|WikiProject Computational Biology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.|
Sadly the unification of the omics with genomics shows a lack of understanding, and prefents the propper scientific discussion of this trend in science. Also the comments given under that new article show a lack of understanding.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place to discuss "trends in science". They may be mentioned in articles, but the point is to document generally agreed upon knowledge, not a place for speculation, research or personal essays, from: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:
- 9. Personal essays that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, not serve as a vehicle for personal opinions to become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it's preferable to let other people to whom those opinions are important write about them. See Wikipedia:No original research. But of course essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta-Wikipedia.
- 10 Primary research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals.
And of course in all such discussions 'you know best' gimmy a break! I am putting omics back, as it gets plenty of google hits (your rationalle for removing metaome), and is a distinct subject from genomics.
- I'm not claiming I know best, and I kept much of your content into the genomics article, I'm simply following wikipedia policy to not generate too many Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Omes isn't a separate topic it's really a dictionary entry which is what Wiktionary is for, but it is a suffix, so may have a place in the suffix series (see below). Your current text also needs to be written with a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic style, this means removing personal pronouns ("I" does not exist on Wikipedia) and toning down the rhetoric a bit. This is not me "knowing best", it's simply Wikipedia policy. -- Lexor|Talk 00:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I hope you see my point, and stop blindy insisting that you are 'correct in all respects'.
- Perhaps I was a bit hasty in removing the article completely. There may be a place for this article in the Template:Table_Suffixes series. I think if we work together to make this article try in encyclopedic style (together with others) it has a place. --Lexor|Talk 00:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I am quite buisy at the moment, but I can work on this at the weekend. Please feel free to blank the page before then if that is the best thing to do? Thanks again,
- I have restored the page (and moved it to -omics, so it is consistent with the other Template:Table Suffixes), and done a major copyedit. I think it is working better as an article now. --Lexor|Talk 01:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is probably the most noteworty word with "omics," but i don't see it discussed... --Blackcats 19:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- “οικ(ο)-” (household) + “νομ(ο)-” (law or custom). By way of Latin, these become “œc(o)-” + “nomic-”; eventually, English drops the initial ‘o’, but the spelling was once “œconomics”. —Gamahucheur 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The implicit point of the note on “chromatosome” is that the history of formations here has been one philological disaster after another. First there's “chromosome”, which is morphologically wrong; then there's “genome” which was at best a sort of joke; then there's the subsequent “-omes”, as people just talk through their hats. —184.108.40.206 17:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
(was Merge -ome?) Would -ome be better off merged here, since this has plenty of content already? My impression is that most -omes will have an -omics, and vice versa. - IMSoP 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Pseudo-omics and Nonsensomics
The statement "For example, translationomics does not have any distincive value at the moment while it should correspond to transcriptomics." is wrong and should be removed. There are a lot of DNA sequences which are transcribed but do not code for proteins (e.g. siRNAs, miRNAs, snoRNAs). Thus the translationome doesn't correspond to the transcriptome.
--220.127.116.11 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
POV, Original research and unsourced statements
This article contains many statements with strong claims of "firsts", "early" events and so on. Much of it is not sourced and seems to present POV original research. I've tagged a good deal of what needs to be fixed, but overall, I don't think the article makes a strong enough case even for the idea that omics is a word (as opposed to the ending -omics). -Harmil 15:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This page was full of unreferenced statements, speculation, waffle and was badly written and organised. I have slashed through it with a machete - hopefully it actually reads well now, and the excess content has been removed. Fences and windows (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Since reference 2 is a link to a database, it's hard to verify that it really rules out the proposed meaning of the suffix. One example of -ome indicating something related to "collection of" is rhizome which the dictionaries state was a word first used in 1845 and derived from the greek word rhizōma meaning "mass of tree roots". It depends on rhizoun meaning "cause to strike root" and rhiza meaning "root".
In any case, the omics-issue has a possible parallell in the use of the -oma suffix in medicine . It is claimed that it was derived in a similar way from the word carcinoma. The pages on helkôma  and helkos  may offer some further clues to someone more versed in grammar than myself. :-) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverGreg (talk • contribs)