This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spain This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Languages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Linguistics: Phonetics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

I just noticed that the edit I made in regards to this is related to a reverted previous edit I made in September. I find it unclear to describe the use of Spanish /e/, /o/ and /ie/, /ue/ as " similar to the distinction between the close /e, o/ and the open /ɛ, ɔ/" of other Romance languages: the connection is historical (the vowels /ɛ, ɔ/ developed by sound change into Spanish diphthongs) but the current phonetic outcome of those sound changes is not especially similar phonetically to /ɛ, ɔ/. However, I see that my previous wording was described as "an utterly wrong sweeping statement" in this January revision. While the correspondence is not perfect, due to separate sound changes in separate languages, I don't understand exactly why that makes it preferable to use the wording "similar to" instead of "correspond to". @Sol505000 are there alternative wordings that would address my concern while avoiding the inaccuracy that you found with my wording? Urszag (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Spanish phonology: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

@Nardog, the words from Listado de lemas que contienen «dl» | Diccionario de la lengua española | RAE - ASALE can be either /dl/ or /d.l/, just as intervocalic /tl/ can be /t.l/. this is also noticeable in foreign words or names like sandler or chandler where sometimes it's /d.l/ and other times it's /dl/ Brawlio (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you conclude those are not /d.l/? Nardog (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's not that they aren't /d.l/, it's that they can also be /dl/. ¿what makes you conclude that they're not /dl/? Brawlio (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

/tl/ is considered a possible onset in certain varieties of Spanish because they have words beginning with /tl/. Nobody is going to regard sandler or chandler as having /dl/ as an onset unless there are Spanish words that begin with /dl/, just as nobody analyzes English indict to have the onset /nd/ because there is no English word that begins with /nd/. Nardog (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The /ndl/ sequence in Sandler and Chandler has to be divided as /nd.l/ or /n.dl/. In native vocabulary, Spanish has neither words that start with /dl/ nor words that end in /nd/. Spanish does have borrowed words that end in /nd/; however, on the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a theoretical reason why it couldn't have syllables that start with /dl/ in borrowed words (and an absence of word-initial examples could be accidental). Ultimately this is an empirical question (as much as matters of syllabification can be) where we should follow what reliable sources say.--Urszag (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Then let's remove the claim of nonexistence, which seems unsourced anyway (not to mention proving a negative). Nardog (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should generally say nothing rather than making claims of nonexistence that are of dubious accuracy, but the problem with just not mentioning /dl/ is that then the introductory sentence ("If and only if the first consonant is a stop /p, t, k, b, d, ɡ/ or a voiceless labiodental fricative /f/, a second consonant, either /l/ or /ɾ/, is permitted") makes it sound like "dl" is permitted (even if it doesn't quite say that). Furthermore, at least some reliable sources do seem to say that /dl/ is unattested as an onset (I added one citation now; I'm not sure whether the sources already cited at the end of the sentence about /tl/ were also supposed to apply to the claim about /dl/). So I think that in this case, what would be ideal is to find a source that discusses examples like those that Brawlio brought up and addresses if they can be analyzed as marginal exceptions to the general absence of onset /dl/ in Spanish.--Urszag (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brawlio, I appreciate your contribution regarding the occurrence of /ʎ, ɲ/ after other consonants. However, I think we'll both agree that the article shouldn't be left in this state, so let's discuss what the best end state for the article would be. Do you think nothing of this kind should be mentioned, or do you think the current statements are indefensibly broad but have some kernel of truth to them?

It's obvious that these consonants are not strictly prohibited in that position, but I wonder if you would concede that they are at least uncommon, or not found in native vocabulary (other than compound/prefixed words)? huaiño, aclla, lliclla are borrowings from Quechua: I assume that Baker 2004 intended to exclude words of this type. As a thesis, the paper by Baker is not a top-rate source, so I'd be fine with removing it, but I think Morales-Front 2018 deserves some weight as an academic source, although its coverage of this topic is brief and not very clear (All I found to go on was the statement that "[ɾ] and [ɲ] are restricted word-initially"). Urszag (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are words like panllevar which we could surmise is a compound word but I'm not sure whether we can say so for certain. or enllentecer which comes Latin with no "un-prefixed" form in Castilian. there's also piesllo from vulgar Latin, aullar from Latin, traillar which is just the verb form of another word, and maullar. but yes, i agree that they're uncommon. Brawlio (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brawlio, what do you think of the current phrasing? It is not fully sourced, but I'd like to remove the "dubious" tags from the statements cited to Baker 2004, Hualde 2022, and Morales-Front 2018, given that I think the article now provides enough context that a reader is not in danger of misinterpreting these statements as referring to ironclad prohibitions on word-initial /ɲ/ or postconsonantal /ɲ/ or /ʎ/.--Urszag (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The note for this diphthong is "Harris (1969:89) points to muy ('very') as the one example with [uj] rather than [wi]." Nevertheless, there are several (mostly) regional examples of its occurrence too, like the reginal "cuy" or the widely used interjection "¡uy!". Saviourofthe (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced, Spanish /ie/, /ue/, /ui/ should not be described as rising diphthongs (as it is claimed everywhere), but as falling diphthongs or at best floating diphthongs. - And yes, there are more examples than "muy"; think of the name "Luis", which according to the rules should be stressed on the "i", but undoubtedly gets stressed on the "u" part! - Also think of "pie" (foot) which should be stressed on the "e" part, but which I only ever hear stressed on the "i" part! - There are more arguments that support my position: "hasta luego" can be heard all the time as if the stress were on the "u" and "e" becomes kind of a Schwa sound, some even say more or less "hasta logo" (and not "hasta lego" which would be more logical if the "e" were prominent). - When people are starting to curse (saying "mierda"), they can usually be heard saying "miiii-er..." (and not "mjer...). - Also compare French "pied" (foot) and Spanish "pie" (foot) which should sound almost identical, but indeed do NOT - French is like "pje", Spanish like "piie" (in contrast to Spanish pronunciation and spelling rules!). --- ManfredWV 94.219.14.220 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there accents or dialects of Spanish in which /s/ is some kind of retracted or apico-alveolar sibilant (i.e. the sibilants which are heard by English speakers as sounding "in between s and sh") and, moreover, the sibilant part of /tʃ/ sounds like this /s/, so the affricate sounds like /t/ + /s/? Or alternatively, even if the /s/ is a normal alveolar sibilant like in English, the /tʃ/ still sounds like /t/ + retracted or apico-alveolar /s/? I seem to distinctly remember /tʃ/ sounding that way often. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most Peninsular Spanish has a somewhat retracted /s/ and /tʃ/ can be somewhat fronted in some Peninsular varieties (including some Madrid speakers). I recall some IPA Illustration-like source talking about the fronted /tʃ/ but I can't seem to find it right now. /tʃ/ can also be pretty fronted in some upper & middle-class Chilean speech. Erinius (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just found the source I was thinking of which talks about fronted ⟨ch⟩ in Madrid - https://www.ipds.uni-kiel.de/kjk/pub_exx/kk2009_4/spanish/spa_madrid.html - it was cited on the [tʃ] article. Erinius (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you mean the column "Assimilation" and the partial row "Palatalized" in the table under the heading "Conventions", where it shows an allophone [tsʲ]? That's not really what I'm talking about. I mean varieties where /tʃ/ is consistently realised as [ts̠] or [ts̺], always, under all circumstances, never actually as [tʃ]. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I was referring to. I wouldn't know if it's always [ts] in some varieties. Erinius (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I do not mean the voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate [tɕ] (though it would also be interesting to know where this one occurs, if at all). I mean the retracted alveolar or apico-alveolar affricate (regardless of the realisation of the fricative sibilant). (Theoretically, it would make sense for the affricate sibilant to have the exact same place of articulation as the fricative sibilant at least in some varieties.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled on this: https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093 (can access with Wikipedia Library). It mentions [ts̺]-like realizations are noted "in coastal Colombia, Bolivia (Santa Cruz), and Chile" citing the Nueva gramática de la lengua española. I've checked and the gramática gives little more detail. And I'm not sure there's any variety where /tʃ/ is consistently, exclusively [ts̺]. Erinius (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Erinius: Thank you. Hm. It just seems to me, as I hear it in my mind, that /tʃ/ is commonly not actually pronounced with a [ʃ], but something else, which has really stood out to me. It could even be a realisation more like [tj], like ocho as [ˈotjo]. Or is that just the [tsʲ] allophone you've mentioned? But that one is only found in specific contexts. Or maybe what's throwing me off is simply the fact that in German and possibly also English, /ʃ/ tends to be rounded. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask who has decided to transcribe /peɾspekˈtiba/ as /peɾspeɡˈtiba/ in a broad transcription here and the Wiktionary? IMO a hard c is mostly associated to /k/ in standard Spanish transcriptions. I understand that the difference between (voiced–voiceless) obstruents is lost word-finally in narrower contexts, but not in broader ones as I mention (c.f. with betacism in broad vs. narrow transcriptions: /b/ and [b ~ β]). IMO this interpretation is not fully correct. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 09:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section on consonant assimilations covers all the possibilities with <n> except <nm> as in inmediato, inmortal, un montón, en México. I couldn't find reliable information on that. Can someone who has reliable information add it to the article, please? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does cover it, before a bilabial it becomes [m], therefore <nm> (which is the Spanish modern less etymological form of <mm>) is pronounced as [mm] or [mː]. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 08:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence "nm", which appears only across morpheme boundaries, is fairly rare and unfortunately I think it's hard to find sources that discuss it in detail. I believe I've seen some article that mentioned that /nm/ does not invariably undergo regressive place assimilation (either across word boundaries or within a word), but I don't know if there is a good source of data on how common its various potential phonetic realizations are compared to each other.--Urszag (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is not so rare, but it is mostly found in learned terms (inmortal[1] 'immortal') or in compounds (conmigo[2] 'with me'). The pronunciation I suggested is mostly accepted and is found in some dictionaries, other pronunciations could be [nm] or [ŋm]. Elision of n is not accepted in the standard as in Portuguese although it could be the choice for some accents. It is accepted a weakening or almost/quasi elision (therefore ⁿm) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 08:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, third, assimilation of /n/ followed by a bilabial consonant in colloquial Spanish commonly gives rise to co-articulation, resulting in a nasal with a simultaneous occlusion at the alveolar and the bilabial PA: i[n͡m]móvil ‘motionless,’ co[n͡m] Pablo ‘with Pablo,’ etc. (Harris 1969: 14–16; Navarro Tomás 1977: 89, 113). Nasals realized with a simultaneous velar and bilabial or labiodental PA have also been reported for velarizing varieties https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118228098.ch6 citing Harris 1969 for the latter. Erinius (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the CVC: Debilitamiento y "casi" desaparición de la «n» en el grupo «nm». En pronunciación lenta, percepción clara de las dos consonantes

inmóvil, con mucho gusto > in/m móbil, con/m mucho gusto. [3]

Nasals realized with a simultaneous velar and bilabial or labiodental PA have also been reported for velarizing varieties - aren't these simply [mˠ, ɱˠ] (labials with velarization) then? Sol505000 (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to discuss the pronunciation of gamma (which contrasts with gama) and innato (which contrasts with y nato). How do you transcribe them? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 09:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Es interesante observar que, aunque el español no tiene consonantes geminadas, la secuencia [nn] puede aparecer en posición interior de morfema (analizable como /nn/) en dos o tres palabras, incluyendo perenne y pinnípedo. Con la excepción de estas, no existen geminadas en posición interior de morfema en español. Con el prefijo in-, hay ejemplos como innoble, innatural, etc. Hualde, José Ignacio (2014). "Nasales". Los sonidos del español (in Spanish). p. 173. Same page also mentions /mn/ as in columna as an exception to nasal assimilation (and obvio as having a geminated /b/). Erinius (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about <mn> in alumno[5]? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 09:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

¿what is the realization of the ⟨m⟩ in words like "álbums" or "films"? ¿does it assimilate to the following consonant's place of articulation as the article seems to suggest happens with "álbum de fotos" or "film de suspense"? Brawlio (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. The correct plural of álbum is álbumes. Film or filme are films or filmes. In my opinion if you don't pronounce final m as /m/ in careful speech you'd pronounce it as [n] or even [ŋ] and/or nasalization of a precedent vowel. Possible pronunciations of the word ítems ('items') are [ˈitẽms], [ˈitẽns], [ˈitẽŋs], [ˈitẽⁿs], etc. (excluding pronunciations where /s/ is omitted) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 08:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really nothing in the literature on this? You only need to watch one (random really) episode of Rebelde to hear many instances of (pre-pausal) [ð]-devoicing in Mexican Spanish. The actors that seem to do it pretty consistently are Ninel Conde and Enrique Rocha. Only yesterday I heard [usˈteθ] and [sjuˈðaθ]. OK, it might not be complete devoicing at all times, but sometimes it is (at other times it's just devoicing of the latter portion of the fricative, compare it with allophonic devoicing of the lenes in English which works just the same). The thing is, Mexicans don't seem to notice it because they lack the extra /θ/ phoneme present in Spain that would make them go "he said ustez" or "she said ciudaz". It's as unconscious as /ɾ/-devoicing, which coincidentally (or not!) occurs in the very same pre-pausal position. As ⟨z⟩ and soft ⟨c⟩ stand for the sibilant /s/ in Mexico, such respellings would make no sense unless you had a lisp (compare /ɑː/ respelled as ⟨aw⟩ in cot-caught-merged American and Canadian English, which makes no sense to Brits and Australians, who have that extra mid back rounded /oː/ vowel that contrasts with unrounded open back-to-central /ɑː ~ aː/).

It appears that MS (or some types of it at least) could have the most complex /d/-allophony of all accents, involving 3 phones in complementary distribution (and no phonetic overlap with other phonemes). Sol505000 (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I share your frustration at not being able to find information on allophonic variation that is not allophonic to you. North Americans seem to have a hard time telling if a /d/ in their own speech is flapped, and I haven't had luck finding sources for the affricate /r/ in Indian English. Nardog (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely heard that before. I'm also reminded of -d becoming [d] or even [t] which happens occasionally in some varieties of formal Colombian Spanish. I vaguely remember there being some sourcing on it. Example here: los dineros en su totalida[t]. Erinius (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have something on the progression of that diphthong? Surely it didn't go from [ɔ] straight to [we], but probably from [ɔ] to [wɔ], unrounded to [wʌ], centralized to [wə] (probably through an intermediate [wʌ̈]) and then fronted to [we]. We have evidence of [wɔ] from Italian, compare Spanish fuego [ˈfweɣo] and Italian fuoco [ˈfwɔːko] with Portuguese fogo [ˈfɔɣu] (and Tuscan [ˈfɔːko], which seems to be more conservative than the Standard Italian opening diphthong [wɔ]). Sol505000 (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There might be something on a page about Romance languages in general, I don't see anything on History of the Spanish language. Also I recall reading somewhere that some Astur-Leonese dialects show some different outcomes of o-diphthongization, like /ua/ or /uo/. In any case that's more diachronic stuff and I think this page's topic is more synchronic. Erinius (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is likely that [wɔ] was an intermediate. I think that information on the historical development could be put at History_of_the_Spanish_language#Diphthongization_in_open_and_closed_syllables. I don't think intermediate steps or the comparison to Italian are very relevant to this page, so I agree with Erinius's rollback.--Urszag (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. What about regional realizations? I'm watching a 2000-01 Champions League game Heerenveen vs. Valencia. The commentators (both of them, working for TVE1) keep saying something like [ˈxwɵɣo ~ ˈxwəɣo] for juego. Surely that's notable, if we had a RS? They're not likely to have a speech impediment, not both of them anyway (on the other hand, we had this guy Leszek Orłowski in Poland who worked for Canal+ and couldn't pronounce his /r/'s, which many people found a bit strange). Sol505000 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. The idea that this Spanish diphthong ends specifically in [e] is the result of studies by philologists, who typically have trouble telling apart spoken language from written language. --Jotamar (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to have information about the current phonetic realization of "ue" in this article. I'm not sure how dialect-specific such pronunciations are: since this article focuses on describing a standardized form of the language, any pronunciation feature that is restricted to regional dialects might be best placed in the "Dialectal variation" section, or in the article Spanish dialects and varieties (which doesn't currently have any coverage of differences in the pronunciation of diphthongs). I have not yet come across a reliable source talking about variation in the pronunciation of "ue" in Spanish, but I see some discussion online, e.g. at fuego, luego (pronunciation) - ue > o (WordReference.com).--Urszag (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[c̠͡ç̠] as the voiceless countepart of ɟʝ? Compare mujer Voiceless_palatal_fricative and kilo Voiceless_palatal_plosive JMGN (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in Asturian? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 23:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the -ada /-ada/ suffix is pronounced [ˈɑðä̝] or [ˈɑ(ː)], so tajada ('chop') is [tɑ̈ˈχɑðä̝] (Northern Peninsular) or [tɑ̈ˈxɑ(ː)] (Southern Peninsular) rather than [tɑˈxa̠ða̠].

• ä̝ approaches to ɐ (like in Galician and Valencian), but it is still lower than the Barcelonan ɐ.
• x might be more emphatic χ in Northern Peninsular, whereas in some Southern Peninsular (but not in Murcia and parts of Eastern Andalusia) accents it is a soft glottal (h).

I believe in most cases these (unstressed) vowels are more centralised. In some varieties they might move slightly (like [ä → ɐ]) and/or further ([ä → ɐ → ə]).[6] — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 23:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuvolet Ojo [ˈo̞ʀ̥o̞] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_uvular_trill JMGN (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's the right allophone 👍, thanks. How about [ˈo̞ʀ̥o̟]? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 01:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per SOWL, the transcription ⟨χ ʁ⟩ doesn't rule out allophonic trilling. It's intermittent/more chaotic than in an underlying rhotic (unless, well, it's a rhotic itself - here it is not). We should differentiate between a fricative that's allophonically trilled (i.e. a phone that's primarily a fricative) vs. a trill with allophonic frication (i.e. something that's primarily a trill) at voiceless uvular fricative and voiced uvular fricative. They're not the same and uvular trills with frication should go to uvular trill and voiceless uvular trill. In diacriticless IPA, I think that the former are usually transcribed ⟨χ ʁ⟩ and the latter just ⟨ʀ⟩, even if it's voiceless (or just ⟨r⟩ - sadly this is still common). That's the usual practice, AFAIK. Sol505000 (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Sol505000. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 11:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Galician, but in Portuguese [ɐ] is significantly less prominent than [a]. I imagine there's a parallel difference in Catalan regarding [ə] vs. [a]. There's no such difference in Spanish, as far as I can tell. The "machine gun" (syllable-timed) effect is very audible, less so in Portuguese which is somewhat closer to English (i.e. reduced vowels are actually reduced in both articulation ([mid-]centralized) AND prominence (sometimes to pure voiceless aspiration - see Portuguese /ɨ/), something that IPA fails to convey - it's not just about quality. IPA fails miserably to convey the stress-timed effect vs. the syllable-timed one. I think ⟨◌͉⟩ (U+0349) could be used for reduced vowels, but that'd be an ad-hoc transcription.) It's one of the reasons European Portuguese "sounds like Russian" (which is stress-timed) and European Spanish "sounds like Greek" (which is syllable-timed), at least to people who speak none of these languages. Sol505000 (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan and Brazilian Portuguese could be intermediates between Spanish (syllable-timed) and European Portuguese/English (stress-timed). Centralisation and vowel reduction (along with vowel harmony, which extends the unstressed vowel system with extra allophones) is a key feature in many Iberian Romance dialects. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 11:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the link I provided with the usage of [ɐ ~ ə] in Bogotá? I believe inner (as well as Northern) Mexico and the highlands in South America tend to have some (sort of) reduced vowels which approach them to the intermediate systems between syllable-timed and stress-timed. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 11:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]