The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per use commonly recognizable names. (closed by non-admin page mover) CNC (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NATO phonetic alphabet → International Radiotelephony Spelling AlphabetInternational Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet – While it is often called the "NATO phonetic alphabet", it was not made by NATO, and is not a phonetic alphabet like the IPA. Rather, it is described by ICAO as the "Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet". Thus, that should be the location of the page. — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. CNC (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The commonly recognizable name should be used regardless of whether it is a misnomer. Jellyfish are not technically fish, a peanut is really a legume instead of a nut, and (as the OP stated) the NATO phonetic alphabet is actually a spelling alphabet that was first developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization, but those names are commonly used anyways. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose:See the chart at [1]? (Larger version at [2]) That chart is widely distributed by NATO. For many people it is the only thing they see regarding the alphabet. That's one big reason why the common name is what it is. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: This is a difference between numerous colloquial refs and fewer high-quality sources. It's called the "(international) radiotelephony spelling alphabet" in e.g. Sabry (2024) Military Communications, Brace (2016) Generation of the Damned: Baby Boomers and the Vietnam War ('the International Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet, commonly known as the NATO phonetic alphabet'), Anderson, Graham & Williams (2015) Flight and Motion: The History and Science of Flying, but also sources like Kiisk (2018) Simple Phonetic English Spelling and Scieszka (2022) The Real Dada Mother Goose ('the official name of the spelling alphabet used by most countries now is the International Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet'). — kwami (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:COMMONNAME guideline states that Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)", not the name primary used in only the fewer high-quality sources. Especially if high-quality sources may be more pedantic or technical in nature. While WP:POVNAME states that colloquialisms may be avoided when "far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious", in practice that generally only happens if the "common name includes non-neutral words". I do not think that is the case here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  While I understand that the NATO name is more common, it does not appear to be WP:NEUTRAL to me, as it is quite skewed towards the West/the historical Western Bloc. Compare this with the ICAO, a neutral UN specialised agency. I don't have a strong opinion on that, though; any thoughts? SomeRailfan (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The UN is just as skewed as NATO but in a different direction. China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States hold permanent seats and possess veto power, allowing them to block any resolution. COMMONNAME does not require a NPOV, see WP:POVNAME. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: While colloquially refererred to as the NATO phonetic alphabet, it is also commonly referred to as the ICAO phonetic alphabet. The article could benefit from more neutrality on that front, and let's not forget about WP:GLOBAL when deciding. SomeRailfan (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, it is used for aviation and shipping globally, even if we only consider anglophone countries. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@COArSe D1RTxxx *Oppose* Wikipedia:Article titles clearly states to use the "commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)"

If you look up "Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet" most sources you'll find will use the name "NATO Phonetic Alphabet" in the title as it is the name most people will recognize. A lot of sources won't even use the name "Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet" so readers will just be redirected to sources that call it something completely different.

WP:COMMONNAME also stated "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic." and changing the more recognized title because of technicalities would (with all due respect) count as pedantic

I wouldn't even make "NATO Phonetic Alphabet" redirect as a large amount of people upon being redirected might assume they got a result that's different from what they were looking for

Keep it as is. Yes the name is technically not the most correct it is what people would be looking for Ahmed0112 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Google search example: "NATO Phonetic Alphabet" has 1.5 million views, "International Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet" has 170,000 views. – The Grid (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Writing systems, WikiProject Telecommunications, WikiProject NATO, WikiProject Amateur radio, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Linguistics, WikiProject Cold War, and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. 162 etc. (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The technicality of the proposed phrase is immaterial; velvet ants are still known by this name even though they're actually wasps. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and all of the previous move discussions. StAnselm (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The redirect views arent even close.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Possibly redundant by now, but in case we get a flurry of !votes going the other way. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]