Talk:D with stroke

This letter uses the exact same Unicode entity as the Vietnamese letter. DHN 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

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 result of the debate was move. Sorry, forgot to close this earlier. —Nightstallion (?) 20:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Đ (slavic letter) → D with stroke – See here for ongoing discussion.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support Dijxtra 21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
• 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)Reply
  • Ahem, you just voted for move of D with stroketoĐ. 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      • 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)Reply
        • • 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)Reply
• Supporttomerge, per User:Mzajac. --Hello World! 08:28, 23 January 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.

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)Reply

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)

1. 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.
2. I think the latin section is informative. It could be expanded but it doesn't leave the reader with huge questions.
3. I'll make this link
4. I 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Is the Sami letter "D with stroke" distinct from Eth (ð)? Did this distinction exist before 1979? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I saw in the article that this letter is supposedly called "dyet". I know that this might sound stupid, but I've searched for sources and I can't find anywhere other than Wikipedia that calls this letter Dyet, leading me to doubt whether this is actually the case. If someone could provide me with a source, I would be very appreciative. :) Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

File:Wright germanic spirants.gif shows đ being used in Germanic languages — for the sound [, where I'd expect to see a thorn (þ), and separately from eth (ð) — according to Joseph Wright's Old High German Primer, second edition (1906), but there's no mention of it in the article.

Can someone expand on this? — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply