Talk:Alphabet

Name Change Suggestion
Perhaps we should change the name of this article to Alphabets; or something along those lines? The article talks about the history, use, and changes of multiple alphabets, not just one singular alphabet. Just a suggestion more than anything else. SomeoneOK (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia usually uses the singular form in article titles, even when there are lots of items: Tree rather than Trees. Certes (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, Alright. That makes sense. Just thought it might be confusing about how hearing Alphabet would sort of specify, at least on this Wikipedia, the Latin alphabet. SomeoneOK (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Potential GAN?
I've gone through and cited most of the article. I would really like for this Article to become a Good Article again after 16 years. Can anyone see any nitpicks that may lead it to be rejected? Only thing I might think of is perhaps source reliability, haven't been around too much to know what is and isn't good in terms of essentially everything. SomeoneOK (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleting/Moving the Size Section.
It seems out of place; it got stated in the earlier review, and a random section into the sizes of scripts I don't think is particularly needed. It's just four paragraphs, albeit on topic about size. It is not with the article. I wanted to discuss this before taking action this large. SomeoneOK (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Short summary
The current (new) short summary,
 * Standardized set of letters

seems to me to be a poor reflection of the main theme of the article. If you are a computer scientist, say, this is a totally adequate definition of an alphabet, but the focus of the article is on the alphabets used in writing by various cultures. Standardization is not an essential feature here (though, of course, without some degree of standardization, it is not really an alphabet). I think keywords like "writing", "symbols", "glyphs", "phonemes" would be expected in the summary. Suggestions? Or arguments why the current summary is the right one? If brevity is of the essence, I think the word "standardized" could be omitted. Nø (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * See the purpose section of Short description. One thing its purpose is expressly not: "A short description is not a definition, and editors should not attempt to define the article's subject nor to summarise the lead." (It's OK if it also works as a definition, but that isn't the goal.) Further, "... avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject." Short descriptions aren't intended to recapitulate the content of the article to the extent you seem to have in mind.
 * As for "standardized", perhaps there's a better word, but an alphabet isn't just any set of letters. The set of letters {R, J, Q} isn't the alphabet of any language. Perhaps "Set of letters used to write a given language" would be suitable. Largoplazo (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your latter suggestion would be an improvement. Nø (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Umm Al Marra
A somewhat new study found that the alphabetical writings found at the archaeological site of Umm el-Marra could be the oldest in the world. I'm kinda shocked that this article doesn't mention them.

https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/07/13/alphabetic-writing-500-years-earlier-glenn-schwartz/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2274831-the-alphabet-may-have-been-invented-500-years-earlier-than-we-thought/

"However, correspondences between the symbols on the cylinders and Early Alphabetic Semitic characters can be noted. It might therefore be hypothesized that the Umm el-Marra cylinders represent a very early manifestation of alphabetic writing."

It is not 100% confirmed yet that these writings were alphabetical.

George Washington University scholarChristopher Rollston, concluded that they were indeed alphabetical writings.

https://www.academia.edu/46910208/Tell_Umm_el_Marra_Syria_and_Early_Alphabetic_in_the_Third_Millennium_Four_Inscribed_Clay_Cylinders_as_a_Potential_Game_Changer

I believe these writings should be included in the article. Whatsupkarren (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)