Talk:omega with titlo

RFD discussion: December 2019–February 2020
Unicode character name, self-descriptive, rather like "u with an umlaut". (Might not even meet RFV in usage, btw.) Equinox ◑ 14:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is as SOP as “e with acute”. Fay Freak (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note that this was originally created as vandalism. Old Man Consequences (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Send to RFV. This is not SOP, as the diacritic above the Unicode character ‘omega with titlo’ is not a titlo, but a ‘great apostrophe’ consisting of a smooth breathing and a pokrytije; the character was misnamed by Unicode. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some elaboration. According to, the Cyrillic “wide” omega with great apostrophe («широкая» омега с великим апострофом) Омега с великим апострофом.jpg, used for exclamations, is different from the omega with titlo (омега с титлом) Омега с титлом.jpg. Unfortunately, Unicode has introduced interminable confusion by assigning the name “omega with titlo” to U+047C/D, while the grapheme for that code on their website is clearly the omega with great apostrophe. Most computer fonts now render U+047C/D indeed with the graphic appearance of an omega with titlo: &#x47c;&#x47d; . Because the Unicode titlo is combining, you can get a “true” omega with titlo by combining a plain Cyrillic omega U+0460/1 with a titlo U+0483: &#x460;&#x483;&#x461;&#x483; . They may look just the same on your screen as the previous pair (for me they do), but under the hood they are quite different. This is evident if you search the text for one (using the Find command of your browser); this will not highlight the other one. The pair shown in the definition of our entry is U+047C and U+047D. I think it is impossible for us to clean up this mess until Unicode gets its act together; sending this to RfV is somewhat futile. --Lambiam 22:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder Unicode can fix it; they haven't fixed the various letters with cedilla that actually render as letters with comma (ģ, ķ, ļ, ņ, ŗ) because of earlier conflation of cedilla and comma. — Eru·tuon 22:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Even if Unicode has confused a "titlo" with a fucking green apple, it's not our job to create entries for every possible letter, "a with titlo", "b with titlo", "c with titlo" and say that it's really an apple because Unicode made a mistake. Equinox ◑ 04:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The only font family I could find that gives me a great apostrophe is Code2000: &#x47c;&#x47d; . Code2001 is back to the titlo. --Lambiam 22:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * For a further discussion, look here under “047C 047D”. --Lambiam 22:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The official Unicode charts note that ‘despite its name, this character does not have a titlo’. Through previous Unicode discussions the character apparently started out as an omega with a great apostrophe, was changed to an omega with a titlo, and then was changed back to one with a great apostrophe for good, resulting in the current chart note and the mess of fonts you mention. (The fonts that actually show the character as omega plus a titlo are, I’d guess, either old or uninformed.) If, as a result of all that mess, the use of the term ‘omega with titlo’ has genuinely caught on in reference to the omega with great apostrophe, I do think that’d be worth documenting — though I also rather doubt that it’s the case. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * For the sake of fairness: when you go from one Web page to another, the first page is called the referrer, but due to bad spelling, it was called the referer in technical standards. One of my earliest arguments on here when I was a newbie was saying "yeah but referer isn't a word" lol. If enough people fuck up, the fuck-up becomes acceptable. Equinox ◑ 05:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)