Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Greek alphabet/archive1

Greek alphabet
Because I'm not a regular on FLCs, I'm not too sure of the "standard" of FALs, but I ran across this article (really a list of the Greek letters) and thought it was comprehensive and formatted nicely. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object References? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. Must have slipped my mind. :-) I'll see what I can do in finding sources for some of the facts and footnoting them. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Tell me whem you get the references.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  05:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object I can't make out, on my browser, which is IE, the little digamma (which I thought looked the same as the capital digamma, although you may be looking for a sigma as used at the end of a word), either capital or little san (which is strange as they both look like the letter M!), either capital or litte qoppa (which I think look alike), and little sampi (which I thought looked like capital sampi). And that's just the sidebar. There are many other bits in the text that don't appear. Shouldn't there be a brief note on the iota subscript and how some ancient Greek words are nowadays deliberately written differently as the Ancients would have written them - for example &tau;&iota;&mu;&alpha;&omega; would really have been written as &tau;&iota;&mu;&omega; would it? jguk 18:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Small digamma: Some rare characters (e.g. lowercase digamma) simply don't appear in many fonts. The Web in general and Wikipedia in particular don't have a good way of dealing with this.  Ideally, you'd have some way of including an image when a character was missing from a font, but there isn't any way to do this in HTML/Javascript.  And if you do use an image, it doesn't resize correctly when you change font size globally....
 * Shape of san: almost no fonts include San. It does in fact look an awful lot like an "M", but I agree that Latin M shouldn't be used to represent it.
 * Iota subscript: this is discussed in Polytonic orthography, as it is more a diacritic than a letter. But I agree it should be cross-referenced.
 * Differences in Ancient and Modern orthography: this is an article about the alphabet, not about grammar and spelling. The language has evolved over time, and in fact there were dialectal and usage differences in Ancient Greek, too, so that the contraction &alpha;&omega; => &omega; is not a modern/ancient issue.
 * --Macrakis 15:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)