Talk:Stroke order

message: Under the Basic rules section, I find 戈 to be a bad example, as that stroke order varies. The dot is written last here because of the change to horizontal writing. A better example would be 求.Asoer (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad example

message: I was wondering where is the article on stroke order for the Roman alphabet --24.57.151.98 (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet available. More over, in one hand Roman alphabet have many styles, which each can have his own stroke order, in the other hand I never found authoritative books on this issue in France, since the Stroke order for Roman caracters is not culturally as important as stroke order for CJK chjaracters. Yug (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I am pretty sure there's no such thing. Schools and children's textbooks will usually suggest ways of writing the letters, but they aren't obligatory or standardised. Equinox (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. D'Nealian comes to mind. As a specific method of teaching cursive it's standardised (I think), but there are several other ways of teaching handwriting skills, and handwriting is often very individual anyway. Grayfell (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman alphabet stroke order

message: I'm considering to finish the work I started in 2007. So, I notice here that this article may be soon rewrote. Yug (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soon rewriting (summer 2008) 

message: I am most impressed, especially with the graphics !  DOR (HK) (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ¬_¬' that's a stub... Yug (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I agree, I like this article a lot. It offers history and is very practical. The history section could use a little bit of work, but other than that everything else is in great shape. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. Will be expand soon. Yug (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent article!

message: There are a few contradictions on this page. The main is the one of the character used to show the #9 rule of basic dots last, but previously it is shown the dot is written first. Chastayo (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also state : "there are different official stroke order in different countries, with specific stroke order". All is said. Yug (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: Just wondering, I am the only person who finds the statement on the grass radical inaccurate? As pointed out in the article it changes the strokes themselves from 4 to 3. If we are to consider the grass radical as having only 3 strokes (as it does in simplified characters), then the stroke order used in the PRC does not diverge from tradition - as I already said, it is the strokes themselves that diverge from tradition. It's possible I'm just looking at this the wrong way, and if so, maybe someone could explain it more clearly than the article? - Estoy Aquí (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at it as the result of Simplification, then anything with the grass radical is a Simplified character, whose stroke order changes just because the strokes change. Therefore it diverges. Maybe because it's a Simplified component, it doesn't need mentioning, else we'd mention a whole bunch of other Simplified characters. However, because the grass radical is mentioned in the other regions, it should be interesting to note. 174.23.246.33 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it diverges - that's not what I dispute. What I take issue with is the assertion that it's stroke order diverges when it doesn't. The strokes are different. To me it seems no different to saying that the order of the Spanish alphabet is different to the English alphabet, merely because it excludes some letters. And same goes for mentioning of the other regions. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

text: When S-H-H-S (trad) become S-H-S (simp), yes, the stroke order diverge. Yug (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What a great contribution. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Umh, yeap. The resulting graphs are close, but the stroke order (moves execution) diverge. Yug (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

text: FYI, Japan and PRC do 一丨丨, but same idea. 174.23.197.169 (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRC and Grass Radical 

message: I can't read Korean; does the stroke order data at http://hanja.naver.com/ reflect a national standard? If not I don't think the link should be included. AFAIK, Korea doesn't have a standard for Chinese character stroke order. My gut feeling is if they did have a standard, it would match Traditional.174.23.197.169 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean stroke order 

message: I saw a note in the part about regions. I'm under the impression that at least Singapore follows the Mainland China order, i.e. the mainland standard is also effective in Singapore. I suspect Macao is the same. Anyone want to verify? 67.2.121.142 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macao and Singapore 

message: Perhaps some of the Latin-alphabet letters are full-width forms (perhaps from a Kanji/Hanzi font) where half-width would look better. For instance, the first line of the body text has such a word. I didn't want to change these, because I wasn't sure I wouldn't make a mess!
Regards, Nikevich (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any full-width Latin characters. Maybe the typeface you use doesn't support the character with the diacritic used in Pinyin, therefore substituting a glyph from another typeface for it, or maybe someone edited it. In any case, you can't break Wikipedia, so don't be afraid to change things. Asoer (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unwanted spaces between letters in some pinyin spellings

message: I was wondering if anybody knew the official PRC stroke order of "情", in particular the "忄" radical. I found or heard of three different PRC stroke orders:
- Xiandai Hanyu Tongyongzi Bishun Guifan, the reference tagged as Authoritative here, writes it as left stroke first, then right stoke and middle stroke (see the stroke order here).
- All the Chinese people I asked to, including two Chinese teachers, write it as left stroke, middle stroke and right stroke.
- Finally, it's written as middle stroke first, then left stroke and right stroke on Yellow Bridge.
So who is right? Does anybody know what the real order is? Also is there an official source for stroke order? So far, I've been using "Xiandai Hanyu Tongyongzi Bishun Guifan" but now I'm wondering if it's really accurate? Laurent (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if anybody's interested, after a short email discussion with Eon Media, it appears that the version in Xiandai Hanyu Tongyongzi Bishun Guifan is the correct one. Eon Media has now updated their script to show the correct one, which in turn should update Yellow Bridge. Interesting that such a simple radical can be found to be written in three different ways though. Laurent (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just noticed this same discrepancy between various sources and a search turned up your post here.  FWIW, the book "Easy Way to Learn Chinese Characters" (http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Learn-Chinese-Characters-English/dp/756190911X) uses the left, middle, right order.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.21.226 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the stroke order of 情? 

message: Hi.  Good article.  But a concern...  the "general guidelines" section is a numbered list of nine things and this suggests that maybe this is a list generally agreed upon by experts or maybe that it's a list published by a reliable source.  Either way, the reader needs to be able to verify that these general guidelines are reliable information and not an original composition here.  How can the reader verify the source of this list and/or its individual items.  Thanks!  --Ds13 (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the list of nine "general guidelines" ? 

message: Don't assume everybody can distinguish all those color grades on "Different stroke orders of the character 必, from black to red". Kindly add numbers next to the strokes too! Jidanni (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The two or three blackest shades are hard for me to distinguish, and my color vision is generally good. —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree too. Today when I shared a screenshot to my friends on Google+ (see https://plus.google.com/u/0/111324293475194948738/posts/Ls1kAzwit9a ), I've seen 2 of the replies complaining about accessibility. And it's not yet changed since 2012 when there had been 2 people reporting accessibility issues here! Sky6t 14:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Still a problem in 2022.  Color blind and can't distinguish more than 2 or 3 different colors here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.49.163 (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Hello! Is this a JOKE!? Add stroke numbers, quick! Most of them 'shades' are indistinguishable, even for people with good vision. What about poor monitor colours? 80.232.249.177 (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "black to red" accessibility 

message: Is there a database of exceptions from the expected order? New input methods should allow to investigate this issue --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  exceptions within a standard 

message: Could sb. please  translate this article and add its info --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about stroke order 

message: According to PRC standard ,
Traditional 門 has the same stroke order as the traditional stroke order. Ctxz2323 (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRC stroke order of traditional 門