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)

Also, it is notable that most alphabetic writing ultimately derives from a common ancestor. Remsense ‥ 论 22:52, 14 December 2024 (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 Wikipedia: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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alphabet/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Benji man (talk · contribs) 19:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   There are quite a few fragmentary sentences (incomplete sentences without a subject and a verb).

   The order of sections seems random.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Claims are appropriately sourced.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   In the long term, it would be good to use more expert sources like academic publications.

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Checked for copyvio, none detected.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

   The lead is quite long.

   The History section goes into a lot of detail for something that has an elaborate stand-alone page. I'd suggest cutting it down a lot to a summary of History of the alphabet.

   Most importantly, it's unclear whether this article is about alphabets in the strict sense or writing systems more generally. I think it would be good to focus on just alphabets, maybe with a short section discussing the differences from abjads, abugidas, syllabaries, etc.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   I think the article needs some substantial work before making GA status. There are a lot of relevant articles that it refers to, so it can be edited down to a more concise and more focused overview of alphabets proper. The prose also has to be brought in line throughout the article. I'm pretty interested in the subject and it's an important article, so if nobody minds, I'll probably start making some edits of my own over the coming time (subject to discussion, of course!). Hopefully we'll be able to get this to Good Article soon!

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vberlucchi (article contribs).

— 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)

It seems this theory has now gained more traction, a more confident interpetation and a new analysis has been presented by Dr. Glenn Schwartz of Johns Hopkins Univeristy to support his theory of the alphabet origins being in Syria.

So many Journal & news outlets have recently reshared this discovery. It seems that more researchers believe now these are indeed alphabetic writings. While others still "hope for more finds."

So now we have several researchers, including: Glenn Schwartz, Christopher Rollston, and Silvia Ferrara, a researcher in early languages at the University of Bologna in Italy, who support this theory.

Check:

-https://hub.jhu.edu/2024/11/21/ancient-alphabet-discovered-syria/

-World's Oldest Alphabet Found on an Ancient Clay Gift Tag

"In 2021 Schwartz described the cylinders in an Italian journal called Pasiphae. The research didn’t get much attention, in part because Schwartz was cautious in pushing his interpretation of the inscriptions as alphabetic letters. “I probably was too timid,” he says.

He presented a more confident interpretation this week at the annual meeting of the American Society of Overseas Research, held in Boston."

Many other sources reported on this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

With all of that, I dont see why this doesn't deserve to be added to the article. Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Link Error

The redlink to Ge'ez under Early Alphabets (currently at reference #74) mistakenly uses an open quote mark instead of an apostrophe. Please fix that to turn it into a functioning blue link. 1.126.110.104 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)