Talk:Bar (diacritic)

	Writing portal 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.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bar (diacritic) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

I am not familiar with all but two of these characters, and therefore hesitate to write about the other characters. Furthermore I am not at all sure how to even start this article, so if anyone who does know would like to give it a go, please do. These are all the characters I know of which use a diacritic bar, it is possible I left out a few. — Jor 21:21, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

There are some barred characters i have seen that do not have unicode assignments, i believe. One is a barred letter "c" used to represent a voiceless alveolar affricate (this is interchangeable with <c> and <¢>) . Another is a barred small capital letter "i" used to represent a high central lax vowel. — ishwar (SPEAK) 06:15, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

I think a bar does not equal to a stroke, partly because both name exist in Unicode, but also their shapes. A bar is horizontal, while a stroke is from top-right to bottom-left. Compare L bar (Ƚ, ƚ) and L stroke (Ł, ł), or O bar (Ɵ, ɵ) and O stroke (Ø, ø). -✉ Hello World! 08:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2019

The number 7 is missing from the number list, even though it's called out in the introduction. I'm unsure how to add a 7 with a strikethrough.--Mcps39 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what the introduction is saying. The bar sometimes seen in 7 is not a diacritic, but merely a glyph variation to make it more distinct from 1, so it would not be the subject of this article. (On the other hand, it is hard to see what criteria might have been used to compile the list that make up the bulk of this article, so confusion is to be expected.) 95.199.143.153 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Explain article contents, and 2. Source article contents

From looking at the edit history, this article has been receiving minor edits (though mostly from IP addresses, but who am I to complain) for at least two years, so presumably someone is maintaining it. But to what end? What information does it contain?? Apart from the introduction, it appears to just be one long list (sectioned by scripts), where the items are … some sort of productions? Set up according to what principles? There might be some merit in listing precompositions made from combining bars and strokes, but a lot of the entries rather seem to be purely graphical: there is one which produces the Greek letter Psi from the Latin letter U! What conclusion is a reader supposed to draw from that?

In addition, there is the matter of verifiability. Every letter listed on the right hand side of an → in this long list really constitutes an independent claim, so by Wikipedia standards each and every one of these needs to be sourced. 95.199.143.153 (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]