Talk:Ohm

Formula

Shouldn't R = V/I be in it somewhere? In that simple form.

ohm symbol

do we really need 3 ohm characters? PeregrineAY 02:34, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

No, but we need the right one. Unless I got confused by the two sets of comments, it looked like you kept the wrong one to display. I left the comment there for future editors, but rearranged into just one. There is probably no difference between using the first listed, they should both map to the same character. Gene Nygaard 04:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there such thing as a 'right' one? I am wondering if all users can see &*omega; and if the other ones, 937 and 8486, would be better for all wikipedians to use. PeregrineAY 07:50, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

There is such a thing as a wrong one. #8486 or #x2126 is the Unicode character is in a group of characters whose only purpose is to enable accurate rendition in Unicode of text originally formatted in a certain few code pages in a certain few Asian languages. It is not for use in new writing in any language, and certainly not in English.

There have been times when some browsers will support a named character and not support it numerical equivalent, or vice versa. I don't think that is a problem at all in regards to the basic Greek characters, though it still does matter for some other more obscure characters. I don't think it makes any difference if you use ω or Ω or &#x3A9 as they should all show up as exactly the same character. Here they are, side by side--increase the text size in your browser and compare them: ΩΩΩ

This way, if anybody's browser doesn't show all three of them, and all the same, they can let us know. Gene Nygaard 13:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

out of interest do you know what encoding lead to omega and ohm sign being seperated? Plugwash 01:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kilohm or kiloohms

I have edited this part on the basis of the following

Google                       hits   (august 2005)
 
kilohm OR kilohms                 12,300   23,800
kiloohm OR kiloohms                7,180    8,440
"kilo-ohm" OR "kilo-ohms"                  10,900
"kilo-ohm"                         6,350
"kilo-ohms"                        5,470
 
megaohm OR megaohms               22,600   23,200
megohm OR megohms                 92,900   99,800
"mega-ohm" OR "mega-ohms"                  11,600
 
gigaohm OR gigaohms                7,680    7,490
gigohm OR gigohms                  1,250      853
"giga-ohm" OR "giga-ohms"                     849
 
teraohm OR teraohms                1,350      693
terohm OR terohms                     40       55
"tera-ohm" OR "tera-ohms"                     710
 
kiloohm OR kiloohms site:bipm.org      3
kilohm OR kilohms site:bipm.org        0
 
kiloohm OR kiloohms site:nist.gov      2
kilohm OR kilohms site:nist.gov       18

Gene Nygaard 05:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) Urhixidur 00:23, 2005 August 22 (UTC) (for the August 2005 counts)

Just because everyone spells something wrong doesn't mean it's not wrong. That said, "The simplified spelling kilohm is approved by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)" and SI standard seems to be kiloohm, so they're both acceptable. - Omegatron 18:26, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

"The simplified spelling kilohm is approved by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)" - Can we have a link to that?

Urhixidur 17:45, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was move back, of course. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Seems like a clear case of primary topic disambiguation. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Against) I'm not too sure, it seems that Ohm could be used (as last names commonly are) by someone looking for Georg Ohm or Martin Ohm. --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 03:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I don't really care, but in any case, I fixed all the links that are clearly intended as referring to the unit from "[[Ohm]]" to "[[Ohm (unit)]]" and they need not be changed back regardless of the result, as single redirects are not a problem. — Mar. 21, '06 [04:20] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Oppose -- it was just moved, so there's not consensus. "Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page." And it's a lot easier to find and fix links to a Generic Topic page. --William Allen Simpson 09:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per below. Femto 13:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Absent consensus for the move, the article "just moved" ought to have the move undone, and agree with the points below. Lack of consensus for the move that was done means the long-standing and proper way of doing it should remain; editors shouldn't be allowed to shift the burden of proof by jumping in and making a move without consensus. Gene Nygaard 14:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am open to the debate and I am reading the comments with interest. But for now, I see no reason for treating it differently from other unit articles (and there is still some room for consistency improvements with unit articles). bobblewik 17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pretty sure the unit is the primary topic here. Plugwash 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cacycle 18:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely support and am shaking my head that this was moved, there is no other meaning for Ohm. I never refer to nor have I ever seen a reference to Georg Ohm or Martin Ohm as just "Ohm" (like Cher). "Ohm" means the unit, period. The only time I see George Ohm referred to as just Ohm is in Ohm's law because there are no other laws by a dude named Ohm. Cburnett 22:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Cburnett — Omegatron 23:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ohm was in line with Becquerel, Celsius, Coulomb, Farad, Hertz, Joule, Newton, Pascal, Sievert, Volt, Watt, which are all primary topics about the unit. Gray redirects to Grey with the color as the primary topic. Henry, Weber, Siemens also have notable other uses and are disambiguation pages. Tesla redirects to Nikola Tesla. — Articles about people are available under their proper names. Someone looking for Georg or Martin will find them just as well through a dablink. Disambiguation on last names is a navigational help, not a criterion to decide whether a topic is primary. There are no other notable things called "Ohm"! (*)

(*) There is an obsolete German liquid measure called Ohm, thus Ohm (unit) itself is ambiguous, by the way.

There wasn't consensus either to move Ohm to Ohm (unit), was there? What is this move all about? As to the consensus argument, I think "no such consensus" does not mean that primary topic disambiguations may be overturned by any possible minority. There are Fiona Apple and Charlie Apple: does Apple have to be moved to Apple (fruit)? Femto 13:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus means that primary topics can be overturned by a minority. Most pages start as primary topics, and when they aren't anymore, they are moved (usually on the third topic, see WP:D). This has been quite fully discussed. Primary topic pages have to be so important that folks are willing to do the extra effort to find all valid and invalid links on a regular basis. That's a lot of extra work! Generic Topic pages can assume that all links need disambiguation. There's a whole project page devoted to shuffling these around. Thanks for pointing out more that need moving.

--William Allen Simpson 06:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to move Apple without a discussion and a formal move request—and that's the weakest candidate in the list. Tell, what is the other meaning of "Ohm" that needs disambiguation? You misinterpret Wikipedia:Disambiguation: it can not be imposed by any minority. Consensus does not mean there can't be any opposition at all to reach it. Femto 13:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.