Talk:Omega

Pronunciation

'Raw' in a New York accent is not sufficient for many people such as I, a 2nd language Queen's English (British) speaker. I find American English hard to envisage in itself. Perhaps another example? Or more than one? --94.192.80.191 (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there's a pronunciation section, I thought I'd put this here - is there any chance of adding an IPA English pronunciation (for both UK and US if they're different) to this page? I've noticed some pages on Greek letters have it (such as theta), while others don't. Sorry if this is in the wrong spot, this is the first time I've edited a talk page. Yurell (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'Pronunciation' section should be re-introduced because the phonetic entity [ɔː] is comparatively rare, absent or unstable in most languages, and who exactly uses it in English and in which words is a very complicated issue.

Until then, a better illustration can be given than 'British English raw', because the vowel of raw has raised to around [oː] for most British speakers , although still represented in many phonemic transcription systems as /ɔː/. A much better example would be either contemporary British or Australian 'short o' as in LOT elongated or doubled. It also occurs very frequently in North American English – I would argue it is most often heard from NAmE speakers and the overwhelming majority of them uses it in such a word as long [lɔːŋ] – but there it is always in free variation with other realizations such as [o̞ɐ] and [äː], which sound markedly different.--78.131.70.134 (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The above suggestions were made by me, but I wasn't logged in —Levente Frindt (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Removal

I removed the line quoting Jesus from the Christian bible. It was unobjective and irrelevant to the Greek letter. If a section was added for popular culture refrences, it might fit better. Mequellios (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with this removal. The English speaking world is largely Christian, and the connection to Jesus' declaration is one of the most significant aspects of the Omega in English. I believe the prominence of this connection deserves mention in the ledge. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The line was awkward and out of place in that particular paragraph. While not ideally written (that whole last part of that section is a bit of a mess), I've added the Christianity reference back in, with a bit more objectivity. Mequellios (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't agree that the original text was awkward, but I like how you've reintroduced it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is "6" there in unicode?

What is "mathematical sans-serif bold italic p.ooo omega" supposed to be? (Unicode U+1D7D4)

Every other reference I can find indicates that U+1D7D4 is MATHEMATICAL BOLD DIGIT SIX. I don't think that belongs on this page. 128.2.127.25 (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That was some old vandalism that slipped through. Sorry for not noticing earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Watch company and sorority and fraternity names.

There is a content dispute on whether or not the addition of the Watch company and that Omega is often in sorority and fraternity names should be included in the intro of this article.

I believe it shouldn't be included as that is why we have the for other uses see...at the top of the page.--VViking_TalkEdits 15:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The sentence about the watch brand should of course be removed again (and I'll do just that in a short while). First, it's unsourced, and the recent addition of some Google search link is of course not a valid source for it either (at the very best, it's WP:OR). Second, it's quite off-topic to this page. This page is about the Greek letter "Omega". Not about some other things that happen to also be called Omega. No matter how popular those other things might be on Google. Those things go to Omega (disambiguation), not here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. How is it that you two get to decide and just delete others’ contributions and then threaten me with a block? Wikipedia is supposed to be community-edited but you two are just acting like you own this page and deleting my contributions without so much as a comment why until now. You may not like it but most people searching for “omega” are going to be looking for something related to the watch company or Greek life. There’s no harm in including my contribution. Unless you can explain why that’s inappropriate I’ll go ahead and add it back. future perfect since you’ve made several revisions too why don’t you go ahead and put edit war template on your talk page as well? “Edit wars” require two to play. GrammarNuncio (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I've actually already given you an explanation of why we reverted you, but I'll try again. This is an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia, articles are divided up according to what things they describe, not according to the names of those things. That means, if there are two things that happen to share the same name, we don't treat them together on the same page, but each of them gets its own page (plus, we may create a WP:Disambiguation page if necessary). This here is the article about a Greek letter. That's one thing. The Swiss watch company is a different thing that happens to share the same name. So, the watch company gets its own page and everything you may have to say about it goes there, not here.

Now, you might conceivably have a point with your argument that the watch company is somehow more prominent or interesting to readers than the Greek letter. I personally very much doubt it, but if you were indeed right about it, you're still going about it in the wrong way. What we'd do if you were to convince other Wikipedians about this point is described in our guidelines on WP:Disambiguation, especially those about "WP:Primary topic". In that case, we would move this article to somewhere else (like, Omega (letter)), and either move the disambiguation page from Omega (disambiguation) here, or directly move the Omega SA page here instead (if that turns out to be a lot more prominent than all the other meanings). You are welcome to raise such a proposal on this talkpage. But please understand that you are not going to see your proposal pushed through before you have convinced a significant number of other editors and gained a WP:consensus for it. Especially, since you have alread reverted your content into this page three times today, I very much warn you against doing it again, because you'd almost certainly end up blocked for violating the three-reverts rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I was able to get back on my main account so I’m editing from here now. But this is the same user. I still do not agree since this very page already references the watchmaker and these are prominent examples of uses of the symbol that many would be familiar with. Since you do not think I would be successful in convincing editors of the value of either approach though (changing the primary page for “Omega” or including this in the primary page) and you are threatening to ban me if I make it, I have proposed an edit to the disambiguation page, see: Talk:Omega (disambiguation).

Given your point that this page should be about the Greek letter to the exclusion of all other topics covering the same name or symbol, shouldn’t the list later in the article, describing how the symbol is used, including a reference to the watchmaker, also be removed? -Nuncio (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not quite convinced that list needs to go. After all, saying that the symbol Omega is part of the logo of the company Omega is a valid statement both about the symbol and about the company, and as such still a pertinent statement in this page, which is the page about the symbol. It may be a fairly trivial statement in this context, but still. That said, I do agree about your other point, that the disambiguation page should be reorganized to give more visibility to some of the more high-frequency entries. It's not a trivial task, since with so many and so heterogeneous entries there'll be a need to balance the criterion of "most important first" against the criterion of "keep similar things together" in some way, not to mention the fact that you'd need an objective measurement of "importance" first. You might find this tool interesting in researching one aspect of reader interest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing Small Capital Omega

“ꭥ” Unicode Character 'GREEK LETTER SMALL CAPITAL OMEGA' (U+AB65) in Latin Extended-E might be a good addition to the list at the bottom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewmorrone1 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Omega "symbol" vs. the Unicode character

@Omegatron: First off all, I always recommend that editors provide an explanation for why they are reverting in the edit summary, rather than leaving it blank and posting something else somewhere else. It saves time via the notification system, watch lists, etc. to have it on that diff.

Anyway, regarding your follow up edits in the minutes that followed, what are you talking about? You refer me to an article about search algorithms, instead of policy. The source edit window that I've used for years includes Unicode characters. I've seen other experienced editors converting HTML entities to Unicode. I referenced MOS:MARKUP. And I just ran a simple test and found you to be wrong: ΩΩ

Please walk me through your stance a little more slowly, if you would, for my own edification. Otherwise, you're just looking wrong. — voidxor 21:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The ohm sign (U+2126, Ω) is a different character from the Greek uppercase omega (U+03A9, Ω). They are canonically equivalent in Unicode, so software normalizes ohm signs to capital Omega, which is fine in most places, but in this article that discusses the actual character, it needs to show the actual character and not let the software normalize Ω to Ω. [Which happened when I saved this comment. The first character is ohm sign and the second is Omega.] — Omegatron (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

But are you sure that the Unicode encoding you're using in the article now is actually avoiding the silent regularization to U+03A9? When I look at the current html output, it looks to me as if the displayed character is still U+03A9. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Same. I copied both characters as output (say, from my comment above) into several of those Unicode lookup websites, which all say that both are the Greek letter omega. — voidxor 18:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)