Talk:Cyrillic o variants

Ocular O Article

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

multiocular o

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

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. Anonymy365 (talk) 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)

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

its beautiful and deserves more research and attention V333spertine (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)