Talk:Stroke order

Bad example

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)Asoer

Roman alphabet stroke order

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)

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)

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)

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)

Soon rewriting (summer 2008)

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)

Excellent article!

I am most impressed, especially with the graphics ! DOR (HK) (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

¬_¬' that's a stub... Yug (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

ok. Will be expand soon. Yug (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions

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)

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)

Taiwan's stroke order is not Imperial China's

Upon seeing many calligraphers writing characters with 戈 writing the dot last, I've done some digging around. It seems that such stroke order was not the result of horizontal writing. It has been written that way as early as the Eastern Jin dynasty. One can see this in the way the second stroke is linked to the 丿 in Wang Xizhi's calligraphy. For example, 戰, 戠, 戟, 戢, 戮. (Scans were from 《六体书法大字典》by 田其湜, ISBN 7543836688.)

Taiwan also differs from the tradition of Imperial China in other characters, like 必. Taiwan writes 心 and then crosses it, while the tradition writes 丿 before 心. Also Taiwan writes characters like 有 and 右 with the horizontal stroke first, while tradition says that the 丿 should be first. (One may cite 《歐楷解析》 by 田蘊章 ISBN 7530525875.)

Therefore, it looks like the article, as well as the stroke order project, are up for some major changes. No official stroke order matches the true traditional stroke order exactly. The PRC and Hong Kong diverge from tradition in characters with the 艸 radical. The ROC diverges in characters with the 戈 radical. Japan diverges in 必. (Korea and Vietnam don't have official standards.) Therefore, we cannot call anything the "Traditional" stroke order. Taiwan can only be Taiwan or ROC or something. PRC cannot be "Modern," because there is nothing that is not modern to contrast it with. The article should note all standards, and their characteristics. I'll get on it when I'm prepared, but others may start correcting the article when they want.Asoer (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I know, the Imperial stroke order is really unclear. From VII-IX centuries steles that I looked at in Luoyang, 'most' (not all, but clearly more than the half), had stroke order like the today taiwan ones (戈 with 丿last). But yes, I also found a range of 'deviant' stroke order (with dot last). This was in Luoyang, for the cited centuries, and after a quick (some hours) overview (I was traveling in China for 15 days).

On the other hand, I had read some papers about the 1956, stating that the characters way of writing was move from vertical to horizontal, and accordingly, that stroke order had been change to fit this new way of writing. My deduction was that from the 2 existing stroke order of 戈, they picked up the less-used 'dot last', more convenient in horizontal writing. This 2 things lead me to think that Taiwan stroke order was derivated from [generaly admit] Imperial orders, while the modern order had select deviant features (dot last).

This, was my personal deduction. And when creating the Stroke order project, I created the category 't', like... Taiwanese/Traditional. This issue still being unclear, I used a neutral and more secure 't', but I was by that time highly suspecting that the 2 were closely relate.

But, Your new data provide a new light on this question :) , and yes, your source are strong, so my former deduction may be wrong XD , or reduce to some calligraphic school of the VIIth c.'s Luoyang O.o

Whatever, the Stroke order project can keep the same naming system, but should now notice 'TAIWAN stroke order', and no more Taiwan/Traditional stroke order. ;) Yug (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: you links about the radical stroke order all display work by 王義之. Each calligrapher had (and have) his preference for stroke order. 王義之 favor 戈 with the dot last, if you have other writers, that would be nice. Yug (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that only 王羲之 clearly connects the second stroke and 丿, while also writing the dot. Other calligraphers either don't clearly connect them, or they don't write the dot. I have found what might be a connection in 宋克's 戈, although it may be just an overlap. In 陸柬之's 或, 王守仁's 或, and 文徴明's 戢 the 丿 bends back upward, suggesting movement to the dot. Also, if it means anything, I didn't see anyone connect the second stroke and the dot, or the dot and the 丿.Asoer (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your source, all 宋克's 戈, 陸柬之's 或, 王守仁's 或, and 文徴明's 戢 seems in my opinion too to end with the dot last. After, difficult to say more. I explained my former view, based on quick overview in Luoyang, the associated memory, and personal deductions. Your position is more solidly sourced :], so let's go in this way ;) Yug (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: In semi-cursive style, I also found steles where the same authors write the same radical with different stroke order in the same few lines. That all the trouble and the fun : that was not stable, that was free, that's calligraphy ;) Yug (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

PRC and Grass Radical

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)

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)

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)

When S-H-H-S (trad) become S-H-S (simp), yes, the stroke order diverge. Yug (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What a great contribution. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Umh, yeap. The resulting graphs are close, but the stroke order (moves execution) diverge. Yug (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Korean stroke order

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)

PRC order

乃 ends with 丿. 成 starts with the horizontal.

I doubt this. plz give sources.--刻意(Kèyì) 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

乃 on this page (scroll down)

成 on this page (scroll down)

Not very good scans, but you can at least see 乃 and 成 clearly. Asoer (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Macao and Singapore

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)

Stroke order per polity (1)

I reply here to a message left on my talk page by Yug: For stroke order, Asoer (talk · contribs) and myself (Yug (talk · contribs)) already looked at authoritative sources to write down this article, and create illustrations.

• the will to speak about an "area", while we are talking about Ministry's standard, we are talking about States, government, not areas. Thus, PRC is better than Mainland (what is Mainland ? include HK? Macao?), and ROC is better than Taiwan (what is Taiwan ?).

1. I can understand that you want to divide the stroke order per polity however I strongly disagree that, in this case, PRC is better than mainland China. If we talk about a "PRC stroke order" it means that Hong Kong also uses the same stroke order. However it doesn't - so at least for China we need to talk about areas.

• state that [ =Traditional stroke order. This character is also traced that way in mainland China.] is quite courageous, since there was NO stroke order standard in China before PRC, and both stroke orders were thus in free use.

1. The current caption is misleading because it implies that this stroke order is no longer used anywhere, however it is still used in mainland China (and Hong Kong and Japan apparently). Perhaps we should choose a character which has a unique traditional stroke order? Also I wonder if you misunderstood my change - I was talking about today's stroke order in mainland China, I don't know why you talk about the stroke order before PRC.

For aesthetics:

1. moving |year=1958 is a meaningless change, we can keep it or cancel it.

   I didn't change that.

2. Etymology of the character "马" (horse) is quite an unaesthetic move when you compare to the table width.

   Sorry but aestheticism is not a valid motive for revert. You can change the layout of the table if you feel it's not pretty but I see no reason not to put a caption. In your massive revert, you've also removed a template and various other improvements. You don't WP:OWN the article so please stop doing this revert, and change one thing at a time. Laurent (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we have a basis to move on. But stop short the owning argument: 1. I explained my revert, 2. you made as much revert than me, so "You don't WP:OWN the article so please stop doing this revert" also work for you. Conclusion: this argument is void. Let's move on.

1. Area VS Administrative area: Today I looked on Mainland, you are right, this word geographically fit the need. PRC was for me ok since an other section was about HK, since HK was just recently integrated, and since HK is a special autonomous area with its own Education ministry. But yes, nowadays, PRC is misleading, and Mainland PRC should be better (I prefer to keep PRC since these are artificial, government made standards).

Taiwan (ROC), or ROC (Taiwan) should be kept.

2. 戈-order.gif caption [ = Traditional stroke order. This character is also traced that way in mainland China.]

• "Traditional" usually refer to traditional characters, you thus refer either to pre-reform (past), or Taiwan (nowaday), or Japan. So don't use this adjective for today PRC 戈-order.gif. 戈-order.gif . is not the traditional stroke order, but rather the modern stroke order, or Mainland PRC stroke order.
• Proposal caption: PRC (Mailand China) Modern stroke order standard
  • Japan: I don't remember the 戈 order in Japan. Asoer (talk · contribs) may have a fresher memory on that aspect.
  • Past in China: it is impossible to state the "standard" before, since there was no Stroke order standard, and both practice were in use.

The other points are aesthetics, as I said previously. Yug (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok I understand the difference between traditional and modern stroke order, however in the case of don't you agree that the traditional and modern order are exactly the same? I think that may be a bit confusing for readers. Perhaps we could try to find a character that has a unique traditional stroke order to prove the point that this order is no longer in use today? I don't know enough about traditional stroke order though, so if you have any suggestion... I don't know about the Japanese stroke order either, I was just referring to a comment made by an IP earlier (it's in the article history). I'm with "Taiwan (ROC)". Laurent (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

1. 戈-order.gif : H-WG-P-D is modern (PRC) ; H-WG-D-P is traditional (Taiwan).

Taiwan (ROC) is ok for me too. Yug (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Stroke order per polity (2)

The above conversation is difficult to follow, but I will address things as I read.

1. Governmental standards: First, besides the traditional standard (yes, standard) stroke order, the standard stroke orders in the section we're talking about are established and prescribed by the governments. They are official stroke orders, tied to the governments and not to any region. Therefore, I support calling them "ROC," "PRC," etc. The problem with "PRC" is that is includes Hong Kong. This can be easily solved by calling it "PRC excluding Hong Kong."
2. All standards are in use: All (including traditional) standards are used today. "Traditional" does not imply "obsolete."
3. 馬 Table: Although the table corresponds with the etymology of 馬, it does not show the etymology. What is shown is 馬 in different Chinese script styles including Simplified (capital S, note) 楷書. The etymology is that it is a pictogram of a horse.
4. 戈 image caption: The statement that is in the traditional (minuscule t, note) and PRC standards is true. However, that is also the case for Japan and Hong Kong. Only the ROC stroke order is different. Would you rather list all but ROC or only say traditional (the reference from which I described the other standards)? I think listing only traditional is better. However, the images of 戈 are not very useful no matter how they are captioned. I'm under the impression that User:Nbarth, who added them, wasn't really clear about them (as he/she labeled them wrong at first). It would be better to use an example which varies more among the standards, such as 必. Making new .gifs is necessary though. If you want to make them, here are the standards. traditional: 丿, 乚, top 丶, left 丶, right 丶; ROC and Hong Kong: 心, 丿; Japan: top 丶, 丿, 乚, left 丶, right 丶; PRC: left 丶, 乚, top 丶, 丿, right 丶.
5. Unique traditional stroke order example: Off the top of my head, 必 and 無 have unique traditional stroke orders. 必 is 丿, 乚, top 丶, left 丶, right 丶. 無 is 丿, 三, 丨丨丨丨, 灬. They are described in 《歐楷解析》, which is in the reference section.
6. Where to look up standard stroke orders: One can look up standard stroke orders (except traditional) using the links in the External links section. For example, Japanese.
7. Traditional standard is a standard: Standard language is what is used in public. It does not have to be standardized (like the modern governmental standards). Thus the traditional standard is a standard, just as General American is a standard. Since the traditional standard is not a governmental standard, it would not belong in the section if the section were only about governmental standards. One way to take care of this would be to simply state that it isn't a governmental standard like the others.
8. Singapore and Macau: do not have standard stroke orders. If you find some, you can put them on.

I will proceed to edit the article to reflect these comments. -Asoer (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Asoer (long time no see!)

The talk become increasingly complexe because of unclear wordings.

So first, Asoer, can you edit your previous comments to change «traditional» which I increasingly find confusing into «traditional (ROC)» or «traditional (people's usage») or «traditional (Pre-Republic)» according to your meaning. By example,«  is in the traditional » sound wrong to me, this is not the traditional (ROC) standard.

Second, please put titles to your points. That may help to follow this complex talk more smoothly. I also added numbers and reorganized your points. Point 1, 2 and 7 are relate issues. 4 & 5 express the need of better examples/illustration. Yug (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I say "traditional" I mean the stroke orders that have been established by studying written documents from pre-Repubic China. (This also reminds me that the article implies that a government in imperial China prescribed it, which is not true. I'll edit the article.) Whenever I say "ROC," I mean the standard used by the Republic of China Ministry of Education. It may appear confusing because the character set most often used in the ROC is called "Traditional Chinese." That is, the ROC MOE writes in Traditional Chinese but does not use the traditional stroke order. -Asoer (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree . ;) Yug (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC) (+thanks for your help !)

About "traditional standard", I think it's confusing with standardized. Asoer, what about calling this "traditional usage" ? Yug (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's better. Looking at the section again, I think it could be better just to say "traditional stroke order." Currently, it implies that "traditional" is not "modern," yet it is, as people use it. I'll reword a few things; see if you like it. Asoer (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Inline references

It woulb be welcome now to add inline references. We indeed have them. And since most of the article was wrote by Asoer and also myself, we should be able to dig into our books to find some more references. I personally encourage the following style :

The stroke order was H-S (Clinton 2000). Same for...
The stroke order was H-S ({{harvnb|Clinton|2000}}). Same for...

• Clinton (2000), The Stroke Order Book.

Asoer, what about you ? Yug (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I like using the <ref> something </ref> tags and a {{reflist}} at the end, as used extensively in Literary and colloquial readings of Chinese characters. Asoer (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so let's go for <ref> something </ref> tags and a {{reflist}}. Remember to use <ref>{{harvnb|Clinton|2000}}</ref> when the book source is already in the list of authoritative books ;)

This is not urgent, I will move slowly really. Yug (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

After thinking, I will use the ref style for most of the article, but the (Clinton 2000) style for the section "Policy" when one official standard is to cite. For example, see what I done for Taiwan. Yug (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Unwanted spaces between letters in some pinyin spellings

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)

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)

What is the stroke order of 情?

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)

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)

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)

Source for the list of nine "general guidelines" ?

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)

"black to red" accessibility

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

exceptions within a standard

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)

Article about stroke order

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

File:Stroke order.jpg

PRC stroke order of traditional 門

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

References