Hangul was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the
good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and contribute to the
discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Given how the writing system has a different name in North and South Korea, wouldn't it be better to use the neutral term "Korean alphabet"?
Marmartoo (
talk) 05:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Under the guidelines here, we'd decide that based on prevailing usage in
reliable English-language sources. 10:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the "prevailing usage"? No doubt in technical texts people use hangul, but this is a technical term, and not really an English word. In non-technical contexts, I bet the overwhelmingly most common is to say "the Korean alphabet", and in a newspaper article, for example, then tell readers that it is known as "hangul". Frankly I think it is a bizarre idea to have topics in an English-language encyclopedia which will not be known to the typical reader who is out to learn something.
Imaginatorium (
talk) 18:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
See the relevant guidelines at
WP:COMMONNAME, as well as all the previous discussions on this very matter in the archives, starting with
Talk:Hangul/Archive 2, so you can see what arguments for and against changing the title have been made before and how they've been judged to be consistent with the guidelines. By the way, your last sentence is weird—we should show readers who are out to learn something only things they already know?
Largoplazo (
talk) 21:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My last sentence is intended to illustrate the problem, and on the contrary, your last sentence is weird - consider someone who wants to know the Korean (or "technical") name of the Korean alphabet. OK, I will try to be more pedestrian: "Frankly I think it is a bizarre idea to have topics in an English-language encyclopedia identified by names which will not be known to the typical reader who is out to learn something." The ordinary reader of English does not know the word hangul (nor vast numbers of other WP article titles, even though they may appear in some dictionaries). Notice, incidentally, that by tradition the WP article for TOPIC starts something like "The TOPIC is .... known as ...". You can identify the TOPIC of this article that way.
Imaginatorium (
talk) 04:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In addition to hangul being the COMMONNAME, phrasal descriptors often redirect (as
Korean alphabet does) for a reason. No one is trying to type in Korean alphabet and walking away disappointed because they don't know the name hangul.
Remsense诉 04:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Expanding on Remsense's observation, titles are based on the terminology most used by sources that discuss the topic, not on the most likely guess or generic description from someone who doesn't know the topic. Titling and searching are two different things, and the latter is covered by redirects.
Largoplazo (
talk) 11:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Original research from me! Not to undercut my own point, but we careen startlingly quickly into unsettled philosophical controversies if we tug on this thread too hard, i.e. "what is a name". I'm hoping my preferred
causal theory of reference is logically consistent for my case here.
Remsense诉 11:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I simply don't agree that "Korean alphabet" is the COMMONNAME over hangul. People who don't know it's called hangul might not know to call it an alphabet either.
Remsense诉 04:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
To be honest, in my view, if we're going to call the page Hangul, we should have more details on its applications in Jeju. Compare
Arabic script vs.
Arabic alphabet.
AG202 (
talk) 07:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 8 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mokshita jain (
article contribs).
I don’t really like the current example (꿀벌) of the correct way to write Hangul. I think we should change it either to 조선글 or the word for either “line” or the first person singular pronoun, both of which are only one syllable.
2601:C6:D200:E9B0:95D5:228D:3A88:24BC (
talk) 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you give any explanation at all of why you do not like the honeybee? I can't see any obvious reason to want a single syllable; but I can see that a simpler example might be better, 서울 for example. It is definitely a bad idea to use the topic itself as an example word.
Imaginatorium (
talk) 18:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I just prefer 조선글 over 꿀벌 for the longer ones. For shorter ones, we could possibly use the first person singular pronoun (나).
2601:C6:D200:E9B0:1946:E2D:F45:B356 (
talk) 21:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply