![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Move to hangeul | Keep at Hangul | |
---|---|---|
7 | 7 |
I'm starting to think Tahon is right. French and German wikipedia have converted to hangeul, and languages which have the means (Polish, Turkish, Russian - but not Vietnamese!) distinguish the second vowel from u. The misspelling can be confusing. This is not an entrenched English word - certainly nowhere near as entrenched as Peking was before switching to Pinyin - so I don't think that's much of an excuse to keep the pseudo-Wade Giles orthography. The OED citations only treat 'hangul' as an unassimilated foreign word. True, Google hits (if restricted to English) are 6:1 in favor of 'hangul' over 'hangeul', but I'm not sure that should be a deciding factor. All in favor of moving the page to hangeul vs. keeping it here? kwami ( talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
After nearly two weeks, the vote is nearly evenly divided. Looks like we're sticking with the current spelling. kwami ( talk) 07:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
'"'Move to Hangeul'Bold text"' because it is the official romanization. It is the official and correct term. Manhwagirl ( talk) 02:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Though the subject seems to be at rest now, I'd like to put in a thought. The "Standard English spelling" argument makes sense to me, and had me considering changing my vote to "Keep". However, with this debate in mind, I began noticing the presence of many articles with non-standard English characters-- Shōchū and Karel Čapek for example. How can these be considered "Standard English spellings" when they use characters not even on our keyboard? How can it be considered appropriate to use non-standard English characters to accomodate non-English alphabets in these cases, while the mere inclusion of a perfectly English-standard "e" in hangeul to represent a Korean word is not? I don't get very worked up over either "hangul" or "hangeul", but the application of the "Standard English spelling" rule seems inconsistent. Dekkappai ( talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this discussion! I agree that four years hence the situation regarding hangul has changed some; however, I do not think there is enough evidence to support the claim that hangeul is now the accepted English spelling. Maybe in four more years. I disagree with most of points given by Tahon. In particular, the I think the pronunciation described by 'hahng-gool' is not really how the word is pronounced in English: it is usually pronounced with one of the other "u" sounds: as 'hahng-gull' (rhymes with full). The [ʊ] sound is indeed the closest English sound to Korean [ɨ] (which is anyway pronounced with slightly compressed lips, making it more like [ʊ] than canonical IPA [ɨ]). Anyhow, my vote is keep. Nohat ( talk) 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as it is; leave it at Hangul. "Hangul" is an certificated English spelling, although 한글 is romanized as Hangeul according to the RRoK. -- ( talk) 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to follow up: a Google search now has 858k pages hangul, with no other spelling, 137k pages hangeul and another 5k han-geul, and 6k hankul. However, when pages are not excluded for having multiple spellings, the weight shifts: 904k hangul, 1090k hangeul—plus another 6k han-geul. kwami ( talk) 10:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani ( talk) 10:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
563 with han-geul. But goes up to 568 if hangul is excluded? Something's wrong. Hangul only drops to 1027 with hangeul excluded. kwami ( talk) 11:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Move to hangeul. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've avoided specialized IPA symbols and have included approximate English sounds so that any careful reader can follow my discussion below.
When the French first came to Korea, they spelled Korean words to represent the closest sounds in the French language, according to the spellings used in French. So for example, in almost any other language "eu" would be two vowel sounds: [e] followed by [u] (roughly rhymes with "say who"), but in French this is a single sound, roughly like "book" in English (contrast with "boot"). So the French rendering of the Korean capital city "Seoul" is a little unusual, and violates basic conventions of international spellings of languages with non-Roman alphabets. Most English speakers don't realize that "Seoul" is a two-syllable word (Se-oul). The French pronounced the first syllable "se" (rhymes with "je" as in "je m'appelle [name]"), which was the closest sound they had to the Korean so (in English, roughly between the vowel in the word "son" and the first syllable of "August"). The vowel in the second syllable ("oul") was written "ou." (Remember that in French, "u" is a different sound, a high vowel with rounded lips.)
The Koreans assumed that since [u] was the vowel in the second syllable, the second syllable was being written "ul," and so the rest ("seo") must be the first syllable.
Summary: The French wrote "Seoul" (Se-oul) but the Koreans thought it was Seo-ul, so this common vowel should be written "eo". This MISTAKE became part of the official Ministry of Education system, in spite of the fact that no language anywhere in the world now or in the known past (with the possible exception of a spelling in Middle English) used "eo" for anything close to this vowel. There was a great deal of criticism, ridicule, and even an empirical study published in a top professional journal showing the inferiority of the Ministry of Education system by a wide margin. This system did not find favor anywhere outside of those the article described as "linguistically naive Koreans" - not with linguists, not with publishers of books on Korean topics in other languages, not with foreign residents living in Korea, etc. At first, it was not enough to make the obvious point that a Romanization system for Korean (or any language) is primarily for the sake of people who can't read the native script. The Ministry of Education seemed to want to keep their own system because of some combination of ignorance of linguistics and pride in a system they could call their own. Not long after the empirical study was published, the (perhaps embarrassed) Korean government finally in 1984 scrapped the Ministry of Education system in favor of the system that was used almost universally elsewhere in the world (among languages using the Roman alphabet), the McCune-Reischauer system. (A notable exception was Martin's "Yale" system for specialized linguistic studies.) The Korean government adopted a modified version of the McCune-Reischauer system - with, for example, Cho's hacek (optionally) rather than the breve. Unfortunately, a decision a few years ago by the Korean government revived the widely reviled Ministry of Education system with some modifications (but preserving the mistaken "eo" spelling, as well as other poor choices such as the French "eu" spelling) under the name "Revised Romanization".
Wikipedia editors need to get a little more information on topics about which they make decisions rather than just talking too much among themselves. One Wikipedia editor pointed out with pride that Wikipedia was one of the only places (besides those under the authority of the Korean government) that has adopted Revised Romanization (RR) system. It didn't occur to this RR supporter that there might be a good reason. Contrast this with pinyin for Chinese, which was immediately and pretty universally adopted.
Keep "Hangul" spelling and treat the McCune-Reischauer system with at least as much respect as the inferior RR system, allowing it to have at least equal status on the English Wikipedia (we do this already for British and American English). - Do c t orW 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Hangeul is a Korea Government's official spelling. Hangeul(O) Hankeul(X) Han-gŭl(X)
http://www.korean.go.kr/09_new/dic/rule/rule_roman.jsp
There are two search boxes. In the below box, search a word "한글". -- Gnulinux ( talk) 12:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, so when the country Kampuchea decided to rename themselves Cambodia, everyone in the world just accepted their right to name their own country whatever they like. Now that Korea has decided to discard a ridiculous western system of romanization in favor of a more logical one for their own language, some retards think they are wrong and just want to keep using Hangul because it would be a real pain in the ass to actually let Koreans decide the name of their own language. Nice one. I especially like the "official names" box that lists the official south korean name as "hangul". You go Wikipedia! You tell those Koreans how fucking stupid they are trying to name their own language!
So, please pull your heads out of your ass and realize that the official name is Hangeul, as declared by the country that actually uses that language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouFrackingRetards ( talk • contribs)
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to keep on promoting an outdated romanization. By keeping the name hangul in use, we are going against the official English romanization of Korean that is promoted by the South Korean government.
/info/en/?search=Revised_Romanization_of_Korean
It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the new system. Actually, calling it new is odd in and of itself as it's been around since 2000. It's the official way to romanize Korean, so it's time for a Wikipedia wide change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleenik ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Why ㅈ as j? Why not z? - ounbbl Oct 24, 2018
By the 'Revised Romanization' system, introduced in 2000 by the South Korean government, the romanization 'Hangul' has reverted into 'Hangeul'.
Please note that all the official websites of South Korean government, companies and etc has converted Hangul into Hangeul since the year 2000.
Following the introducing the 'RR' system by the South Korean government, the unicode for Hangeul has also been revised.
All though, the word processor of South Korea; Hangul has been published back in the 1990s, so the word processor Hangul should have its spelling remained. DoomeyAhn ( talk) 08:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
'Hangul' should be changed to 'Hangeul'. Because 'Hangul' is sounds 한굴 or 한걸 in Korea. However, 'Hangeul' is sounds 한글. -- Dkxz ( talk) 06:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Being interested in these topics, I expected to find some sections on data entry and input methods. Maybe there is already an article somewhere not listed in the see also. Xref input method editor. Can anyone oblige? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
뻸 and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 8#뻸 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
00:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I find it highly dubious that Hangul supremacy is sufficiently notable to deserve its own article, so I've merged it into Hangul#Hangul supremacy theory. With that said, I am also unconvinced that the section has much merit in the first place; perhaps it should be deleted entirely. BalinKingOfMoria ( talk) 18:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I want to delete some extraneous whitespaces, like any extra newlines and extra
.
Blahhmosh (
talk)
22:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
This Reddit post (for what it's worth) argues that this section is just speculation/original research, and almost certainly incorrect at that. I don't know enough to evaluate their evidence, but IMO it's definitely worth a look if there's a chance that a massive section of this page is self-obviously wrong. BalinKingOfMoria ( talk) 18:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf I added a question mark to the family tree of the script. 27.3.1.196 ( talk) 13:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Yue Hangul is Brahmic script. / Source Here 27.3.1.40 ( talk) 02:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be an IP pushing their own fringe theory with no good evidence. The "book" in the first comment in this section was autogenerated from Wikipedia content. This change should not be accepted in the article, certainly not as the IP has done so. Walt Yoder ( talk) 03:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Ultimately, it's a slightly arbitrary style convention, but are there any systematic reasons why 'Hangul', 'Chosŏn'gŭl' and 'Hanja' tend to be capitalized, while 'hanzi', 'kanji', etc. are not? It does not appear to be because 'Han' is a proper name, because that's also the case in the latter examples. Enlighten me? Remsense ( talk) 20:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
괌섬 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 9 § 괌섬 until a consensus is reached.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
미국령 괌 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 9 § 미국령 괌 until a consensus is reached.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
괌도 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 9 § 괌도 until a consensus is reached.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
HOW 2603:7080:17F0:9160:7969:1688:5FB5:F007 ( talk) 11:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
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):
Skunkkyuu,
GijeongLee (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 ( talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Somali is listed among the languages which use Hangul, but the page for Somali has no information on Hangul being used to write Somali, and there appears to be no source for the claim. I don't want to remove this entirely because it would be really interesting if there is documentation of Somali being written in Hangul, but does anyone have a source? Jdragsky ( talk) 17:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Move to hangeul | Keep at Hangul | |
---|---|---|
7 | 7 |
I'm starting to think Tahon is right. French and German wikipedia have converted to hangeul, and languages which have the means (Polish, Turkish, Russian - but not Vietnamese!) distinguish the second vowel from u. The misspelling can be confusing. This is not an entrenched English word - certainly nowhere near as entrenched as Peking was before switching to Pinyin - so I don't think that's much of an excuse to keep the pseudo-Wade Giles orthography. The OED citations only treat 'hangul' as an unassimilated foreign word. True, Google hits (if restricted to English) are 6:1 in favor of 'hangul' over 'hangeul', but I'm not sure that should be a deciding factor. All in favor of moving the page to hangeul vs. keeping it here? kwami ( talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
After nearly two weeks, the vote is nearly evenly divided. Looks like we're sticking with the current spelling. kwami ( talk) 07:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
'"'Move to Hangeul'Bold text"' because it is the official romanization. It is the official and correct term. Manhwagirl ( talk) 02:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Though the subject seems to be at rest now, I'd like to put in a thought. The "Standard English spelling" argument makes sense to me, and had me considering changing my vote to "Keep". However, with this debate in mind, I began noticing the presence of many articles with non-standard English characters-- Shōchū and Karel Čapek for example. How can these be considered "Standard English spellings" when they use characters not even on our keyboard? How can it be considered appropriate to use non-standard English characters to accomodate non-English alphabets in these cases, while the mere inclusion of a perfectly English-standard "e" in hangeul to represent a Korean word is not? I don't get very worked up over either "hangul" or "hangeul", but the application of the "Standard English spelling" rule seems inconsistent. Dekkappai ( talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this discussion! I agree that four years hence the situation regarding hangul has changed some; however, I do not think there is enough evidence to support the claim that hangeul is now the accepted English spelling. Maybe in four more years. I disagree with most of points given by Tahon. In particular, the I think the pronunciation described by 'hahng-gool' is not really how the word is pronounced in English: it is usually pronounced with one of the other "u" sounds: as 'hahng-gull' (rhymes with full). The [ʊ] sound is indeed the closest English sound to Korean [ɨ] (which is anyway pronounced with slightly compressed lips, making it more like [ʊ] than canonical IPA [ɨ]). Anyhow, my vote is keep. Nohat ( talk) 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as it is; leave it at Hangul. "Hangul" is an certificated English spelling, although 한글 is romanized as Hangeul according to the RRoK. -- ( talk) 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to follow up: a Google search now has 858k pages hangul, with no other spelling, 137k pages hangeul and another 5k han-geul, and 6k hankul. However, when pages are not excluded for having multiple spellings, the weight shifts: 904k hangul, 1090k hangeul—plus another 6k han-geul. kwami ( talk) 10:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani ( talk) 10:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
563 with han-geul. But goes up to 568 if hangul is excluded? Something's wrong. Hangul only drops to 1027 with hangeul excluded. kwami ( talk) 11:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Move to hangeul. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've avoided specialized IPA symbols and have included approximate English sounds so that any careful reader can follow my discussion below.
When the French first came to Korea, they spelled Korean words to represent the closest sounds in the French language, according to the spellings used in French. So for example, in almost any other language "eu" would be two vowel sounds: [e] followed by [u] (roughly rhymes with "say who"), but in French this is a single sound, roughly like "book" in English (contrast with "boot"). So the French rendering of the Korean capital city "Seoul" is a little unusual, and violates basic conventions of international spellings of languages with non-Roman alphabets. Most English speakers don't realize that "Seoul" is a two-syllable word (Se-oul). The French pronounced the first syllable "se" (rhymes with "je" as in "je m'appelle [name]"), which was the closest sound they had to the Korean so (in English, roughly between the vowel in the word "son" and the first syllable of "August"). The vowel in the second syllable ("oul") was written "ou." (Remember that in French, "u" is a different sound, a high vowel with rounded lips.)
The Koreans assumed that since [u] was the vowel in the second syllable, the second syllable was being written "ul," and so the rest ("seo") must be the first syllable.
Summary: The French wrote "Seoul" (Se-oul) but the Koreans thought it was Seo-ul, so this common vowel should be written "eo". This MISTAKE became part of the official Ministry of Education system, in spite of the fact that no language anywhere in the world now or in the known past (with the possible exception of a spelling in Middle English) used "eo" for anything close to this vowel. There was a great deal of criticism, ridicule, and even an empirical study published in a top professional journal showing the inferiority of the Ministry of Education system by a wide margin. This system did not find favor anywhere outside of those the article described as "linguistically naive Koreans" - not with linguists, not with publishers of books on Korean topics in other languages, not with foreign residents living in Korea, etc. At first, it was not enough to make the obvious point that a Romanization system for Korean (or any language) is primarily for the sake of people who can't read the native script. The Ministry of Education seemed to want to keep their own system because of some combination of ignorance of linguistics and pride in a system they could call their own. Not long after the empirical study was published, the (perhaps embarrassed) Korean government finally in 1984 scrapped the Ministry of Education system in favor of the system that was used almost universally elsewhere in the world (among languages using the Roman alphabet), the McCune-Reischauer system. (A notable exception was Martin's "Yale" system for specialized linguistic studies.) The Korean government adopted a modified version of the McCune-Reischauer system - with, for example, Cho's hacek (optionally) rather than the breve. Unfortunately, a decision a few years ago by the Korean government revived the widely reviled Ministry of Education system with some modifications (but preserving the mistaken "eo" spelling, as well as other poor choices such as the French "eu" spelling) under the name "Revised Romanization".
Wikipedia editors need to get a little more information on topics about which they make decisions rather than just talking too much among themselves. One Wikipedia editor pointed out with pride that Wikipedia was one of the only places (besides those under the authority of the Korean government) that has adopted Revised Romanization (RR) system. It didn't occur to this RR supporter that there might be a good reason. Contrast this with pinyin for Chinese, which was immediately and pretty universally adopted.
Keep "Hangul" spelling and treat the McCune-Reischauer system with at least as much respect as the inferior RR system, allowing it to have at least equal status on the English Wikipedia (we do this already for British and American English). - Do c t orW 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Hangeul is a Korea Government's official spelling. Hangeul(O) Hankeul(X) Han-gŭl(X)
http://www.korean.go.kr/09_new/dic/rule/rule_roman.jsp
There are two search boxes. In the below box, search a word "한글". -- Gnulinux ( talk) 12:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, so when the country Kampuchea decided to rename themselves Cambodia, everyone in the world just accepted their right to name their own country whatever they like. Now that Korea has decided to discard a ridiculous western system of romanization in favor of a more logical one for their own language, some retards think they are wrong and just want to keep using Hangul because it would be a real pain in the ass to actually let Koreans decide the name of their own language. Nice one. I especially like the "official names" box that lists the official south korean name as "hangul". You go Wikipedia! You tell those Koreans how fucking stupid they are trying to name their own language!
So, please pull your heads out of your ass and realize that the official name is Hangeul, as declared by the country that actually uses that language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouFrackingRetards ( talk • contribs)
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to keep on promoting an outdated romanization. By keeping the name hangul in use, we are going against the official English romanization of Korean that is promoted by the South Korean government.
/info/en/?search=Revised_Romanization_of_Korean
It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the new system. Actually, calling it new is odd in and of itself as it's been around since 2000. It's the official way to romanize Korean, so it's time for a Wikipedia wide change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleenik ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Why ㅈ as j? Why not z? - ounbbl Oct 24, 2018
By the 'Revised Romanization' system, introduced in 2000 by the South Korean government, the romanization 'Hangul' has reverted into 'Hangeul'.
Please note that all the official websites of South Korean government, companies and etc has converted Hangul into Hangeul since the year 2000.
Following the introducing the 'RR' system by the South Korean government, the unicode for Hangeul has also been revised.
All though, the word processor of South Korea; Hangul has been published back in the 1990s, so the word processor Hangul should have its spelling remained. DoomeyAhn ( talk) 08:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
'Hangul' should be changed to 'Hangeul'. Because 'Hangul' is sounds 한굴 or 한걸 in Korea. However, 'Hangeul' is sounds 한글. -- Dkxz ( talk) 06:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Being interested in these topics, I expected to find some sections on data entry and input methods. Maybe there is already an article somewhere not listed in the see also. Xref input method editor. Can anyone oblige? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
뻸 and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 8#뻸 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
00:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I find it highly dubious that Hangul supremacy is sufficiently notable to deserve its own article, so I've merged it into Hangul#Hangul supremacy theory. With that said, I am also unconvinced that the section has much merit in the first place; perhaps it should be deleted entirely. BalinKingOfMoria ( talk) 18:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I want to delete some extraneous whitespaces, like any extra newlines and extra
.
Blahhmosh (
talk)
22:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
This Reddit post (for what it's worth) argues that this section is just speculation/original research, and almost certainly incorrect at that. I don't know enough to evaluate their evidence, but IMO it's definitely worth a look if there's a chance that a massive section of this page is self-obviously wrong. BalinKingOfMoria ( talk) 18:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf I added a question mark to the family tree of the script. 27.3.1.196 ( talk) 13:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Yue Hangul is Brahmic script. / Source Here 27.3.1.40 ( talk) 02:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be an IP pushing their own fringe theory with no good evidence. The "book" in the first comment in this section was autogenerated from Wikipedia content. This change should not be accepted in the article, certainly not as the IP has done so. Walt Yoder ( talk) 03:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Ultimately, it's a slightly arbitrary style convention, but are there any systematic reasons why 'Hangul', 'Chosŏn'gŭl' and 'Hanja' tend to be capitalized, while 'hanzi', 'kanji', etc. are not? It does not appear to be because 'Han' is a proper name, because that's also the case in the latter examples. Enlighten me? Remsense ( talk) 20:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
괌섬 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 9 § 괌섬 until a consensus is reached.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
미국령 괌 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 9 § 미국령 괌 until a consensus is reached.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
괌도 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 9 § 괌도 until a consensus is reached.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
HOW 2603:7080:17F0:9160:7969:1688:5FB5:F007 ( talk) 11:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
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):
Skunkkyuu,
GijeongLee (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 ( talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Somali is listed among the languages which use Hangul, but the page for Somali has no information on Hangul being used to write Somali, and there appears to be no source for the claim. I don't want to remove this entirely because it would be really interesting if there is documentation of Somali being written in Hangul, but does anyone have a source? Jdragsky ( talk) 17:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)