Talk:Omics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computational Biology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computational Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computational Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

Old discussions[edit]

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.

--Lexor|Talk 00:03, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

What about Reaganomics? [[User:Livajo|力伟|т]] 22:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A portmanteau word: “Reagan” + “economics”. The word “economics”, in turn, comes from “οικ(ο)-” + “νομικ-”. (See below.) —Gamahucheur 22:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Economics?[edit]

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)

“chromatosome”[edit]

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. —12.72.68.186 17:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

Removed Omics.org — The -omics wiki from links as it opens a blank page. --apers0n 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

(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)

Yes! There is no reason at all to have separate pages for omics and omes. Any ome will have a corresponding omics. Fences and windows (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea 129.215.113.37 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-omics and Nonsensomics[edit]

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.


--84.75.156.125 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

POV, Original research and unsourced statements[edit]

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)

Heavy edit[edit]

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)

Alternative explanation and related suffix[edit]

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 [1]. It is claimed that it was derived in a similar way from the word carcinoma. The pages on helkôma [2] and helkos [3] 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 (talkcontribs)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move. Note that the question of deletion, as raised below, is beyond the scope of the RM process.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


-omicsOmics — The sources referenced and some of the external links use the spelling Omics. This spelling is in line with Wikipedia naming conventions, which generally discourage non-alphanumeric characters and prefer initial capital letters. It also draws attention to the phenomenon among biologists, as opposed to discussing the suffix as a suffix. (That is already handled at Wiktionary.) Omics is currently a redirect to -omics. Cnilep (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Well said.
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • support, from me too. Also, we need to establish WP:NOTE for this. It may be a case where "transwikiing" to wiktionary may be a good solution. --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • after looking into this, I come to the conclusion that the case is complex enough to justify a full article, and that transwikification is therefore not advisable. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • After looking into this article which is based around a lexicographic pattern, this article meets the criteria for the wiktionary, and fails to meet that for the wikipedia, so copying this information to the wiktionary, followed by removal of the article here is essential whether it is 'advisable' or not.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • um, wheredo you get the idea that articles on lexicography "fail to meet the criteria for the wikipedia"? Wikipedia's scope is universal. We canrry articles on anything provided only the topic is notable wthin its respective field. In the case of lexicographic topics, "notable" within lexicographic literature. Your suggestion that "lexicographic, therefore transwiki" based on a clear misconception of Wikipedia's scope. --dab (𒁳) 17:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Where do you get the idea that it is allowed? There is NO policy that it is allowed, and the scope of the wikipedia is not universal. There are long lists of things that are not permitted here, including dictionary articles. Please give an example of another encyclopedia that actually has articles on specific suffixes. There are none at all that I am aware of, not one- Encyclopedia Britannica certainly doesn't. All the references from all of the suffix articles in the wikipedia (and there are few of those) contain references to dictionaries; that's because dictionaries nearly always permit suffixes and prefixes. 'THE WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DICTIONARY- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.