Talk:Omics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old discussions

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?

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”

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)