Talk:Cyrillic O variants
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The contents of the Multiocular O page were merged into Cyrillic O variants on 10 November 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Double monocular O page were merged into Cyrillic O variants on 10 November 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Binocular O page were merged into Cyrillic O variants on 10 November 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Double O page were merged into Cyrillic O variants on 29 March 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Crossed O page were merged into Cyrillic O variants on 29 March 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Broad On page were merged into Cyrillic O variants on 20:25, 18 April 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
On 7 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Cyrillic o variants to Cyrillic O variants. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Ocular O Article
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- To merge Binocular O, Double Monocular O, Monocular O and Multiocular O to one joint article with a shared title (consensus), potentially Cyrillic o variants (applying WP:SILENCE). Klbrain (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm proposing an article about the letters, Binocular O, Double Monocular O, Monocular O and Multiocular O, by merging this article with other ones, since they're almost similar to each other. 4lepheus B4ron (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- relevant articles are Binocular O, Double Monocular O, Monocular O and Multiocular O. I have merged to here the duplicate discussions at the other Talk pages. jnestorius(talk) 08:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. They are encoded separately in Unicode, and replace regular Cyrillic O in different places. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's not a very good argument. There are separate Unicode points for all upper and lower case letters but we seldom or never have separate Wikipedia articles for them. jnestorius(talk) 08:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- If anything, this should be merged into the Cyrillic O article, where most of the relevant content is already included. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Question what name? If you are proposing Ocular O you should state this explicitly. Of course that would not work for my variant proposal below. jnestorius(talk) 23:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Variant why stop at Ocular O? One could also merge Double O (Cyrillic) and Crossed O — as this admittedly highly non-reliable source explains, they share a common origin story that is best told in one place. jnestorius(talk) 23:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. There is also a reliable source that talks about all those crossed, double and ocular Os as a whole: paleography book by Karsky ([1] [2]). M5 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- And O (Cyrillic)#Church Slavonic printed fonts and Slavonic manuscripts talks about them as a whole as well already. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. There is also a reliable source that talks about all those crossed, double and ocular Os as a whole: paleography book by Karsky ([1] [2]). M5 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I support merging the other Os, but I think the Multiocular O is probably different enough to benefit from its own article. Suriname0 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- It may be more notable in the "gee, that's weird" sense, but it's less notable otherwise, since it only appears in a single manuscript, whereas the others appear in multiple manuscripts. jnestorius(talk) 08:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- On further reflection, I do think merging them all is fine, and I would support this merger. Multiocular O may appear in only a single manuscript, but that has led to more secondary coverage and attention. Suriname0 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the original sentiment, the Multiocular-O is in a completely different hemisphere. Evenite's User Page (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- It may be more notable in the "gee, that's weird" sense, but it's less notable otherwise, since it only appears in a single manuscript, whereas the others appear in multiple manuscripts. jnestorius(talk) 08:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the other Os should merge, but The Multiocular O is too different. Asher2012 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think the Monocular, Binocular and Double Monocular O's can just be merged under "Ocular O", but the Multiocular O should have its own article as it was not actually used (and many people would be looking specifically for it) Plexus96 (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- agreed 173.163.240.165 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can you provide a reliable source for the name you are proposing? To me merging/redirecting these to O (Cyrillic)#Church Slavonic printed fonts and Slavonic manuscripts seems like the most neutral solution. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I support the merger because these Unicode character pages are more convenient to users and readers if they show many related characters. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge all O variants. English Wiktionary has correctly figured out (or is in the process of figuring out*) that Unicode characters are not the same as encyclopedic (or lexicographic) concepts – not least because there are so many mistakes and invented characters throughout Unicode. Many seem to make this assumption – perhaps because our encyclopedia is written in Unicode? perhaps because of precedents like every archaic Cyrillic character having its own article? – but it does not stand up. In other words, not every character deserving of an article has to be a Unicode character, and not every Unicode character is deserving of an article. Even one with a bit of a backstory like "multiocular O" does not warrant an article of its own. The Unicodeness of a character is, in most cases, at best worthy of a footnote. (*Look for "Unicode" in recent Beer parlour months, e.g. July.) Hftf (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I kinda agree, but I would suggest rather making a page called Cyrillic o variants and then list all of the variants bellow linking the respective articles below, or make subsections in the Cyrillic o article Emmanuelbruh (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
multiocular o
[edit]This variant is only in the lowercase form. Therefore, it is a multiocular (lowercase) o. Naming it as an uppercase O is misleading. 2600:1700:8B40:4660:B964:4EA8:A631:310D (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Broad On, Crossed O, and Double O (Cyrillic) into Cyrillic o variants
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- To merge Crossed O and Double O (Cyrillic) into Cyrillic o variants for short text and context; to not merge Broad On given that it was a standard orthographic letter in Church Slavonic. Klbrain (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
This one has a similar function to the variants merged here before, so I don't see why it should be treated differently. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I agree with you, because it's definitely a variant of Cyrillic O. In fact, they should also merge Broad On and Double O into this article since those are also variants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- (FTR, my initial proposal was only concerning Crossed О, the section header having been subsequently changed; thanks @Mzajac for bringing this to my attention). I have no objections to merging in double О as well, but I oppose merging Broad On, since it was a standard orthographic letter in Church Slavonic (even having a numerical value) and not a palaeographic variant used only in specific manuscripts. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Then let’s omit the broad on from this proposal for now, to keep it simple (whether or not there may be a separate argument to merge it too). —Michael Z. 18:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- (FTR, my initial proposal was only concerning Crossed О, the section header having been subsequently changed; thanks @Mzajac for bringing this to my attention). I have no objections to merging in double О as well, but I oppose merging Broad On, since it was a standard orthographic letter in Church Slavonic (even having a numerical value) and not a palaeographic variant used only in specific manuscripts. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. See my comment above. Hftf (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. These are not separate letters, but all presentational variant glyphs of the letter O (Cyrillic). We don’t have separate articles for serif, sans-serif, or handwritten font styles of individual letters, for the unicameral or bicameral letter G glyphs, or for other presentational variations. (Next, please propose merging this one into the parent article that’s actually about the letter.) —Michael Z. 17:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support for double O. No opinion for the rest. --Error (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Those letters are all just glyph variants of the cyrillic letter O. 2001:14BB:A0:68A8:9B1:5856:DEF3:8771 (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- oppose for broad on, support for the rest
pandaqwanda (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merged crossed and double o. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
multiocular o deserves its own page
[edit]its beautiful and deserves more research and attention V333spertine (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, it does not. 23.241.246.117 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- To talk, see Talk:Multiocular O 47.156.111.90 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a doodle by a bored scribe. It doesn't deserve a mention by anyone other than bored scribe doodle researchers, much less a spot in Unicode or a Wikipedia article. 2406:3400:319:C861:19D0:2E3A:A26D:C654 (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 7 June 2024
[edit]- 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Cyrillic o variants → Cyrillic O variants – Capitalize the letter "O" from the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk page error
[edit]Broad On was added, but then people thought it was vandalism, So, they broght the page back. So it still counts, right? 47.156.111.90 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This is fixed. Please do not remove it. 47.156.111.90 (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Other Languages should be translations of english
[edit]Other languages just list Monocular O, but can someone translate these and the title for other languages? 47.156.111.90 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Lowercase Multiocular O?
[edit]Is there a lowercase Multiocular O? 47.156.111.90 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, nvm. 47.156.111.90 (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- no,there is not a lowercase multilocular O. The multiocular o in the word"многоꙮчитїй" is both the uppercase and lowercase. But the lowercase is non existent and the ꙮ is both uppercase and lowercase multiocular o. 86.97.103.231 (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know. 47.149.187.169 (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is pointless! I read the page for research and you commented. 47.149.187.169 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I know. 47.149.187.169 (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)