Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Alpha vs. Alfa

I believe the proper spelling of the phonetic for A is Alfa, not Alpha as listed. The DOD dictionary referenced on the page has it that way, as do numerous other official sites.

Also the proper spelling of the phonetic for J is Juliett, not Juliet as listed. Same reasons.

Lou Sander Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA LSander153@aol.com

The spelling varies. I've added a note. DJ Clayworth 15:01, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The spelling difference is interesting. As long as it is pronounced the same, I don't see why the variation is important. Maybe somebody could eludicate me?--Mikm 01:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read more of the present article (significantly modified mid 2004). The ph method of spelling the f phoneme does not exist in many languages, the most prominent being Spanish, so a native speaker of those languages would NOT pronounce alpha correctly, unless he was aware of this English-French oddity. Only the English ANSI version uses alpha — all international versions use alfa. — Joe Kress 18:57, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, a recent edit appears to say that there are more languages that might treat it differently from Spanish. Spanish would treat it as a p with a silent h (Alpa) but how about some other languages that don't use the ph spelling for f?? Georgia guy 19:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I found several other European languages besides Spanish which spell "alpha" as "alfa", but can't recall which ones offhand. Because I don't understand those languages, nor do I know anyone who does (except Spanish), I don't know how they would pronounce 'ph'. — Joe Kress 08:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Usually I'm in favor of making the English Wikipedia more readable to foreign speakers, but... I strongly disagree with propagating the "alfa" spelling of alpha. It's a long standing spelling in all areas it's used, from math and science to linguistics, humanities, and pop culture. I mean, it’s "alphabet" not "alfabet." The alfa page doesn't even bother putting it in the bulleted list (rather, it puts it in the see also), because it's that uncommon of a spelling. 66.229.160.94 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alpha is not spelled as alfa to make Wikipedia more readible to foreign speakers. It is spelled alfa because the agencies which publish the spelling alphabet spell it that way, including the United States' own FAA and the comparable national agencies of the English-speaking countries of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada (and probably South Africa and India). If any Wikipedia editor were to spell alfa as alpha in contradiction to the agency's own spelling, then that editor would be guilty of distorting the sources to match their own point of view. — Joe Kress 03:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the Canadian AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication) It's spelled Alpha, with a pronunciation key "Alfa". Checking the ICAO publications we have here, it's Alpha as well, though that's not to say that it might not vary country to country, or even publication to publication. 72.138.217.234 17:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

English words?

I was a bit troubled by the claim that the alphabet consists of English words. English sounding words perhaps, given that this has become so well-known and that film-makers and others are quite unable to resist ther romance of a bit of Zulu-Victor-whatever. But when you look through the words it's difficult to feel that that many of them meet the claim that they are "English words" - quite a few are Greek (Alpha), some are place names abroad (Lima), some are the same in several languages (November, Papa) and so on. Indeed my understanding is that as we moved away from the more English-specific forms for the ease of non-English speakers (Able Baker --> Alpha Bravo) so we tended to replace explictly English words with ones of non-English or at least international origin. I've changed the wording slightlky to reflect this. I hope no-one minds but I thought the previous wording did rather make the article look a little like it thought Alpha was an "English word" and so on. 138.37.188.109 09:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Alpha" is an english word. English grabs other language's words and has its way with them. All. Night. Long. — Xoder | Talk 14:35, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you are being disingenuous for comic effect or if you really do not understand the point I was trying to make. I do understand a tiny bit about ex-foreign words in English but I thought the above essay was quite long enough already. The way the article read previously made it sound like the author thought that the alphabet had lots of words in that are *exclusively* English and would therefore flummox a non-English-first-language-speaker. Like Able and Baker for example. If you do not understand how these differ from Alpha and Bravo, would you like me to try to explain it? All. Night. Long? Sadly I cannot be bothered. 138.37 etc

(82.35.17.203) 20:57, 15 March 2004 (UTC)

Not all the words are American, but most of them are Americanized in meaning. They "sound foreign" to American ears, but a foreign language might use its own more common words instead. The foreign sounding words are simply words tha tare so familiar to English speakers due to repetition in vocabulary. "Tango" sounds like a Spanish dance, Zulu sounds like an African population, and "India" is the name of a country, but the speaker doesn't have to have any more knowledge or familiarity than that. The speaker doesn't need to know about indepth culture or history of that location. Meanwhile, words like Yankee, Whiskey, Charlie and Sierra are ingrained in American culture. It's not that the words don't have foreign origins, they all do, but they are so common to American ears that they are effectively borrowed words. You can look up Tango in the dictionary as an English word. No words on the list are exclusively Spanish, German, etc. The words rely on American familiarity and pronunciation, and most of them are borrowed from other countries with forced English pronunciation and spelling.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.88.45 (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Symbols ?

Is there a list of standard names for symbols ?

For example, the names

 . Decimal (decimal point)
 . Stop (full stop)
 ? Query (question mark)

seem pretty common around here, but are they internationally ?

The Punctuation articles has one list of names, but I've seen many other names for some of the symbols. Is there a NATO or ISO standard ?

-- DavidCary 04:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The only ICAO and FAA entries not listed are for use in numbers: hundred, thousand, and decimal point. For the latter, the ICAO and FAA disagree: the ICAO requires DECIMAL whereas the FAA requires POINT, but the FAA says that it will accept DECIMAL from any aircraft required to use the ICAO alphabet. On the other hand, the only ITU entries not listed are decimal point (DECIMAL) and full stop (STOP). Query or question mark is not mentioned by any organization, nor is any other symbol.
Joe Kress 02:23, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Why would one need a 'phonetic' representation for a question mark? The letters and numbers are used when spelling out words or for reference codes etc, but when would one need to spell out a '?' mark? If you're speaking on a radio then the context, wording and intonation ought to suggest whether a spoken phrase is a question or not. And I can't think why one would need to spell out a word or code including a '?'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.225.181 (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a humorous list of punctuation symbols in the Jargon File (one mirror at http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/a/ASCII.html ). -- DavidCary

/ is always read as "stroke" (as opposed to "slash") in amateur radio usage. 128.232.250.254 22:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation

Could someone clarify the ambiguous pronunciation of some of the numbers?

• "4" - Is this like "flower" without the 'l'; "fower"?
• "8" - "ate" or "ite"
• "9" - shouldn't this be nine-er not nin-er, as the latter is equivalent to "ninner" if each syllable is read separately, as implied by the hyphens?

Thanks.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 11:33, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

The 'pronunciation' is that given officially by the ICAO, even though it does seem odd. The ICAO recognizes that the words will be pronounced in a wide variety of ways, which explains the specific choice of words. The ICAO includes this note: "The pronunciation of the words in the alphabet as well as numbers may vary according to the language habits of the speakers. In order to eliminate wide variations in pronunciation, posters illustrating the pronunciation desired are available from ICAO." which I've added to the article.
"4" - Yes, FOW in FOW-er presumably rhymes with COW.
"8" - AIT could be prounounced as ATE, but it can also be pronounced as ITE and still be understood.
"9" - NIN-er can be pronounced as either NINE-ER or NINNER.
Just like ATE, denoting a long vowel by a final E is an English rule which would be misunderstood by native Spanish speakers, among others. The pronunciation of Spanish letters is remarkably consistent, and adding a final E would make both ATE and NINE two syllable words (AH-TUH and NEE-NUH, respectively). Likewise, in Spanish, AIT might be AH-EET, which, when spoken fluidly, sounds remarkably close to ATE. But it is not hyphenated, indicating that it is a one syllable word. Adding -er allows a short I in NIN be properly understood, but also prevents NINE from being misunderstood as the German NEIN (English NO).
Joe Kress 19:56, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Right, so the pronunciation guide is the official NATO prescribed one? Smart.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 10:45, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no. NATO does not prescribe any alphabet, let alone a pronunciation guide--at least one that I can find after consulting numerous NATO publications. Rather, the pronunciation guide given is official, but it is from the ICAO, not NATO. Because of this, I have considered moving the article (renaming it) as the "ICAO spelling alphabet" or something similar. But the name "NATO phonetic alphabet" seems to be well entrenched, and thus I hesitate. (I know, I'm not being bold.) Of course, using the 'move' tab would automatically create a redirect.
Joe Kress 20:17, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much that's phonetic about it either.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 20:35, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any reason that the number phonetics use a different stress notation to the letter phonetics? ZE RO, FOW ER, SEV EN, NIN ER would look more consistent. Acanon 22:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation shown in the table seems to be very strange. Stress marks (ˈ) are placed after syllables (they should be before: ˈælfə, not ælˈfə). Pronunciation of uniform [ˈju:ni:fɔɹm] is also quite unusual (may be, [ˈju:ni:fɔm]?). I’m not native English speaker, so I’m not sure. Does anybody pronounce “r” in uniform or say “Quebec” [kwiˈbɛk] as [kɛbɛkˈ]? Or, is it usual for aircrew to speak in such way? --14:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)Sdummy 14:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KeithTyler added what appears to be his own interpretation of how the words are pronounced—it does not argree with the official ICAO version, which has stress marks before the syllables: [1] page A-6. I have been thinking of replacing it with the official version, but have not found the time yet. — Joe Kress 06:54, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I too noticed that the stress marks are in the wrong place (wrong according to the Unicode standard [PDF, text: look for 20C8] and the New Oxford Dictionary of English, for two examples), so I’ve moved them.  I’ve not changed anything in the pronunciation of the syllables themselves, though some of it does seem a little strange to me.  Perhaps the pronunciations given are those mandated by the ICAO, but the link you gave, Joe, is broken, and I’ve not found anything detailed enough on the ICAO site.  However, the pronunciation of at least “4” isn’t consistent even within the table: judging by the ad-hoc pronunciation column, surely it should be [ˈfaʊwə(ɹ)], or something like that, not [fɔɹ].  Sdummy: as a native British English speaker, I don’t pronounce the “r” in “uniform”, but if you see the article Rhotic and non-rhotic accents, you’ll learn (as I did!) that some dialects do.

—John Mark Williams ❲⌂|☏❳ 17:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. The link is indeed broken, and a quick search of the site showed no new home for the discussion panel that produced it. However, I note that there is a new secure ICAO site ([2]), which may be its new home. The cited page would not have provided much help anyway because it avoids all IPA symbols except that for 'sh', replacing them with its own version constructed from English letters. For example, it replaces schaw with a, and the 'o' in Foxstrot is 'B'. Nevertheless, that version is the official pronunciation as it appears in the referenced Annex 10. The 'IPA' pronunciation given in this article is not official, and indeed may have inconsistencies that may not appear in the official version (which could be identified if I ever find the time to do it). — Joe Kress 18:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: somebody can explain the reason the pronunciations of the numbers 0-9 vary slightly from the pronunciation in standard English. 66.245.87.154 02:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The reason is suprisingly simple: Let's take five and nine. Both of these have very similar sounds, begining with a soft consonant, long "i" stressed, and end with a similar-sounding soft consonant. Therefore, five becomes "fife" and nine becomes "niner", which completely removes this problem. I thought that was in the article at some point? This is also the reason why "oscar" is pronounced "oss KARR", rather than the usual "OSS ker". — Xoder|✆ 16:08, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

"Phonetic"?

Why is it called "phonetic"? Obviously as described here it is not a phonetic alphabet (see International Phonetic Alphabet, for example). Michael Hardy 19:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It don't know why, but calling it a "phonetic alphabet" seems to be dominant in the English speaking world. Most government agencies in English speaking nations (including the FAA, DOD, ITU, and ANSI mentioned in the article) as well as the general population do so. The only agencies which don't are the Civil Aviation Authority (of the United Kingdom) which calls it the ICAO word spelling alphabet, and the ICAO itself which calls its own alphabet the Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet.

However, no agency anywhere says it is from "NATO". I don't know where it acquired that appellation, but it seems to be dominant among the general population. Even the Jeopardy! television game show referred to it as the "NATO phonetic alphabet".

— Joe Kress 06:25, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

From the Merriam Webster's Deluxe Dictionary, Tenth Collegiate Edition:

phonetic alphabet noun (1848) 1: a set of symbols (as IPA) used for phonetic transcription 2: any of various systems of identifying letters of the alphabet by means of code words in voice communication

So that would seem to be your answer, Michael: just because "phonetic alphabet" is the right term for an alphabet of symbols representing phonemes, does not mean it is the wrong term for an alphabet of code words representing letters. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello? Michael? I see you're still inserting lots of ironic quotes around every instance of the phrase "phonetic alphabet" in this alphabet. Would you care to talk to the rest of us and tell us where you're getting your information that is better than Merriam-Webster that says that only phonetic alphabets in the IPA sense are "real" phonetic alphabets? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have heard this alphabet called the "International Radio Alphabet," but this phrase does not appear in the text of the article. Anyone know why? Luckily, when I search for "International Radio Alphabet," I get redirected to this page. r3 03:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

5 and 9 vs. 4

5 and 9 were answered above about why NATO uses those pronunciations, but how about 4?? Can anyone clarify why 4 is FOWER instead of FOUR in this phonetic alphabet?? 66.245.105.195 02:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that the usual English pronunciation of four is the same as that of the preposition for, so it was changed to avoid confusion. Not mentioned yet is tree for three. My guess here is that the English phoneme 'th' does not exist in some other languages, so it was changed to allow pronunciation (and recognition upon hearing it) by non-English speakers. — Joe Kress 00:16, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

French doesn't have such a sound (The "H" in "bibliothèque," for example, is silent) and I can't think of a Spanish word that uses it either. —Casey J. Morris 21:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Think Mardid - the 'd' is pronounced that way. But the sound doesn't exist as a phoneme.

If you're refering to "Madrid"--well, Spanish is tricky. Spanish from Spain has the th (as in three) for the pronounciation of the letter "c" before "i" or "e", and generally the letter "z". Latin American Spanish often (not sure if always) has the sound th as in "the" (not as in "three" or "thin"). Generally, there are so many different local pronounciation, and some of them do not have the sound (if they did, BTW, it would be a phoneme). --Ibn Battuta 22:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just some FYI stuff...

• Latin American Spanish does not have the phoneme /ɵ/ (voiceless dental fricative, as in the English "think") in any dialect. It's not an allophone of anything, either. Neither does German (among others), as I believe has been pointed out.
• Latin American Spanish does have the phoneme /ð/ (voiced dental fricative, as in the English "this") - it's how the grapheme <d> is pronouned in most cases (though after some sounds, such as /n/, it has [d] as an allophone, and in some dialects it becomes an approximant or is even elided ("eaten" or "omitted") completely between certain vowels, e.g. "-ado").
• The graphemes <c>, <z> and < s > are all pronounced as /s/ (voiceless alveolar fricative) in Latin American Spanish(though in many dialects, word-final /s/ is often pronounced as an aspiration ([ʰ])and consonant-final /s/ is often either [ʰ], [z] or a voiceless version of the following consonant. These are all allophones, though, not phonemes, and speakers aren't normally aware they're doing all this assimilation.)

Also regarding /ɵ/...

• /ɵ/ is an extremely weak sound in terms of volume -- it and /h/ have far lower dbSPL levels than other sounds at a given "speaker volume level", which makes it a rather poor candidate for an acrophonic alphabet like this one.
• Distinguishing /ɵ/ from /s/ relies mostly on high-frequency sibilance -- the more-or-less evenly-distributed energy you can see at the top of a spectrograph. This "noise" occurs approximately in the 5-10kHz range, which is well above the bandwidth of most if not all telephone systems (estimated at 3.3kHz, and 2.7kHz for some long-distance calls, here [3]). And from what my ears tell me, the bandwidth of your average airplane, space shuttle or battlefied radio cuts off even lower than that. This means that you can't distinguish /ɵ/ from /s/ in many if not most of the conditions and systems these alphabets were designed for if you only have the sound to go on -- yet another good reason to not use /ɵ/. (Note: We can still distinguish /ɵ/from /s/ very well on these systems when speaking normally just from the information context provides -- no English speaker would interpret the sentence "The plate broke in the [/s/|/ɵ/]ink" as "The plate broke in the think". But when spelling things out you don't have this context, so you're forced to rely far more on sound -- sound that's filtered out in this case). Steve Fishboy 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As for "four", I don't know the facts either, but I would speculate along the same lines as Joe Kress. As a related example: When struck by a hurricane in 1957, the cargo sailing vessel Pamir radioed (distress and) SOS calls. She identified herself as "fourmast bark Pamir". One of the ships receiving the message understood "fore mast broken Pamir", leading some to the belief that one (or even several!) masts had broken. (In fact, the few survivors reported that "nothing had come down", i.e. the entire rigg had remained intact until Pamir capsized.) - As for three, someone on the German Wikipedia has argued that the "th" easily led to misunderstandings in cases of poor reception. I wouldn't be surprised if you're both right as the sound does not occur in many (probably most?) languages, so many speakers will have problems to pronounce it clearly enough to be understood despite poor radio quality. --Ibn Battuta 22:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick addenbum; Though ICAO lists FOW-ER as the correct pronunciation of 4, it's very rare (in my experience obviously) that this pronunciation is actually used. Much the same with Fiver and Niner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.79.10 (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 2-digit numbers

Is there any way to pronounce 10, 11, 12, etc. using NATO?? 66.245.124.176 15:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Both the ICAO and the FAA state that each digit must be pronounced separately. Thus 10 in pronounced WUN ZERO, 11 is WUN WUN, 12 is WUN TOO. However, the FAA states that after the digits have been pronounced, they may be grouped as TEN, ELEVEN, etc. It does not give any specific pronunciation for these groups, probably because the critical safety concerns have already been satisfied by pronouncing the digits in a specificed manner. — Joe Kress 05:53, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

Memory Aids

Has anyone on the Internet, not necessarily at Wikipedia, come up with a memory aid you can use for various letters in the NATO phonetic alphabet?? 66.245.104.156 00:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not know of any memory aids, but if you trace all the links in Most comprehensive collection of phonetic alphabets you might find something. — Joe Kress 18:56, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I find it helpful to remember some in pairs - i.e. Romeo and Juliet, Alpha and Beta, Whiskey Tango Foxtot. I haven't memorized it completly, but I have found things like that help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikm (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 April 2005 (UTC)

Was Carlos substituted for Charlie in Vietnam?

In one of the Bourne thrillers, I seem to remember that "Carlos" was used instead of "Charlie" because Charlie had become the easy handle for the enemy (ironically, derived from Victor Charlie for V.C. or Viet Cong). Always wondered if this were true. Nice article, btw. Thanks! Chris vLS 18:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea whether Carlos was substituted for Charlie in Vietnam. — Joe Kress 18:56, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

The Bourne Identity actually uses Cain instead of Charlie, according to online reviews (such as [4]). Neither a Charlie->Carlos or Charlie->Cain substitution can be corroborated. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 00:17, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

You should consider ...

you should consider putting the madagascar alphabet from a-z on this web site

You should consider adding it yourself... that's kind of the idea. Mga 21:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you should conside putting the Irish alphabet on this site, however, I only know about half of them, can somebody else supply the others?

Able Babble Cable Dabble Enable Fable Gable Haven Inoble j k Laver McFoyl Navel O'Flynn Paver Quaver Raver Sabre Table Unable v Waiver x y z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.145.236 (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely, you're joking! —Quicksilver^{T @} 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alphabet of men's names

The alphabet of men's names in the Variants section should be completed. No reason to continue to S and then stop.

(above posted by User:Drummond 05:19, 6 April 2005 (UTC)

One reason I stopped is because the list is an ad hoc example of a phenomenon in colloquial phonetic alphabetization; the list doesn't reflect any official phonetic alphabet. Perhaps the real problem is that it is too long; but I wanted to show examples of some of the harder letters to illustrate the idea. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 00:10, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

Links

It is really logical to have links to the words Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, and so on?? I don't think so. For example, the link to Foxtrot is the dance with a link to Foxtrot (disambiguation) at the top. I think the links should be removed. Any objections?? Georgia guy 19:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections. These are only arbitrary words selected for their pronunciation characteristics, not their meaning. — Joe Kress 03:21, 17 April 2005 (UTC)

Variants

According to one Internet site, one variant of the alphabet uses the spellings Oskar and Viktor. Which variant is this?? Georgia guy 19:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oskar and Viktor are the standard spellings of those words in German and neighboring languages, so I suspect that someone thought they should be spelled that way. Similarly, Juliette is the standard French spelling so someone thought that was the way it should be spelled, effectively ignoring any official list. — Joe Kress 06:08, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

IPA descriptions

A major cleanup is called for. Most (if not all) of the stress marks have been put in the wrong places. You're meant to put ˈ (&#712;) before the stressed syllable.

Like I said in the peer review, I was only making an attempt at this, based on what I could glean from International Phonetic Alphabet for English. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"Phonetic"? (again)

No intention of "starting a fight", Keith, but I'm curious as to why you insist that an alphabet whose function has nothing to do with phonetics must be legitimately described as a "phonetic alphabet". Has it become one of those phrases which means something other than the words of which it is composed (rather as a "hot dog" doesn't mean a "dog which is hot")?

The explanation that it's "phonetic" because the names of the letters are made up of phonemes ignores the facts that (1) the ordinary English alphabet likewise has names made up of phonemes, but is never described as "phonetic", and (2) "The pronunciation of the words in the alphabet as well as numbers may vary according to the language habits of the speakers" (ICAO), i.e. there is no single phonetic rendition of the names.

In the circumstances, the appropriate thing seems to me to (a) mention briefly the fact that it is technically a misnomer (without implying any criticism of those who use the term), (b) accept the fact that it is very widely used and (c) allow the use of the term without further qualification in the rest of the article. I will have a go at writing something which meets those criteria... Vilcxjo 01:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

As your title of "(again)" alludes to, there has already been a discussion here on this topic. And the consensus appears to have been that "phonetic" is an equally valid term for an alphabet made of phonemes as it is for an alphabet which represents phonemes.

Even if the letters of the Roman alphabet had official names (which they don't, and tend to be different in different languages), those would be the names, and not the letters themselves that were phonetic. The letters themselves here are made of phonemes. It is phonetic because it must be spoken (phonemes being inherently auditory) to be used -- written representations of the alphabet exist for reference on how to use the alphabet. Few will actually use an alphabet like this in print, except to specifically reference or indicate the use of this alphabet.

And while the ICAO admits there may be slight differences in pronounciation of these letters, it also has taken steps to minimize those differences by choosing specific textualized representations of those letters that will have the least ambiguity among major (Indo-European, at least) languages.

Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Stinking pronunciation...again

How many people say OSS-CAH and VIK-TAH, as in air traffic controllers? Which is why alternates have been listed. Phoenix2 00:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The article already states that the pronunciations may vary according to the language habits of the speakers. But because you missed it, I'm moving it to the head of the table. This accounts for VIK TER and OSS KER. Abbreviating Foxtrot as Fox is a more serious matter, which I have indicated as a variant in the variants section. I liked your <small> so I'm including it everywhere. — Joe Kress 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Niner?

Shouldn’t the spelling of 9 be niner? (I’ve never heard the word spelled “nine” pronounced as niner.) —Frungi 22:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Every agency that spells 9 spells it "Nine" and pronounces it NIN-ER, including the FAA 2-4-26, 14-1-5, and ARINC 4.4.3, pdf 208KB. The ITU spells 9 as Novanine but prononuces it NO-VAY-NINER ITU. Other agencies that include 9 do not spell it. Several agencies do not include any numbers. — Joe Kress 22:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Small chart

The FAA radiotelephony phonetic alphabet and Morse code chart. is too small to be read. How about enlargening it? Jimp 28Nov05

All Wikipedia images are only thumbnails on article pages. Simply left click on the image to view a larger verison, which has links to even larger versions, if available. — Joe Kress 20:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

imo Images in articles should be large enough to get the main point of there contents accross. this one wasn't readable so i've pushed up its size a bit. Otoh this image is kinda redundant with the table lower down. Plugwash 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture

Perhaps we should add the reference found in The Incredibles? I know when Helen flies the jet (I love the fact this gal must have a pilot's licence) the code she speaks through the radio comes out as 'IG-99', but I can't remember whether she says anything else, or whether IG-99 is some inside joke to production or something. Lady BlahDeBlah 13:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Dog?

This doesn't seem to be related to the NATO phonetic alphabet. Should it be removed? 69.192.62.63 16:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you are correct. Because it is a character created during the 1940s, it uses the old Joint Army/Navy Phonetic Alphabet. But that article does not have a pop culture section, so I think we can leave it here for now. If too many old phonetic alphabet entries are added, we can move them later. — Joe Kress 01:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The section should only contain names that are specifically influenced by the NATO phonetic alphabet. It is unnecessary/inappropriate to add arbitrary references that merely coincidentally employ words from the phonetic alphabet.--Jeffro77 11:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you give an example of "arbitrary references that merely coincidentally employ words from the phonetic alphabet"? Do you mean a non-NATO phonetic alphabet? If an entry contains only words from the NATO phonetic alphabet, is that acceptable to you, or do you restrict it further? According to my count, there are 28 entries that contain only NATO code words (including one that uses NATO codes but alludes to a pre-NATO code), four partial (some but not all NATO code words), ten whose code words are not NATO, and three with no code words at all (only refering to the radio alphabet for example). — Joe Kress 03:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Due to the size of the pop culture section and the two complaints above, I'm removing all entries that mention non-NATO code words. — Joe Kress 01:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the correct morse code for V is ...- dotdotdotdash instead

I believe the correct morse code for V is ...- dotdotdotdash instead of "dotdotdot" (which is S). Marcelo.

The source of that graphic 4-2-7. Phonetic Alphabet clearly has V = ...- so the dash was lost when the Wikipedia graphic was created. — Joe Kress 05:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Phonetic" 3: what is a disambiguation link for?

My edit to the intro was reverted with the comment "dab link is essential according to some editors". I must disagree. A dablink is needed from International Phonetic Alphabet to here, because many people call the NATO alphabet by that name. However, nobody calls the IPA the "NATO phonetic alphabet", so a disambiguation from here to there is inappropriate. Nobody will ever arrive at this page, or create a link to this page, expecting to find the IPA article. Yes, there is confusion as regards the meaning of "phonetic alphabet"; but I think describing this in the second sentence of the first paragraph is adequate to help readers through. I find long banners before the start of an article are quite intimidating, and while some contentious issues require them as a necessary evil, I don't think this article is at that level. If there are any who disagree with this, let's discuss it here in more detail. Thanks. jnestorius^(talk) 19:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that your edit is much cleaner, I was trying to avoid rekindling the "edit discussion" we had back in 2004-5, within which a couple editors felt that a prominent dab for "phonetic alphabet" was necessary. — Joe Kress 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Too Many popular culture references

As interesting as this topic is, there are surely far too many pop culture references which add very little to a general reader's understanding? A couple would probably suffice for the military angle, and especially terms like Charlie Foxtrot or Foxtrot Uniform, and how they have become adopted by wider society, but some of the rest of it brings little to the table in this topic. If I get a chance, I'll have a go... Major Bloodnok 00:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is deciding which to keep and which to delete, which is why I have been hesitant. As mentioned above, I made a start by deleting all that mentioned non-NATO code words. Unfortunately, I have no knowledge in many of the areas cited, so I don't know what is representative and common, and which are fringe uses. — Joe Kress 05:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have substantially slimmed down the pop culture section, and beefed up the mention of slang uses. Major Bloodnok 12:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I added "citation needed" for all the swear words cited. There is NO MENTION of this kind of use at urbandictionary.com, which I think is authoritative for this kind of stuff. If reasonable sources are not provided in reasonable time, I will delete that part. To me, that section sounds very much like some silly kid trying to pass off swear words as "content".--88.149.231.99 07:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The slang uses, and specifically the swear words are correct examples of pop culture usage of the NATO alphabet. They may need citation, and I will try and find some for entry. However, there is widespread use of these expressions on the internet so inclusion is therefore valid. Deletion of this section is probably not appropriate for that reason.

Deletion of the swear words may be appropriate if they were gratuitious and gave offence, but given that they are an important part of the expressions, and indeed crucial to the understanding of their usage, I believe they should be included.

There may be an argument for highlighting the use of offensive language in the article, perhaps by moving the para to a sub-section entitled "Swear Word Use" or some such. What does the community think?

As to urbandictionary.com, I found a reference to Whiskey Tango Foxtrot with ease. I'll try the others.Major Bloodnok 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious and dry article, and readers will not be using it to find out the meaning of military swearing slang. People looking for such translations would have googled the terms, and gone to urban dictionary or similar. The translations are inappropriate here. I have removed the translations, but left in the euphemisms themselves and the sources. Someone who can see immediately what they mean will not be offended; on the other hand those who cannot see immediately what they mean (possibly children and those who have led a sheltered life) are the kind who would be offended by seeing such language unexpectedly. 131.111.7.1 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Julie

I've moved the following variant added by Dcs315 here:

Some English speakers shorten "Juliett" to "Julie."

I have doubts that this assertion is correct. Even if it is correct, "some English speakers" does not necessarily refer to air traffic controllers or others using radios. Furthermore, these weasel words are unacceptable in Wikipedia. Please provide a citation or specifically state who so shortens it. — Joe Kress 00:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

German version

"This phonetic alphabet was largely popularised by the German version of the TV gameshow Wheel of Fortune."

This is, as far as I can tell, not true. In the German version of the mentioned game show ("Glücksrad"), phonetic alphabets were used by most participants to denote the letters they had picked. But I can't recall ever to have heard the Alpha, Bravo, Charlie alphabet in use in this context, not even with just minor modifications or additions. Instead, most players used an older German phonetic alphabet which mostly employed given names (Anton, Berta, etc), or just used any other word with the desired first letter which came into their mind spontaneosly. 132.180.252.57 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.240.151 (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The intro section seems a bit long and contains very detailed information that would, I think, be better suited to the body of the article (e.g. - the historical relationship to the International Code of Signals, the Allied Maritime Signal and Maneuvering Book as the origin of the name, etc.). Any thoughts? -Sarfa 22:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

'Fower' redux

I have never been able to trace an official IPA pronunciation of the word fower. Coming immediately after tree, it's perhaps understandable that people assume it should rhyme with flower! But given the ambiguities of English spelling it might just as well be supposed to rhyme with mower. I suspect that the intention of those who devised the pronunciations was to encourage radio operators to pronounce the word with two syllables (ie like mower rather than simply like more). Does anyone have any hard evidence that it was ever intended to sound like flower? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 08:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No agency provides any IPA pronunciation for numbers, not even the ICAO, which is the only agency to provide an IPA pronunciation for letters. Furthermore, they do not provide any code words for numbers, unlike the ITU and IMO, which do (kartefour). Given the ICAO's explicit statement that letter code words were chosen so that wide variations in pronunciation were acceptable, depending on the language habits of the speakers of those words (how they pronounce vowels and consanants) I presume that the ICAO would accept either of your two syllable pronunciations. The ICAO and the FAA require that four be pronounced with two syllables given its separation into two words in their English letter pronunciation (FOW ER or FOW-ER), unlike the ITU and IMO, which do not both because they don't separate FOWER into two syllables and because they use a code word (kartefour or KAR-TAY-FOWER) which provides additional information. The only discussion indicating why certain code words were chosen is provided by Rose (see refs), but I don't remember him ever discussing numbers, just letters. By the way, the FAA was formed in 1958, after the USA and UK conducted tests to determine why the set of code words adopted by the ICAO in 1951 was so disastrous. Also, the ITU adopted its number code words in 1947, long before the ICAO implemented either of its alphabets in 1951 and 1956, but the same year that the IATA proposed its first international alphabet (not the same as that adopted in 1951). Given that the ITU number code words were known by the ICAO, its refusal to adopt them indicate that the ICAO felt they were unnecessary, that its explicit instructions on how to pronounce numbers, though limited, was sufficient. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful & thorough reply. My impression, from reading various forums (including aviation & r/t discussions), is that there's a widespread belief that the "correct" NATO/ICAO pronunciation is supposed to be like flower rather than mower—& that this is regarded as rather ridiculous! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is ATP-1 kept secret from the public?

The article says that "a NATO unclassified version of [ATP-1] is provided to foreign, even hostile, militaries, even though they are not allowed to make it publicly available."

So, I gotta ask... Why would our military not have a problem with providing this to even the militaries of hostile nations, but they won't provide it to the public? It makes you wonder - who, exactly, do they see as the enemy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.23.164 (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That also mystifies me, even though I've read it in an external source. The unclassified version of ATP-1 presumably only has enough information to allow the hostile military to communicate with a NATO ship, to make their intentions known, since all NATO secrets have been removed from it. — Joe Kress (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian version

I have an important question - is this alphabet valid in Bulgaria, what do NATO sources say ? Bulgaria is the sole NATO country that uses cyrillic alphabet and I dont know if it can be applied here, and our government does not disclose absolutely any information on the military. - Tourbillon ^A ? 14:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), of which virtually all nations (190) are members, requires that English must be used upon request for any radio verbal conversation (no writing necessary) between any two nations regardless of their native languages, for example, if a Chinese airplane enters Bulgarian airspace. Hence the ICAO spelling alphabet (also used by NATO) would also be used, whether the nations are members of NATO or not. But it is not required domestically—if both parties to a radio conversation reside in a single country, say Bulgaria, then the conversation does not have to be in English and in that case the ICAO alphabet might not even be used. — Joe Kress (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Juliet and Foxtrot

This article says Juliet gets to be spelled with a tt because a Francophone would otherwise mispronounce it with the final t silent. Foxtrot, however, is still spelled with a single t. Why are these inconsistent?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

According to my Collins Robert French Dictionary, both Juliette and fox-trot are French words having the same meanings and virtually the same pronunciations as in English, but with slightly different English spellings (Juliet and fox trot). In the female name Juliette, the final phoneme 'ette' is pronounced as a t; but in the similar French word juillet, the month July, the final t is silent; hence a possible source of confusion when speaking English. But the final 't' in fox-trot is pronounced as a t, just as it is in English, so it would be unnecessary to spell it with a double tt, at least not for the benefit of a native French speaker. — Joe Kress (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Juliett closing paren

The SVG chart for this page is missing a closing paren on Juliett, and also contradicts the article's spelling for Juliett. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.161.230 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica

The article used Battlestar Galactica as an example of Charlie being changed to avoid perceptions of racism. No citation was given, and other words are changed in the show just for flavor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.106.192 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

needs renamed imo

It is not, because once upon a time phonetic meant spelling, we need to stik the former; the connotation of these words changed. And so should the title do, to reflect modern usage.

And of the relevance of this article should be classified as A in my opinion, as many people will need to find out about this as for now this is internationally accepted as the standard spelling alphabet.--史凡 (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

and we need IPA phor tho pronunciationinstead of some impresice old-fashioned system

Sorry for the spelling my speech recognition is not working well for now--史凡 (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Alpha vs. Alfa (2):

"Alfa is spelled with an f as it is in most European languages." Sorry, but did anyone really check whether that statement is true? I don't doubt that Alfa is spelled "alfa", but was it really changed because 1) most and 2) European languages spell it "alfa"? Is it even true that "most" European languages spell it so?

The latter question may be true: If you go to Alpha (letter), you don't need any language expertise, and you can simply move your cursor over all the links to the foreign-language Wikipedias (and if it says only "A", simply open the page). Turns out that 17 (18) European languages use "alfa". [The number in brackets depends on whether you count Norwegian twice, namely Nynorsk and Bokmål.] On the other hand, 6 European languages and 2 (German) dialects use "alfa"; one language (Basque) seems to use both; 4 European languages don't use Latin characters. In other words: 17 (18) European Wikipedia languages use "alfa", 10 (+ 2 dialects) don't; one uses both Given that the list overrepresents Western languages, some more entries for alfa can be assumed esp. from Eastern European languages, but also additional languages written in cyrillic... (Feel free to look up more details for all (!) European languages...)

I'm sure you're getting my point: Unless someone really has a source, the claim that "most" European languages spell it alfa vs. alpha seems a bit rash. And the same and more is true for whether the spelling is really due to the fact that 1) most and 2) European languages spell it this or that way. Fact is that *some* people from *some* countries would mispronounce it. [And yes, for the record, of course they would pronounce it as a p. Whether the h is pronounced, and if so, how it is pronounced, is more complex because pronounciation of that latter is less consistent across languages.]

In sum, I'll give that sentence until the end of the year. If nobody has verified its truth until then, I'll change it. --Ibn Battuta 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to revise your statistics? I think you intended to write that 6 European languages and 2 (German) dialects use "alpha" (not "alfa"), otherwise your conclusion is wrong. I originally wrote "Spanish", then changed it to "many European languages, including Spanish", and then to "most European languages, including Spanish". Someone felt that "including Spanish" was redundant, leaving the present "most European languages". Feel free to reword it to your liking. — Joe Kress 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought -- "most" implies a majority opinion, like with toothpaste advertisements, "many" implies a multitude without a specific majority--Asday85 (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Page move

Should this be moved to international radiotelephony spelling alphabet? NATO may be one of the advocates of the name, but this is used in places far and wide, not necessarily in the Atlantic region. Besides military uses it is also used internationally by amateur radio operators. I think the common name NATO phonetic alphabet is not a commonly used name outside the NATO area. Thoughts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nichalp, Vilcxjo, Michael Hardy that the current page name is not very good. Maybe we could address the concerns of the latter two by naming it NATO alphabet? The term "phonetic" is really misleading. See also the intro at the RAF alphabet page

The RAF phonetic alphabet is not a phonetic alphabet in the sense in which that term is used in phonetics, i.e., it is not a system for transcribing speech sounds. See the phonetic alphabet disambiguation page, and also phonetic notation."

The latter could be moved to "RAF alphabet".

TalkChat (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article is ridiculous. The Soviet Union used the same system and it obviously had no intention to support any NATO standard. The name international radiotelephony spelling alphabet sounds much more sensible. Hellerick (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A name such as the "international radiotelephony spelling alphabet" would violate the Wikipedia policy (more stringent than a guideline) to Use the most easily recognized name in English. The proposed name yields only 1,950 Google hits whereas the present name yields 32,700 Google hits (both names in quotes). The Wikipedia name should be chosen for the convenience of readers, not editors. Even though editors see a problem with both the "NATO" and "phonetic" aspects, readers in general do not. The quiz show Jeopardy! has used "NATO phonetic alphabet" several times in clues but never any other name. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the need to change the title. The American Radio Relay League refers to this as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Phonetic Alphabet. Perhaps it originated in the ICAO and "ownership" moved to the ITU; in any case both are agencies of the United Nations and so arguably take precedence over NATO for attribution. I would argue that this article should be called the "ITU Phonetic Alphabet" and that "NATO Phonetic Alphabet" should redirect to it. See [5] where the ITU itself calls this a phonetic alphabet. Interestingly the ICAO web site has few references to this subject, all of which are not comprehensive. Tom Davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling stuff

Hello to any one that may read this but surely Alpha could have Alpha put next to it as lots of countries spell it so, including England who kind of made the English language; even if it did come from Latin they still spell it Alpha and in any thing to do with Physics (like Alpha radiation) you must spell it Alpha. By the way, if any one cares, the alpha sign is a strange fish (I think... that may be beta). Oh and Juliet shold be spelt Juliet as this is how the name is spelt (see English language thing above again); and Shakespeare wrote Alpha in his books at one point (don't ask me when though) as well as spelling Juliet, Juliet in Romeo and Juliet were the word for J in the phonetic alphabet stems from. And one last pointless reason why alpha should be put into the table is 'alpha'bet. Point made, bye. =) 'The Ninjalemming' 18:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The spellings in this article are those dictated by the various agencies (ICAO, ITU, IMO, FAA and ANSI) and cannot be changed. Note that ANSI does use normal English spelling but that all other agencies, three international and one American, use Alfa and Juliet. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Children's song?

Does anybody out there know of a childrens (or adult's) song that is intended to TEACH the NATO alphabet? I've heard of a few for reverse alphabet, but not for the NATO alphabet. LP-mn (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Racist and the "Growing Movement"

There was a statement "In recent years, a movement has gained momentum in the private sector to not use "Charlie" as it is viewed as a racist term." It had a reference to a page listing racist terms and giving the origin of Charlie as being from VietCong->V.C.->Victor Charles[sic]->Charlie. The location of the reference seemed to validate the statement that there was a growing movement not to use Charlie as the word for C when using the NATO phonetic alphabet in the private sector. I originally moved the reference and put a reference needed tag, but after a reasonable amount of research turned up no movement, growing or otherwise, I believe perhaps the statement was just poorly worded. Charlie is racist when used in conjunction with a Vietnamese person, and in that context (like all racists terms) its use is avoided. If anyone has evidence that there is a significant movement to use something other than Charlie for C because of this tenuous link, please reply. 209.159.37.194 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My reversion could have been avoided if you had given the reason for your change in the "Edit summary" box immediately above "Save page". I agree that no change in the spelling alphabet is forthcoming. Even the cited ref is wrong when it states "in the military phonetic alphabet is 'Victor Charles' which gets you to 'Charlie.'" The military phonetic aplphabet never used "Charles"—it has used "Charlie" since 1956. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and my apologies for not setting the "edit summary." I also agree with your assessment of the referenced source. I thought about writing something similar but didn't want to distract from my main point, so I just put the [sic] after the Charles. It it a good point, though--perhaps a better reference for Charlie being offensive should be found. Looking at the main page of "thebirdman.org" site, it seems very unlikely it would meet the WP:Reliable sources criteria. 209.159.37.194 (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dag nabbit. I cannot find anything to back this up. I was in a meeting with my government client recently (okay, last year) in which we were told "the policy is to avoid using the term "Charlie" because it's a racist term." I am only a lowly contractor, so I wasn't about to challenge the fed, but it still bothered me. Sadly, as often as I see the term avoided (such as the BS:G reference), I cannot find anything notable that also has mentioned this recent trend, aside from its very inclusion as a racist term on that racist term site and other sites like it. As far as BS:G changing other terms, yes, it does. But you'll note (if you watch the show) that they use the International Phoenetic Alphabet for everything else (foxtrot, tango, alpha, bravo, november, etc.) but they bend over backwards to avoid saying "Charlie." Seriously; "alpha, bravo, and constellation?" Constellation has four syllables. Who in their right mind would choose that, especially when Charlie is one of the few phoenetics to have not changed from the start? *sigh* Regardless of any of this, I must agree with the editing of this entry. I'll keep my eyes out for a notable reference. Deejaye6 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation

I am moving the punctuation table here for discussion.

Punctuation

Symbol	Code word	Pronunciation	IPA from ICAO (see below)
. Full stop/period	FULL STOP	Full Stop	—
, Comma	COMMA	Com mah	—
/ Slant/Oblique	SLANT	SLANT	—
- Hyphen	HYPHEN	HI FEN	—
( Left-hand bracket	BRACKETS ON	BRA KETS ON	—
) Right-hand bracket	BRACKETS OFF	BRA KETS OFF	—
: Colon	COLON	KOL UN	—
; Semi-colon	SEMI-COLON	SEMI KOL UN	—
? Question Mark	QUESTION MARK	KUESTSHUN MARK	—
. Decimal point	DECIMAL POINT	DESAMAL POINT	—

I cannot find this table or anything like it in the cited reference [6]. Please cite the page number or provide another reference. Even if the table in any reference "needs some work", any elements you may add are considered original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Portable, Mobile

I don't know if this meets notability requirements. In ham radio usage, a portable station will have a callsign ending in /P, while a mobile one ending /M. These will universally be said as "stroke portable" or "stroke mobile"; thus, for example, M0FFX/M would be read "mike zero foxtrot foxtrot xray stroke mobile".

Again in the ham context, all sorts of unofficial phonetics are heard. One of the most common is radio for r, country names are also very common. I've also heard people give their callsigns in more than one alphabet (e.g. "cq cq cq, alfa mike one golf foxtrot, america mexico one germany france, cq standing by", suggesting that the NATO system is not as widespread as implicitly assumed in the article. Unfortunately my own experiences qualify as original research and thus need corraboration by an established source to merit article inclusion. 128.232.250.254 22:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem - issue is more that NATO has an official standard that is basically used world wide as NATO countries do not actually limit their operation to the North Atlantic. All other "systems" are simply haphazard whims that are generally inconsistent and certainly not officially sanctioned or certified. That is to say, if they could be delineated, they would need their own article simply to describe the variations and context.--76.105.8.246 (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of nine

The "FAA radiotelephony phonetic alphabet and Morse code chart" is in Error, and can not be corrected due to it being a Adobe Photoshop document.

The correct pronounciation of the number nine [9] is "Niner" (NIN-ER).

The Chart is in error, in that it lists the pronounciation of the number as "Nine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.201.44 (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is actually an SVG file, not adobe photoshop, and it isn't in error - the pronunciation is NIN-ER (as listed in the fourth column of the chart), Nine is how the code word is written. --81.153.144.130 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

move request tag deleted, see below

NATO phonetic alphabet → International radiotelephony spelling alphabet — To give the alphabet its formal name in worldwide (civil and military) use rather than local (USA/North America/North Atlantic/"Western" military) use; to meet Wikipedia:NPOV cornerstone and wikipedia:worldwide view policy. Nankai (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Move this article to the alphabet's correct official name. It isn't Nato and it isn't phonetic. I have never heard it called the Nato alphanbet in New Zealand, where I live; you could equally call it the New Zealand Police alphabet, but that still wouldn't be correct. Calling it "Nato" violates the Neutral point of view cornerstone of Wikipedia. Using a name for the article based on usage in North America also violates the policy of adopting a worldwide view of subjects. Could we please formalise the "move" discussion and attempt a decision. Nankai (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment the official name is the ICAO spelling alphabet according to the article. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering the requirements of Wikipedia Article titles, I combined "alphabet", "spelling alphabet" or "phonetic alphabet" with the agencies which use this alphabet as well as Nankai's suggestion and determined their popularities with Google searches (-Wikipedia eliminates many but not all Wikipedia mirrors). Sorted by popularity and excluding those combinations with less than 1,000 hits, the results are:

25,000 "ICAO phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia

20,900 "ITU phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia

18,200 "NATO spelling alphabet" -Wikipedia

17,700 "ICAO spelling alphabet" -Wikipedia

13,900 "NATO phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia

9,430 "ICAO alphabet" -Wikipedia

5,690 "International radiotelephony spelling alphabet" -Wikipedia

4,610 "FAA phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia

3,710 "International spelling alphabet" -Wikipedia

1,300 "Ham radio phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia

"Phonetic" has been objectionable since this article was created. Because a worldwide international viewpoint should satisfy Nankai's NPOV objection, I recommend and support "ICAO spelling alphabet". It is the most popular name that satisfies these constraints (even more popular than the current name), the International Civil Aviation Organization created this alphabet in the late '40s and early '50s, it is still used by all international airplane flights, and it is much more concise than "International radiotelephony spelling alphabet". — Joe Kress (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

move request tag deleted

I removed the "Move request" tag (the orange box that appeared above this section) because it implied a requested change from "ICAO Spelling Alphabet"; my reqest was from the name Nato Phonetic Alphabet.Nankai (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

note that the article has just been moved

This discussion about a name for this article ("movcing" the article) has been pre-empted by somebody moving it to ICAO Spelling Alphabet (the present title). I support this name and accept the reasons given above for this name. Please note that the move was made outside the "move article" discussion process, and was not made by me. Nankai (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked the archives and found that I suggested "ICAO spelling alphabet" way back in 2004, but was too hesitant to rename the article back then. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection?

Looking at the recent history for this article, many of the edits seem to be reverts of unregistered users' contributions. Although they (by viewing the history) have not been classified as vandalism, most of them seem to be erroneous edits. Is it too early to suggest a (semi)protection (via a {{ }}-tag or however it's done)? DKDexter999 (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a month. See what effect that has.

—WWoods (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

NATO adoption?

It would improve the article if the date of when NATO adopted the ICAO spelling alphabet was included. As of now, the article states that the UK and US militaries adopted the ICAO version in 1956, but what about NATO?--TGC55 (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have searched for that information, but have not yet found it. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Image or table?

Instead of an image, why not use plain text, in a table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.8.2.205 (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The article uses both the FAA image and plain text in a table which is at ICAO spelling alphabet#Alphabet and pronunciation. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

International Code of Signals

I have replaced the "See also" link to International maritime signal flags (which is flawed, incomplete, and even incorrect) with a link to International Code of Signals. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

C,M,X same as WWII

The article says C,M,N,U & X changed. But comparing WWII to the present, C,M and X are the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.157.43 (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting observation between the present ICAO spelling alphabet and the old Able Baker alphabet: that C, M, X (Charlie, Mike, X-ray) are the same, which is true (Victor is also the same and Fox is similar to Foxtrot). However, the statement that C,M,N,U,X changed refers to the difference between the original 1951 and revised 1956 versions of the ICAO spelling alphabet, where all code words remained the same (Alfa, Bravo, Delta, etc.) except for these changes: Coca→Charlie, Metro→Mike, Nectar→November, Union→Uniform, Extra→X-ray. The 1951 version was used for such a short period of time that it is easily forgotten. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Phonetic transcription

ɡʌlf

Isn't this GULF not GOLF? The vowel of GOLF is the same as the first vowel in Oscar.

--Steve (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The ICAO gives ɡʌlf as their IPA pronunciation even though it does not agree with their own Latin alphabet pronunciation, GOLF. This is mentioned in the third paragraph under Pronunciation. However, we cannot make any changes to the pronunciation as it appears in the source: Aeronautical Telecommunications: Annex 10 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Volume II, Chapter 5. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

VIK-TAH

cool pronunciation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulldecent (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Move? (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: declined, no consensus. Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

---

NATO phonetic alphabet → ICAO spelling alphabet —

• Access Denied moved "ICAO spelling alphabet" to "NATO phonetic alphabet" claiming "Pagemove vandalism cleanup" on 6 November 2010. Although the name of the article had been "NATO phonetic alphabet" for over six years, it was moved to "ICAO spelling alphabet" on 2 April 2010 by Tiraios-of-Characene with unanimous consent on its talk page (now archived). Admittedly the move was a bit premature, while discussion was still in progress, but there was no objection, so it was "bold" rather than "vandalism". An earlier 2008 move discussion objected to both "NATO" and "phonetic" in the title, but no move occurred at that time. Joe Kress (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• This page has been moved about enough times for me to decide that it better be discussed. I have always known it as the NATO phonetic alphabet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment — This move was intended to satisfy those editors who objected to either "NATO" in the title, because that limits its geographic scope, or "phonetic" in the title, because this alphabet is not related to the International phonetic alphabet. The "ICAO" (International Civil Aviation Organization) developed this alphabet during 1947–1956 and "spelling" is an obvious substitute for "phonetic". All other agencies adopted it after 1956. For reference, I repeat here the number of Google hits for various combinations of agencies and words previously listed here (now archived at Talk:ICAO spelling alphabet/Archive 1#Requested move). All search terms included the quotation marks (" ") to prevent searching for individual words, and -Wikipedia to prevent counting Wikipedia mirrors or copies. Any combination with less than 1,000 hits was not included.

25,000 "ICAO phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia

20,900 "ITU phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia

18,200 "NATO spelling alphabet" -Wikipedia

17,700 "ICAO spelling alphabet" -Wikipedia

13,900 "NATO phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia

9,430 "ICAO alphabet" -Wikipedia

5,690 "International radiotelephony spelling alphabet" -Wikipedia

4,610 "FAA phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia

3,710 "International spelling alphabet" -Wikipedia

1,300 "Ham radio phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia

I am also notifying all Wikiprojects listed at the top of this talk page and all editors that previously expressed an opinion, for or against, about this topic via the {{Please see}} template. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Given the above, WP:NC seems to indicate the article should be at "ICAO phonetic alphabet". EyeSerene^talk 09:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree move Thanks Joe for the invitation to comment. I am happy with ICAO phonetic alphabet or ICAO spelling alphabet but if the article name invokes ICAO then the alphabet should be given the official name ICAO gives it (whatever that is). As an analogy, the movie everyone used to simply call Star Wars is called Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope on Wikipedia, because that is its official title.Nankai (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The above research is faulty, because it (a) doesn't include location, and more importantly (b) isn't filtering out Wikipedia mirrors. First of all, Google's location based search means that you'll get different results based on where you are. Here in the UK, I get the following;

21,300 "ICAO phonetic alphabet" -wikipedia

14,600 "ITU phonetic alphabet" -wikipedia

6,550 "NATO spelling alphabet" -wikipedia

40,000 "ICAO spelling alphabet" -wikipedia

109,000 "NATO phonetic alphabet" -wikipedia

... and small numbers for the others.

However, many of the hits are still wikipedia mirrors that don't include the word "Wikipedia". To filter them out, I added -"international radiotelephony spelling alphabet" as it appears in the first sentence of our article. I then get

12,800 "ICAO phonetic alphabet" -wikipedia -"international radiotelephony spelling alphabet"

13,800 "ITU phonetic alphabet" -wikipedia -"international radiotelephony spelling alphabet"

6,320 "NATO spelling alphabet" -wikipedia -"international radiotelephony spelling alphabet"

1,630 "ICAO spelling alphabet" -wikipedia -"international radiotelephony spelling alphabet"

97,400 "NATO phonetic alphabet" -wikipedia -"international radiotelephony spelling alphabet"

Two things are clear from this. First of all, most of the hits for "ICAO spelling alphabet" are coming from Wikipedia mirrors. Secondly, "NATO phonetic alphabet" is clearly the COMMONNAME in the UK, and I suspect this is true for most English-speaking locations outside the US. As a check, I tried Google News Archives. Here, nothing except "NATO phonetic alphabet" (26 hits) gets more than one hit - the ICAO versions get zero. I would suggest that the ICAO usages are localised and certainly do not meet COMMONNAME. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment My survey was performed the day before this article was moved to "ICAO spelling alphabet" on 2 April 2010 (it was moved back recently) so would be different from any more recent survey. To perform surveys in several countries would require several proxy servers, which would be more trouble than they are worth. A new Google survey produced anomalous results similar to yours:

23,300 "NATO phonetic alphabet"

106,000 "NATO phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia

97,600 "NATO phonetic alphabet" -Wikipedia -"international radiotelephony spelling alphabet"

Simply adding "-Wikipedia" dramatically increased the hits instead of reducing them! — Joe Kress (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with either "ICAO phonetic alphabet" or "NATO phonetic alphabet" as long as the proper redirects are in place. There doesn't seem to be much to support using any of the "X spelling alphabet" variants though. EyeSerene^talk 09:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Flamarande (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation vandalism?

Do you really pronounce "Oscar" as "OSS CAH" and "Victor" as "VIK TAH"? I can't find any external sources that give phonetic pronunciations, which would lead me to believe that whoever added these is having a laugh. --192.223.243.5 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are indeed the pronunciations specified by the ICAO and accepted by all other international and national agencies, as stated by the references. For example, see the image of the applicable FAA list at the top of the article. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The pronunciation for "Papa" ("PAH PAH") seems wrong to me. Surely it should be "PAH PAH", no?Wavy (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The ICAO places the emphasis on the second syllable in both its Roman alphabet pronunciation and in its IPA pronunciation ( ' is before the stressed syllable). For example, see ICAO phonetics by the FAA. — Joe Kress (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the supposed oddities in pronunciation reflect the British accent. An educated Englishman of an older generation would say "OSS-cah", "VIK-tah", and "pah-PAH". Pronouncing "three" as "TREE" (below) is Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satherb (talk • contribs) 11:18, 6 December 2010

Internationally speaking, though, we're expecting OSS KAR and VIK TAR. Gingermint (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Most English speakers as well as International speakers expect OSS KAR and VIK TAR, but all agencies, both English and International, have rejected the terminal R for these code words. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

US MIlitary Spelling ("Phonetic") Alphabet

Looking over this discussion page, I believe confusion is arising between the "phonetic" alphabet depicted here (ascribed to NATO) and (one of?) the spelling alphabet(s?) US Military personnel have been instructed to use. Perhaps various branches of the U.S. military really don't use the NATO version but have, instead, their own.

Further, in tracing back sources, I have found the ITU alphabet (accurately laid out in a table as the core of this article) does not agree with the unclassified portion of NATO instructions cited as another of this page's references. Read on...

Regarding, the VICTOR pronunciation question: I was taught/told/ordered "VIC-TOR" and have usually seen it that way. And the numeral three was said aloud "THUH-REE". I'm finding numerous military, Coast Guard, and aviation sources on the internet backing these up but they come from .COM, .ORG, .NET, or .INFO (i.e. non-government) sites such as USCGAux.info [7] It's hardly authoritative but in six years in the Navy I never once ("wunce"?) heard anyone count to "TREE".

ArmyDomain.com [8] says

Military Phonetic Alphabet

The Army, as well as all other branches of the US armed services, currently use the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) alphabet for radio communication. This alphabet was adopted by the US armed services in 1956, and is currently used by NATO countries as well as civil aviation around the world.

At this site it's EKK-oh, OSS-car, PAH-pah, VIK-ter, and EKS ray - none of the spellings of which, at least, agree with this Wikipedia page in its current form. Some of the distinctions are without difference (who would say the sounds EKK-oh, ECK-oh and ˈeko aren't identical?) but the change in emphasis between PAH-pah (as the Navy taught us) and pah-PAH (NATO) needs resolution.

But, then, I'm also finding a table at Navy.mil [9] as well as one at FAA.gov [10] specifying "VIC-TAH" and "TREE". I'm concered that .MIL and .GOV web pages may trump .COMs, .ORGs, .NETs, and .INFOs.

I wish I could find my old Bluejacket's Manual c1984. The one from Google books [11] is missing the critical page 499.

For more (too many!) resources, hit Brian Kelk's page at www.bckelk.ukfsn.org [12]. At the top of his page it notes "The NATO phonetic alphabet" including "Alpha", "Juliet", and "Xray", then immediately notes differences between that and the "ITU version: Alfa Juliett X-ray".

I have no doubt the table on this Wikipedia page accurately represents the alphabet adopted by the International Telecommunications Union (it's in www.ITU.int [13], page 51, cited as coming coming "From Radio Regulations Appendix S14") but the article's reference 3 (Allied Communications Publication 121(H), page 3-5) [14] does not agree with Wikipedia's ITU Table.

If Brian Kelk is taking the time to distinguish between an ITU version and a NATO version while the current Wikipedia article cites differing sources yet calls them identical, and if numerous sources at least connected with trained military personnel also have discrepancies with the table in this article, then this article may be inadequate and need to have either a sibling page or a subsection on variants.

RobertSegal (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling specificities

In Brazil, it's quite common in the aviation industry to say "fox" instead of "foxtrot". I don't know about other countries where this happens. We here abbreviate the word to "fox" mainly because it's shorter and easier to say out loud, specially for native Portuguese speakers. I don't have any linkable sources though... it's more of an informal tradition than an actual written rule. But maybe it could be cited in the article. Cpt Vidal (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was usage of non-NATO countries removed?

This alphabet NATO only. It is used by the ICAO, ITU, and IMO. I believe the mention of variations around the world should be included. The following examples that were removed in 2007 are indeed useful. "Hawk" being used for "Hotel" in the Philippines. "London" being used for "Lima" in Indonesia. "Baker" for "Bravo" in Japan. "Xingu" or "Xadrez" being used for X-Ray in Brazil. Hjuibar3 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "Xingu", but "Xadrez" was used mostly by amateur-radio operators, and maybe by the nautical industry. But on the aviation industry, here at Brazil, we basically use only "X-Ray". I, personally, have never heard of someone using "Xadrez". Cpt Vidal (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nine vs. niner

The article contained this:

"eg, "Niner" instead of "Nine", to avoid confusion with "Five", in the presence of static.."

but I believe "niner" is used to avoid confusion with the German word "nein" ("no"). So, in agreement with whoever tagged it "citation needed", I removed this. 62.174.75.82 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be interesting to point out that, in Brazil, we use the word "Nina" instead of "Niner". I have actually asked a veteran air traffic controller why, but he isn't sure either. All I know is that, around here, all controllers say "nina". Cpt Vidal (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The final 'a' is how English -er [ə] would generally turn out, but I don't know why the first vowel should change. That's definitely substandard. — kwami (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But in the Brazilian phonetic manuals, it's actually written "nina", not "niner", and I yes, they do sound almost the same. Here's the source, page 178 - the English numbers are in the rightmost column of the first table of the page. Cpt Vidal (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In that source it's written "NAINA", which I think must be a typo for NAINA and would be regular—though other words keep their ars. — kwami (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of thousand

In standard English, thousand is pronounced THOU-zind. In this alphabet, however, it is TOU-sand. The th being replaced by t is most likely because French lacks the th sound, but how about the s being pronounced s rather than z?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not just that, it's stressed on both syllables, as if it were two words: Tao Sand. I've written to the ICAO, NATO, and the FAA asking what they mean by their contradictory, ambiguous "guides", but have yet to hear back. My assumption is that they are all incompetent, but I don't have a ref for that to add to the article. — kwami (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

It would be interesting if there is a section in this article explaining how each code words came to be. Such as why Juliet instead of Julian? Who is Charlie? Why most of it are male name or male objects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.130.84 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The code words were chosen by their pronunciations, not their meanings. Georgia guy (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Mispronunciation

I am removing the link to the sound file File:NATOPhoneticAlphabet.ogg recently added because it has six errors: Oscar is pronounced OSS-CAH not Oscar; Quebec is KEH-BECK not Quebec; Victor is VIK-TAH not Victor; Three is TREE not three; Four is FOW-ER not four; and Five is FIFE not five. Unfortunately, the original uploader Mirwin of the file to Wikiversity has passed away, so someone else needs to correct the recording. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Main Image Proncounciations Inccorect

Tree? Really? FOW-ER? KEH-BECK?!

Not "KEH-BECK", but "keh BECK", which is a normal English pronunciation.

If you don't believe us, ask NATO, the FAA, or the ICAO. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Just another comment - why is Kilo phoneticised as KEY-LOH when other short i's are shown as "EE"? Manytexts (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There are dozens of odd details like that. It's an ad-hoc pronunciation respelling. It's apparently up to the reader to decide which differences are meaningful and which are not. Which means that we cannot actually use the various publications to justify a particular pronunciation, and there is no RS for any of these. I've written the various organizations asking if there is any reliable source for pronunciation, but they haven't responded. — kwami (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Tks Kwamikagami. Since they haven't responded, does that mean wikipedia can customise/make sense of style in the meantime? Manytexts (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Golf and Foxtrot

Can anyone explain why the vowels in the consolidated pronunciation for golf and foxtrot are marked as long? This contradicts both the ICAO IPA standard and normal pronunciation of these words. garik (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That vowel only occurs long in English. Unless maybe ⟨ɔ⟩ is supposed to be /ɒ/? I can't figure out what the vowel length in the ICAO IPA is supposed to mean: what's the difference between /ɑ/ and /ɑː/? /o/ and /oː/?. — kwami (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The ICAO is clearly treating the difference between "fox" and "Fawkes" as primarily a difference of vowel length. You can tell this is what they're doing if you compare their transcriptions for "whisky" and "lima". This is phonemically ok, as is their transcription of "tango" as /ˈtænɡo/ (so I think the "[sic]" is unnecessary). There's no contrast in English between [nɡ] and [ŋɡ], so in a broad transcription, the difference between the nasals is redundant. The same goes for the vowels we're talking about: it's redundant in a broad phonemic transcription to mark distinctions of both length and quality (precisely because [ɔ] only occurs long in English). In reality, as we both know, the difference in quality is actually more important than the difference in length—and transcriptions that make distinctions of quality, not length, are more useful for non-natives. But native speakers persist in thinking of the difference as one of length. garik (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the difference between /ɑ/ and /ɑː/ and between /o/ and /oː/: I *think* what they're doing is distinguishing in unstressed syllables between reduced and unreduced vowels. But it's rather odd. I don't know why the first syllable of "hotel" is supposed to be longer or less reduced than the last syllable of "echo". garik (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of patterns, but not consistent ones. It seems to be a rather incompetent effort, so we're left trying to interpret what an incompetent author intended.

As for /ɑ/, it might mean unstressed, but not reduced: these aren't schwas, as confirmed elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

NATO phonetic alphabet → NATO spelling alphabet – Not a phonetic alphabet. The International Phonetic Alphabet is a phonetic alphabet. Georgia guy (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support It's not as common, but sometimes the more common name needs to give way to accuracy, as covered at WP:NAME. (Formally it's the "International Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet", but that is much less recognizable and I don't see an advantage to it. The proposal keeps the easily recognized "NATO alphabet" format.) — kwami (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Support I agree, the accurate name should be the title.Beefcake6412 (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose We have three options -- the official name, the common name and the less common name. We agree (so far) that we should not adopt the formal name. Why choose the less common name over the more common name? We should stay with the most common name since that is the name that people are most likely going to search for. Further, "phonetic" is not a technical term. It simply means "of or relating to speech sounds" as in "phonograph" or "phonetic spelling". There is a reason why it has become known as the "NATO phonetic alphabet" –- it makes more sense to English speakers. I see no benefit to switching and it might cause confusion or mis-directed Google searches. I appreciate the need for accuracy but the accuracy should be a common accuracy not a technical accuracy. What would create least confusion in people's minds when they are doing a Google search or talking in a common conversation? Since it is most commonly known as the "phonetic alphabet" then that is the least confusing term that will lead to more accurate searches. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. to my post above. I have a Cocktail Party Test, because that is how I use Wikipedia. Something comes up at a cocktail party, on the radio, over dinner, while reading, and I go "I need to learn more about that". So I go to Google and search and more often than not Wikipedia comes up. What common phrase will be used at a party? Then that should be used in the title. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But we'd still have a redirect from "NATO phonetic alphabet", so it wouldn't make any difference to your search. Also, it's not phonetic spelling as you claim, any more than saying "a bee cee dee" is phonetic spelling. That's the whole point. — kwami (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose NATO phonetic alphabet is a phonetic alphabet. See the second definition of "phonetic alphabet" at merriam-webster.com [15] or Wiktionary. Phonetic alphabet is ambiguous with phonetic transcription system and spelling alphabet but NATO phonetic alphabet is not ambiguous with any other alphebetic system. The article should stay here per WP:COMMONNAME. --Kusunose 10:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. As User:Kusunose notes above, the name is accurate. —  AjaxSmack  01:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.