Talk:D with stroke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project’s quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project’s importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of the "Writing systems" set of articles nominated for Version 0.7. Discuss this nomination, or see the set nominations page for more details. |
 |
D with stroke was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: September 27, 2006 |
|
This article is part of the "Writing systems" set of articles nominated for Version 0.7. Discuss this nomination, or see the set nominations page for more details. |
|
D with stroke was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: September 27, 2006 |
This letter uses the exact same Unicode entity as the Vietnamese letter. DHN 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would say it's also the same letter, a plain Latin d with stroke, only used differently in another language. Just like the j in English and j in Spanish are the same letter, with different rules of pronunciation. —Michael Z. 2006-01-17 20:54 Z
- 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. Sorry, forgot to close this earlier. —Nightstallion (?) 20:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Requested move
Đ (slavic letter) → D with stroke – See here for ongoing discussion.
[edit] Voting
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
- Support Dijxtra 21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support, now that I understand the intention is to merge the other Latin D-strokes into it. —Michael Z. 2006-01-17 23:52 Z
- Merge I agree, if it's written the same way, then better to merge, otherwise it makes the whole thing even more confusing. Gryffindor 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ahem, you just voted for move of D with stroke to Đ. If this move is executed, there'll be nothing to merge this page to ;-) My "bigger picture" idea (now somewhat lost in this partial proposals for moving) was to do both moves and then merge excess info from (new) Đ (which would be a disambig page) to (new) D with stroke... --Dijxtra 21:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I know what I voted upon. Once the D with stroke gets moved to Đ, this current one should merge with Đ. or did I miss something here? Gryffindor 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, our aim is to make Đ disambig page for all of the letters that have upercase "Đ" (3 of them: Eth (Ð, ð), D with stroke (Đ, đ) and African D (Ɖ, ɖ)), and D with stroke an ordinary article for (Đ, đ) letter. And what you are voting for is to have Đ article include info on D with stroke AND disambig info for other letters that have upercase Đ. Which I consider to be awfuly confusing. I new we'd have confusion like this if I went to formal proposal... (d'uh, conditionals, feel free to correct my grammar) --Dijxtra 09:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- huh? ok i am totally lost now, just forget whatever i voted for, i'm not getting this. Gryffindor 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, our aim is to make Đ disambig page for all of the letters that have upercase "Đ" (3 of them: Eth (Ð, ð), D with stroke (Đ, đ) and African D (Ɖ, ɖ)), and D with stroke an ordinary article for (Đ, đ) letter. And what you are voting for is to have Đ article include info on D with stroke AND disambig info for other letters that have upercase Đ. Which I consider to be awfuly confusing. I new we'd have confusion like this if I went to formal proposal... (d'uh, conditionals, feel free to correct my grammar) --Dijxtra 09:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I know what I voted upon. Once the D with stroke gets moved to Đ, this current one should merge with Đ. or did I miss something here? Gryffindor 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ahem, you just voted for move of D with stroke to Đ. If this move is executed, there'll be nothing to merge this page to ;-) My "bigger picture" idea (now somewhat lost in this partial proposals for moving) was to do both moves and then merge excess info from (new) Đ (which would be a disambig page) to (new) D with stroke... --Dijxtra 21:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support to merge, per User:Mzajac. --Hello World! 08:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
[edit] GA nom suggestions
I recommend a few changes to the article to bring it to GA status:
- The caption "A variant form." is ambiguous -- what makes this form a variant? (I know, it's the lowered stroke, but explicitly tie this into the text.)
- The "Latin" section is in need of expansion. For instance, this section might mention approximately when this form was in use, and perhaps why it might have started. I think a little more detail here would improve the breadth of coverage.
- Citations are needed for the Vietnamese, Slavic, and Sami applications of đ.
- The reference to the "controversial issue" of Balkan languages should link to an article explaining the controversy.
- I found the image accompanying "Phonetic transcription" to be confusing. At first I thought đ was being used as a letter in High German, due to the name of the book; it was not clear that the book was actually describing the phonetics of several different languages. Please clarify this in the caption.
Beyond that, the article meets the criteria. The nomination is on hold for a week to allow the changes to be made. Twinxor t 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Suggestions (Round 2)
Since this article has been taken off hold, I will evaluate it. First I will respond to issues brought up by Twinxor: (the article may have been changed since their comments)
I don't think the variant form caption is bad, maybe a note should be made in the text about how it is used rather than just in the caption.I think the latin section is informative. It could be expanded but it doesn't leave the reader with huge questions.I'll make this linkI liked this image and didn't find it confusing, but maybe others would. The caption could definitely be clearer. I may do this myself.
I will put this article on hold for a week to let changes be made. --The Talking Sock talk contribs 14:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, someone had messed up the Nomination Page and made it look like the article was no longer on hold. --The Talking Sock talk contribs 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding #1 and #4, the problems I mentioned were addressed immediately after my review. Twinxor t 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Passed
As far as I can tell, you've satisfied all the suggestions and the article meets the GA criteria. Congratulations.--CTSWyneken(talk) 10:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delisted GA
As per the Good Article review opened concering this page, it has been delisted, primarily for lack of references. There's only three in total, and some sections have no verification at all. Dispute archived at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 6. Homestarmy 13:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
