Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet

Edit request from 86.134.140.26, 15 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

IN the phonetic alphabet a is Alpha not Alfa 86.134.140.26 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect. See [1]. --Alan (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Only the prior reference is not entirely authoritative. In regard of the International Signal Code see note #1 in the article, or go directly to official source. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A perhaps related point: the article is internally inconsistent. The embedded SVG table at the top gives the FAA version of J as Juliet; but the table under "Alphabet and Pronunciation" gives the FAA version as Juliett (and ANSI as Juliet). The FAA site gives Juliett as the correct version, so the SVG file should be changed. I am not sure whether there is a standard way to modify embedded files of this kind so have not done so. LeighCaldwell (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. The image is in error compared to its source in the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, but I don't have the program needed to change it. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2011 (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)

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)

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)

Nine vs. niner

The article contained this:

"eg, "Niner" instead of "Nine", to avoid confusion with "Five", in the presence of static.^{[citation needed]}."

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)

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)

3 (three) pronounced "TREE"?

I think that is a typo. Even though this document http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0204.html#atc0204.html.5 has "TREE" in its pronunciation chart, it uses the word "three" everywhere else. Additionally the audio entry for "3" on http://www.phoneticalphabets.net/Spoken_Phonetic_Alphabet.html is pronounced "three".--Anthonzi (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

TREE is the pronunciation, while "three" is the spelling whenever the code word is printed. The ICAO agrees with the FAA, and the second part of the equivalent ITU and IMO code word is also pronounced TREE even though it is spelled three. "Three" in the Spoken Nato Phonetic Alphabet is clearly wrong because all of its numbers are given their normal English pronunciation, even though several other numbers also have quite different pronunciations according to both the FAA and the ICAO, such as FOW ER for four, FIFE for five, and NIN ER for nine. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The TH sound does not occur in many languages. T is more widespread. The issue for ICAO is not how would an English speaker pronounce three. The question is how speakers of other languages should approximate the sound, in a way that will be clearly understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.37.71.49 (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

VIK-TAH

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

Move?

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.

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 [2] It's hardly authoritative but in six years in the Navy I never once ("wunce"?) heard anyone count to "TREE".

ArmyDomain.com [3] 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 [4] as well as one at FAA.gov [5] 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 [6] is missing the critical page 499.

For more (too many!) resources, hit Brian Kelk's page at www.bckelk.ukfsn.org [7]. 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 [8], 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) [9] 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)

Some incorrect information

Nearly at the bottom, there's some information about special letters in some countries. That includes Norway, and this is some information I doubt is correct. "Østen (male first name) for <Ø>"; Østen is not a Norwegian name, I'm a Norwegian so i know that. "Østen" means "The east", something that's east of you. But it's more commonly used to describe a world part.

I believe it was intended to be "Øysten" or "Øystein", or the description of the word is wrong. (Those are both Norwegian names.)

According to no:Øystein, Østen does exist as a name, probably a Danified variant of Øystein, which (I suspect) is rare nowadays (but may have been common when the written language was still essentially Danish), that's why you're not familiar with it anymore. (It's even conceivable that people used to spell their name <Østen> in the quasi-Danish written language formerly used in Norway, but pronounce it like Øystein when speaking Norwegian.) It could also be a Swedified variant, perhaps, used by Swedes (or people of Swedish ancestry) settling in Norway, or Norwegians whose parents prefer the Swedish variant, or used in border areas of Eastern Norway, or communities abroad, or wherever both languages are in (intense?) contact (though as far as I am aware, Swedish is used, or at least heard – for example in TV – a lot in Norway anyway, so Norwegians are exposed to Swedish all the time, and of course well familiar with Swedish names).

I must emphasise that being Norwegian does not make one an instant expert in all things Norway-related down to the tiniest particulars, nor on the language and literature of Norway including all historical stages, dialects and variants of the written and spoken languages (otherwise, why would any citizen of Norway ever need to study Norwegian language or literature?), so you should be careful with claims such as "I'm Norwegian so I can definitely exclude that XY exists or has ever existed in Norway/Norwegian". Historically widespread phenomena can fade from the public awareness/memory surprisingly quickly, or even be actively denied, especially if nationalistic, patriotic or separatistic sentiments play a role (and the influence of such tendencies in Norway, especially to distance oneselves from one's Danish and Swedish neighbours and profile/accentuate one's separate ethnic identity is hard to deny). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:56, 10 November 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In the image: "nine" should be "niner"

Under "Telephony", 9 is listed as "nine". It should be changed to "niner". Spetnik (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Niner is the pronunciation. The spelling is still nine. It's to make it easier to distinguish from "five", which is pronounced "fife" in this alphabet. Georgia guy (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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 [10] 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.

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)