, on all the occasions when the word arose (and I am happy to accept that there have been people saying or even writing it down before 1865), it must have come about because someone inadvertently mixed Latin and Greek words (the prefix tri- is common to Latin and Greek; hence the confusion). As with crimes, it is better to suppose that people independently conceived of the same bad idea, rather than thinking them of the copycat variety. Quadrilogy sounds terribly ill-educated to me, and it rather spoiled the fun when I received the box set for Christmas. Can we have Latin terms for these things? Dufabula, Trifabula, Quadrifabula, Quinquefabula... 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:ADD5:EC3D:4827:33A5 (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]