Talk:The (Cyrillic)

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Language & literature Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force.

... Right hook?

Seriously, the wikipedia is the only place that gives this version of this glyph. The unicode reference and all my fonts suggest otherwise.

Even worse, I am afraid there's a misunderstanding here: there's no proof suggesting the "right hooks" preferred in the unicode reference correspond to the svg in this page. I would that hook in SVG a "left hook". You might not agree with me on this particular point, but at least we can agree that the terminology of the direction of a hook is quite ambiguous.

On the other hand, the unicode reference shows a hook on the other direction itself. I don't understand why someone can propose a different letterform than the unicode reference AND use the unicode reference as a reason. Ahyangyi (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the reference actually emphasizes that both forms are in use, I just go to edit the article to state there is nothing wrong in your font since both ways are usable. This is the only thing that you can put on the article, giving the current list of references. Ahyangyi (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]