This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
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.
Latest comment: 9 months ago22 comments14 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 21 days ago11 comments9 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
(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. 1234qwer1234qwer417:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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). —MichaelZ.18:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.) —MichaelZ.17:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.