text:
Talk:U.S. News & World Report

Untitled
This page definitely needs more expansion. I marked it as a magazine stub. --Koblentz 12:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Richard Roy University doesn't seem real to me.

 * Are there international editions of U.S. News & World Report in different languages? =)   Jumping cheese  Contact 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The main overview should include the company's mission. I would like to insert "Its mission is to help people make the best decisions." after the first sentence and link to this page: https://www.usnews.com/about-us to ensure the public knows where to find that information on the company website. Katemodonnell (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

History
The USN&WR Magazine Archive web page claims there were 3 predecessor titles that started in 1926. Source -> https://www.ebscohost.com/archives/magazine-archives/us-news-and-world-report-magazine-archive--OctaviaGraystone (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * United States Daily, 1926-1933.
 * United States News, 1933-1948
 * World Report, 1946-1948
 * U.S. News & World Report, 1948-1984

Correction
The new editor is Brian Kelly not Brian Duffy. Source -> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/staff.htm

Media Bias
I'm curious to know where US News and World Report Falls on the media bias contiuum.

71.208.200.101 19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 * It tends to be conservative. EIFY (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get this into the article somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.98.78 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Extremely liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
This material is unsourced. It needs references and citations before being restored back to the article. -Classicfilms 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics claim that annual fluctuations in rankings are driven by the magazine's desire to generate news and increase circulation, and not by real changes in the quality of a given institution. Moreover, twenty-five percent of each institution's ranking is based on a peer assessment survey completed by college presidents and administrators. While U.S. News asserts that this "allows the top academics we contact to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching", it is unclear what basis college presidents and administrators have for making these assessments for more than a handful of institutions. Regardless of the basis for these administrators' assessments, this process reflects what colleges and administrators think of institutions. However, the U.S. News survey does not measure employer satisfaction with newly minted college graduates.

Because the U.S. News rankings measure an institution's educational practices and curricular offerings indirectly at best, alternative survey instruments have been developed to identify institutions that routinely provide enriching educational and social experiences and environments for their students. An example of such a survey is the National Survey of Student Engagement. This survey currently is used at a relatively small number of colleges, however, and many of those that use it do not make their results public.

A few institutions, most notably Reed College, have refused to cooperate with U.S. News's data-gathering efforts because of concerns about the ways that such ratings schemes lead institutions to distort their priorities and resource allocations in order to boost their rankings. U.S. News has come under fire for its rankings of graduate programs as well. Almost all of the deans from American Bar Association-accredited law schools signed a letter sent by the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) decrying the ranking methodology. Detractors of U.S. News say their rankings rely too much on "subjective" factors. Regardless, U.S. News continues to rank law schools down to the 4th tier, despite only ranking the top 50 schools in other professions, such as medical schools or MBA programs.

Supporters of the U.S. News college rankings argue that they condense a wide variety of useful information for prospective students and their families. One by-product of the rankings' increased profile has been the development of standardized definitions of many of the quality indicators that U.S. News and other guidebooks publish. The most notable of these is the Common Data Set, a data template devised by several guidebook publishers to standardize their annual collecting of data from college and university institutional researchers.

In addition to the newsstand issue, the rankings are elaborated in America's Best Colleges, a college guide published by U.S. News in print and online. The commercial success of the U.S. News rankings has spawned similar efforts at other publications, including Newsweek, the Atlantic Monthly and the Times Higher Education Supplement. Although an explanation of methodology accompanies the rankings, U.S. News has not revealed the formula it uses for determining them. Much of the raw data used in the rankings is provided by institutional researchers at colleges and universities.

The magazine also ranks hospitals annually in various specialties.

College rankings
It seems like a disproportional amount of the page is devoted to the college rankings. Actually, only the intro section is not about college rankings. I suggest that the college ranking sections to be edited down or expand on the history and current status of U.S. News. Jumping  cheese  19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, seeing as there is already in article devoted to college rankings, this section is far to long and should be dramatically reduced or even removed.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I removed some material - if I removed something that you think should be there, go ahead and restore. -Classicfilms 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I took out the table of rankings but it was restored by another editor - so perhaps that should stay. If it does, the formatting needs fixing.-Classicfilms 19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Personally I'd cut the whole ratings thing down to one short paragraph, since it is not proportional to all the magazine is and does, which should be on this page. If the rankings are really that notable, put them in their own article and main over to it.  --J Clear 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea - the magazine is known for its rankings, and the criticism is current news (which makes it notable) so mention of both subsections should appear as short paragraphs - and both have main links already . As for the table, maybe it should be moved to another page for tables related to rankings. -Classicfilms 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Honestly, the college ranking system is the only thing us world and nes report is known for, because it's such an awful magazine. Not to say that the rankings arent awful too, because they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.23.253 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Monthly & Internet Publication
First, I dropped the UPI reference entirely, as it has been two months since the announcement and the website still features plenty of news on it - there is no evidence of a complete shift to consumer guides. Second, I clicked on the subscription link and they're still selling print subscriptions, albeit for no more than a year at the most. That tells me they're going ahead with the some print schedule - they're not all internet yet. Recent comments by the editor are silent on the entire topic.

Secondly, the Times reference cites anonymous sources, so you can't say "the magazine announced" any more.

If anyone disagrees, please discuss here before changing the article. Thanks.

--KNHaw (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mideast Conflict
Information on the publication's views on the Mideast conflict would be rather useful. ADM (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

List of hospitals
WP probably should not reprint the list itself, although this is a borderline copyright issue.Borock (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you are correct, it is a copyright issue, even if it's "borderline". Second, even if USNWR doesn't complain, this might be due to its being grateful for the "advertising" i.e. the "endorsement of inclusion": why is it the function of WP to include this list in this way? Third, the Wikipedia article's presentation currently has no encyclopedic contextualization of the merits of the USNWR ranking based on any cited independent WP:RS, so the list at an intellectual level stands only as an "advert without analysis". Given the state of things at USNWR, the sources within the reference list indicate that it's actually RTI International - unfortunately a research organization which has numerous other arms that have commercial ties to many of the types of teaching hospital systems it endorses - that does the work that USNWR then puts to print. There's a little guesswork as to whether the list gets proper, accountable editorial review at any level, and whether any of the "rules and statistical trimming procedures" USNWR/RTI use for the process have been assessed for relevancy or merit (in the citation, USNWR says the rules are "complex"... perhaps a euphemism for "arbitrary and unsubstantiated"...?) or, indeed, how to apply the list practically. In fact, the non-independent citations from the USNWR indicate an opinion that the list is relevant for the complex / elderly patient with recurrent problems and imply it isn't relevant for routine healthcare (but I don't see that information in the Wikipedia article, and I'd have thought it's that that should be there, rather than the list itself without a relevancy / applicability assessment...). Also, it's no surprise that given the "specific" methodology of the USNWR list there is almost complete discordance from the line up in "Improving America's Hospitals: The Joint Commission's Annual Report on Quality and Safety, 2012." This point has been dutifully reported by Robert Lowes Sept 20, 2012 "Joint Commission's Top-Hospital List Still Missing Big Names" available at [www.medscape.com/viewarticle/771280]. Robert Lowes's article points out that the discrepancy between these lists is due to methodology. The JC process claims to be based on meaningful parameters of quality. The Wikipedia article's treatment of the USNWR list is at present grossly incomplete and unencyclopedic, a oversimplified "endorsement of inclusion". To restate that, the current content is "duplication of the raw source data rather than actionable encyclopedic information" and as such it amounts to a subtle (not so subtle) advertorial. I will cull the list (but I will leave the reference to the USNWR web material, because that's much more complete and readers can adjudicate it for themselves) in the next week or two unless a viable counter-argument emerges as to including the list as currently presented. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the list itself due to the concerns I previously laid out (above), kept the reference links thereto, amplified the background methodological conceptualization that underpins the list as explained by the USNWR citation, and further amplified that USNWR statement by adding a citation to Robert Lowes's Sept 20, 2012 article in Medscape Medical News. The section could be further improved by further independent WP:RS, as per guidelines. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the print edition totally D.O.A.?
This entry seems to suggest that the magazine still exists in print form aside from its special education, hospital. etc. reports. My understanding is that it's solely a website nowadays. Isn't this correct? [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:4E2:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Italicization
Is there a reason that the name of the magazine is not italicized? Here is what the opening looks like as of today:

"U.S. News & World Report is an American media company that publishes consumer advice, rankings and analysis. Founded as a news weekly magazine in 1933, U.S. News transitioned to primarily web-based publishing in 2010. U.S. News is best known today for its influential Best Colleges and Best Hospitals rankings, but it has expanded its content and product offerings in education, health, money, careers, travel, and cars."

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Never mind - Looking at this again, it seems that when the phrase "U.S. News & World Report" is used as the name of a periodical it is italicized, but when it is used as a business name it is not. KConWiki (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-sacks/americas-best-college-sca_b_45064.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Split college rankings to U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking
I noticed your reverts on U.S. News & World Report, and mistakenly even sent you a Thank you for the first one. However, the categories are not more accurate as you say. If it is still an online magazine – and it isn't only categorized as such, but also looks like one – then it has not been disestablished, and is not defunct. It also isn't a "University and college ranking". Secondly, the rankings content has been split apart to U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking, where material from multiple pages could be combined into a more comprehensive article on that particular ranking. Even though it may be an important publication for U.S. News & World Report, it was given WP:UNDUE weight before, completely dominating the whole article on a magazine with a history going back to 1933. A short summary on the college rankings, combined with a link to the more specific article is not just good enough, but clearly preferable. I hope you can see why I'm restoring my edits. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Your revert is not justified, part of it is moderately disruptive, while part of your reasoning is at odds with relevant guidelines and good practice, see for a primer WP:Splitting. But while I usually do care about many things here, I don't care enough about this crappy article to go into an edit-war with you. Earlier or later someone else will raise similar questions and might be more interested in arguing with you. Bye, PanchoS (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the college rankings are what US News is known for and are the biggest part of its current business. As such, there is no undue weight. You're free to add stuff to other pages specifically dedicated to the rankings, but the existence of those pages does not qualify the removal of the college rankings content from this page. Further, I noticed you invented a category: US News & World Report.  A company is not a category.  Do you work for US News?--TDJankins (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, this is really funny. Look at my track record, please. I'm neither a fan of that company's rankings, nor of its crappy reporting. Actually, I'm not even particularly interested in American media. Geographically, I could be the company's Central Europe correspondent, except that it probably doesn't have a representation here.
 * P.S. Actually, the very same issue has been raised by before, see . Also pinging the other participants there,,  and . Discuss the issue with them – I'm out here. --PanchoS (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just saw the ping - my comments were made quite some time ago, so I had to really review the current edits to bring myself to date. I stand by the comments I made above which is somewhat in the middle of either side. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090312045445/http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com:80/cars-trucks/Best-Cars-for-the-Money/ to http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Best-Cars-for-the-Money/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016005625/http://www.usnews.com/info/articles/2013/05/17/celebrating-80-years to http://www.usnews.com/info/articles/2013/05/17/celebrating-80-years
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150910200336/http://upstart.bizjournals.com/companies/media/2009/01/23/us-news-launching-digital-newsweekly.html?page=all to http://upstart.bizjournals.com/companies/media/2009/01/23/us-news-launching-digital-newsweekly.html?page=all
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927040044/http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=64 to http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=64
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030044444/http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/overview to http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/overview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702061309/http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2007/6/22/about-the-annapolis-groups-statement.html to https://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2007/6/22/about-the-annapolis-groups-statement.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823184901/http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/CollegeRankingsReformed.pdf to http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/CollegeRankingsReformed.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Best High Schools
Has anyone found any criticism of the Best High Schools rankings?

I have personally visited TJHS for Sci/Tech (historically ranked 1 by USN&WR a few times) and talked to one of the tenured teachers there - he'd been there since the school was opened and run (for the first few years) by the asst Supe of Ed for Fairfax County. In fact, my son and I got locked in since we were there well past the end of the Open House listening and asking questions.

Pretty eye opening... he mentioned something about selling my son and I a bridge if we believed the USN&WR fodder. I was curious as to any credible refuting of it's rankings. Wamnet (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Best countries for comfort and silence for citizens
The table contains the list of best countries for comfort and silence for citizens. The countries are listed by their scores below. 173.2.89.144 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Best countries for citizens to live and work
The table contains the list of best countries for citizens to live and work. The countries are listed by their scores below.

Power types
This is the list of countries by power type. The countries are classified as powers in the table.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:U.S. News & World Report


text:
Talk:R. K. Narayan

Narayan's other brother
How has this article made no mention of R. K. Ramachandran, the younger brother of Narayan and older brother of Lakshman? It's not like he was obscure for so many years; he worked at Gemini Studios. -- Kailash29792   (talk)  11:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:R. K. Narayan


text:
Bendir

The bendir (بندير, bindīr; : بنادير, binādīr) is a wooden-framed frame drum of North Africa and Southwest Asia.

The bendir is a traditional instrument that is played throughout North Africa, as well as in Sufi ceremonies; it was played, too, in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. In Turkish, the word bendir means "a big hand frame drum".

Construction and play

The bandir often has a snare (usually made of gut) stretched across the head, which gives the tone a buzzing quality when the drum is struck with the fingers or palm. The drum is played in a vertical position. One holds the drum by looping the thumb of the non-dominant hand through a hole in the frame.

Similar frame drums include the tar of Egypt and the bodhrán of Ireland. Unlike the bendir, the tar does not have a snare on the back of the frame, and the bodhrán is played with a beater.

title: Bendir


text:
1912 Triangular Tournament

The 1912 Triangular Tournament was a Test cricket competition played between Australia, England and South Africa, the only Test-playing nations at the time.

The ultimate winners of the tournament were England, with four wins in their six matches, but the tournament was deemed a failure, with disappointing crowds and uncompetitive cricket, caused in part by a weakened Australia team.

The tournament was the first tournament in Test history to be played between more than two nations. It was the only such tournament until the Asian Test Championships of 1998–99 and 2001–02, and the ICC World Test Championship which began in 2019.

Background
The idea of a competition involving all three of the nations then playing Test cricket (Australia, England and South Africa) was proposed at the first meeting of the Imperial Cricket Council in July, 1909. The original proposal was for a tournament to be held every four years, with the first hosted by England in 1912.

For a variety of reasons, the tournament was not a success. The summer was one of the wettest since records began in 1766: rainfall in the three months of June, July and August was more than twice the annual average, and August, 1912, was the coldest, dullest and wettest August of the 20th century. At that time, pitches were not covered to protect them against rain, so the batsmen were at a distinct disadvantage on the proverbial sticky wicket. These problems were exacerbated since Tests in England were in those days played over three days rather than the five days that is now usual. Two of the matches between England and Australia were drawn due to the weather, with the final match being played on a pitch said to be "better suited to water polo".

In addition, disputes between the players and management in Australia meant that six leading Australian players refused to tour (including the captain, Clem Hill, and Victor Trumper, neither of whom played for Australia again), weakening a side that had otherwise been level with England in recent Ashes series. The leg spin and googly bowlers in the South African side were very effective on the matting pitches then in use in South Africa, but were less threatening on English grass pitches. As a result, England dominated, winning four of their six matches and drawing the other two.

Finally, the British public showed little interest: in the words of The Daily Telegraph:  "Nine Tests provide a surfeit of cricket, and contests between Australia and South Africa are not a great attraction to the British public."

The tournament was so unsuccessful that it has never been repeated. The idea of a tournament of international cricket matches between more than two countries was not repeated, outside of regional tournaments in East Africa and the West Indies, until the invention of One Day International cricket and the first Cricket World Cup in 1975. The only other Test cricket tournaments in history were the Asian Test Championships played in 1998–99 and 2001–02, which were also not great successes, until the ICC World Test Championship began in 2019.

Teams

 * England
 * C. B. Fry (captain)
 * Jack Hobbs
 * Wilfred Rhodes
 * Reginald Spooner
 * Frank Woolley
 * Johnny Douglas
 * Jack Hearne
 * Pelham Warner
 * Frank Foster
 * Schofield Haigh
 * Tiger Smith
 * Sydney Barnes
 * Gilbert Jessop
 * Harry Dean
 * Ernie Hayes
 * Bill Hitch
 * Walter Brearley

 * Australia
 * Syd Gregory (captain)
 * Warren Bardsley
 * Barlow Carkeek
 * Sid Emery
 * Gerry Hazlitt
 * Claude Jennings
 * Charles Kelleway
 * John McLaren
 * Charlie Macartney
 * Jimmy Matthews
 * Edgar Mayne
 * Roy Minnett
 * David Smith
 * Harold Webster
 * Bill Whitty

 * South Africa
 * Frank Mitchell (captain)
 * Louis Tancred (captain)
 * Rolland Beaumont
 * Tom Campbell
 * Claude Carter
 * Joe Cox
 * Aubrey Faulkner
 * Gerald Hartigan
 * Charles Llewellyn
 * Dave Nourse
 * Sid Pegler
 * Reggie Schwarz
 * Sibley Snooke
 * Louis Stricker
 * Herbie Taylor
 * Tommy Ward
 * Gordon White

Notable incidents
Perhaps the most notable incident of the series was Australian bowler Jimmy Matthews taking two hat-tricks in the same Test match, one in each innings of the opening match against South Africa, the only time a bowler has taken two hat-tricks in the same Test.

First match: Australia v South Africa at Old Trafford, 27–28 May 1912

 * Report
 * Australia batted first, completing their first innings score of 448 on the first day, with centuries for Charles Kelleway and Warren Bardsley. Sid Pegler took 6 wickets for 105 runs. South Africa were 16 for 1 at the close.
 * South Africa were bowled out for 265 on the second day (with a century for Aubrey Faulkner, and Bill Whitty taking 5 wickets for 55 runs). They were within 30 runs of saving the follow on when Jimmy Matthews took a hat-trick to dismiss the last three batsmen.  183 runs behind, the South Africans were asked to bat again, and were bowled out again on the same day for 95 (Kelleway taking 5 for 33).  Matthews took a second hat-trick in the second innings.
 * Australian bowler Jimmy Matthews took a double hat-trick, one in each of South Africa's innings, both hat-tricks being taken on the same day, 28 May 1912. Matthews took no other wickets in the match.
 * South Africa's debutant wicket-keeper Tommy Ward was Matthews' 3rd victim in both innings. Ward's is the only known instance of a king pair on debut in Test cricket.

Second match: England v South Africa at Lord's, 10–12 Jun 1912

 * Report
 * For the first time in a Test match, extras top scored in an innings.
 * Heavy rain in the week before the match delayed the start on the first day until after 3pm, and then batting conditions were treacherous. South Africa were all out for 58 in their first innings within 90 minutes.  Frank Foster and Sydney Barnes bowled 26.1 overs unchanged, taking 5 wickets each.  England's opening batsmen Jack Hobbs and Wilfred Rhodes found the conditions much easier to cope with, and England were 122 for 1 at the close.
 * On a sunny second day, Reggie Spooner scored 119, and Frank Woolley 73, with Pegler taking 7 for 65. England were all out for 337, with a first innings lead of 279 runs.  South Africa were 114 for 4 at the close.
 * South Africa were bowled out for 217 on the third day, with Charlie Llewellyn scoring 75 and Barnes taking another 6 wickets.

Third match: England v Australia at Lord's, 24–26 Jun 1912

 * Report
 * The match was ruined by the weather. Only about 3 hours were played on the first day due to two interruptions for rain.  Play was not too difficult on the wet pitch to begin with, but became treacherous as the pitch dried.  At the close, England were on 211/4.  England added 30 runs in 20 minutes on the second day.
 * The third day was sunny, and England declared at 310 for 7 (Hobbs 107).
 * In reply, Australia made 282 for 7 before rain ended play, playing defensively to avoid defeat. Charlie Macartney scored 99 runs before being caught out, becoming only the third player in Test cricket to be dismissed one run short of a century.

Fourth match: England v South Africa at Headingley, 8–10 Jul 1912

 * Report
 * England were bowled out for 242 in their first innings (Woolley 57; Dave Nourse 4/52) before the end of the first day's play, and South Africa were 141/8 at the close.
 * South Africa were all out for 147 on the second day (Pegler 35; Barnes 6/52), and England added 238 in their second innings (Spooner 82; Aubrey Faulkner 4/50).
 * Having set South Africa a target of 334 to win, they reached 105/7 at the close of the second day's play, and were bowled out again for 159 on the third day (Louis Tancred 39, Barnes 4/63).

Fifth match: Australia v South Africa at Lord's, 15–17 Jul 1912

 * Report
 * South Africa were bowled out for 263 on the first day (Herbie Taylor 93; Bill Whitty 4/68), and Australia were 88/2 at the close.
 * Australia reached 390 all out on the second day, 127 runs ahead, with centuries for Kelleway and Warren Bardsley (his 164 being the highest score in the tournament) and four wickets for Pegler. South Africa were 146/8 at the close.
 * After bowling South Africa out for 173 on the third day (Llewellyn 59; Matthews 4/29), setting a target of 47 to win. Claude Jennings and debutant Ernie Mayne reached 48 runs for no loss within half an hour, to win the match.

Sixth match: England v Australia at Old Trafford, 29–31 Jul 1912

 * Report
 * In a rain affected match, play started at nearly 3pm on the first day, and around 5pm on the second day. With less than 110 overs possible over three days, England reached 185/6 at the end of the first day, and were all out for 203 (Wilf Rhodes 92; Gerry Hazlitt 4/77 and Bill Whitty 4/43) on the second day.
 * Australia reached 14 for no loss before no further play was possible on the remainder of the second day or on the third day, and the match was drawn.

Seventh match: Australia v South Africa at Trent Bridge, 5–7 Aug 1912

 * Report
 * Despite a sodden pitch, cloudy weather allowed South Africa to reach 266/8 at the end of the first day. They were dismissed for 329 (Nourse 64), and the second day closed with Australia all out for 219 (Bardsley 56, Pegler 4/80).   No play was possible on the third day.

Eighth match: England v South Africa at The Oval, 12–13 Aug 1912

 * Report
 * In a low-scoring match, South Africa were bowled out for 95, with five wickets each for Barnes and Woolley. England reached 176 and then bowled South Africa out again for 93 (Barnes bowling unchanged to take 8/29), setting England a target of 13 runs to win.  Jack Hobbs and Young Jack Hearne took only 27 balls to score 14 for no loss before lunch on the second day, to win by 10 wickets.

Ninth match: England v Australia at The Oval, 19–22 Aug 1912

 * Report
 * The tournament rules did not anticipate that two teams could complete their matches with the same number of wins and therefore contained no tie-breaking conditions. Therefore, to ensure an overall winner, the match was played as a timeless Test, with the 3-day time limit removed. Regardless, the match finished during the fourth day.
 * Despite heavy rain the day before the match, England reached 223/8 on the first day. There was only $1 1/2$ hours play on the second day due to rain, during which England were dismissed for 245, with half centuries for Jack Hobbs and Frank Woolley and four wickets each for Bill Whitty and Roy Minnett.  Australia were 51/2 when play was abandoned for the day.
 * Australia were dismissed for 111 on the third day, with five wickets each for Barnes and Woolley and only Kelleway and Bardsley reaching double figures. The last 7 wickets fell for 21 runs  England lost two quick wickets after lunch but batting became easier after a further rain delay and England were 64/4 at the close, 198 runs ahead.
 * England were dismissed on the fourth day for 175 in their second innings, with CB Fry scoring 79 and Gerry Hazlitt taking 7/25. Needing 310 to win the match and the tournament, Australia were dismissed for just 65, with again only two batsmen reaching double figures (opener Claude Jennings and number 3 Charles Macartney), Woolley taking 5/20 and Harry Dean 4/19.

title: 1912 Triangular Tournament


text:
User:Sdolan

This is my wiki page!

title: User:Sdolan


text:
Welcome Mr. Marshall!

Welcome Mr. Marshall! (¡Bienvenido, Mister Marshall!) is a 1953 Spanish comedy film directed by Luis García Berlanga, and considered one of the masterpieces of Spanish cinema. The film highlights the stereotypes held by both the Spanish and the Americans regarding the culture of the other, as well as displays social criticism of 1950s Francoist Spain (showing a typical Spanish village, with typical inhabitants: a priest, the majority of the population that are peasants, the mayor, and a hidalgo). The film was entered into the 1953 Cannes Film Festival. It was the first full-length film Berlanga directed alone.

Plot
A small Castilian town, Villar del Río is alerted to an upcoming visit of American diplomats; the town begins preparations to impress the American visitors, in the hopes of benefiting under the Marshall Plan. Hoping to demonstrate the side of Spanish culture with which the visiting American officials will be most accustomed, the citizens don unfamiliar Andalusian costumes, hire a renowned flamenco performer, and re-decorate their town in Andalusian style. A flamenco impresario (Manolo Morán) who spent time in Boston advises the locals to think of what they will ask from the Americans.

On the eve of the Americans' visit, three of the central characters dream of stereotypical American culture and history, based uniquely on their lives and experiences. The mayor dreams of a Western-like bar brawl, the hidalgo dreams of the arrival of a conquistador on New World shores, and the priest sees the hoods of a Holy Week procession turn into Klansmen dragging him before the Committee on Un-American Activities accompanied by jazz music. Also, a poorer man dreams that the Americans, shown as the Three Kings, fly over his field and parachute a new tractor into his field.

The day of the Americans' visit arrives and the whole town is prepared to put on a show. However, the American motorcade speeds through the village without stopping. The locals are left to remove the decorations and pay for the expenses with their personal belongings, including the flamenco impresario who gives up a gold ring given to him by the Americans in Boston.

Production
Initially, Berlanga was commissioned to make a film to serve as a vehicle for the budding flamenco singer Lolita Sevilla, but Berlanga decided to give the film a deeper, more satirical meaning. In creating Welcome Mr. Marshall!, Berlanga publicly claimed to offer a human picture of what the Spanish peasant, interested more in crops than in politics, might feel about the American people and their role in the post-war world. Underneath the surface, the film is an anti-Francoist satire despite receiving approval because the censorship board understood it to be an anti-American satire.

Berlanga chose to film in the small village of Guadalix de la Sierra, fifty miles north of Madrid. Villagers were cast as themselves, taking all but the principal roles and changing many of the scenes. During the scene in which townspeople lined up to state their hearts' desires, they ignored the script and asked for what they actually wanted.

Shooting lasted ten weeks with a production budget of $70,000 ($780,000 in 2022 dollars).

Influence
The title is often mentioned in discussions of American investment in Spain as a caveat against delusion. An example is the 2012-2013 Eurovegas project.

The film is one of the influences on the 2019 Spanish comedy film The Little Switzerland.

Cast

 * Fernando Rey as Narrator (voice)
 * José Isbert as Don Pablo, the mayor, a hearing-impaired old man
 * Lolita Sevilla as Carmen Vargas, a flamenco artist from Andalusia
 * Alberto Romea as Don Luis, the hidalgo
 * Manolo Morán as Manolo, the scheming agent for Carmen Vargas
 * Luis Pérez de León as Don Cosme, the priest, concerned about the American heretics
 * Elvira Quintillá as Miss Eloísa, the teacher
 * Félix Fernández as Don Emiliano, the doctor
 * Nicolás D. Perchicot as the pharmacist (as Nicolás Perchicot)
 * Joaquín Roa as the town crier
 * Fernando Aguirre as the secretary
 * José Franco as the general delegate
 * Rafael Alonso as the enviado
 * José María Rodríguez as José
 * Elisa Méndez as Doña Raquel
 * Matilde López Roldán as Doña Matilde

Reception
Welcome Mr. Marshall! received positive reviews by critics and was immensely popular among Spanish audiences, garnering enough praise to gain entry to the Cannes Film Festival. According to Peter Besas, a Madrid correspondent for Variety, the film was denied an award at Cannes when a judge, the actor Edward G. Robinson, under threat from Senator Joseph McCarthy, vetoed it as anti-American. Despite this, Welcome Mr. Marshall! received a Special Mention.

In April 1953, Jane Cianfarra of the New York Times anticipated that the film would "do big things" for what she referred to as "Spain's slumbering film industry" as well as for the future careers of Berlanga and Bardem. In 1993, film critic Stephen Holden observed that "although more than 40 years old, this funny compassionate little fable has an ebullience and freshness that transcend its historical context."

title: Welcome Mr. Marshall!


text:
Chester Williams

Chester Mornay Williams (8 August 1970 – 6 September 2019) was a South African rugby union player. He played as a winger for the South Africa national rugby union team (Springboks) from 1993 to 2000, most notably for the team that won the 1995 Rugby World Cup, which was hosted in South Africa. He was the only non-white player on the team. During the tournament he scored four tries for South Africa in its quarter-final match and also appeared in the semi-final and final. Domestically he played rugby for the Western Province in the Currie Cup.

After retiring, Williams pursued a career in coaching, including a spell with the South Africa national rugby sevens team, the Uganda national rugby union team, and the University of the Western Cape. He was portrayed by McNeil Hendricks in the 2009 Clint Eastwood film Invictus, a biographical sports drama film about the events in South Africa before and during the 1995 Rugby World Cup, and he also helped to coach Matt Damon and other actors for the rugby scenes used in the film. Williams died from a suspected heart attack on 6 September 2019 at the age of 49.

International
Williams is best known as the star winger of the South Africa national Springbok team that won the 1995 Rugby World Cup against New Zealand and was nicknamed "The Black Pearl". Williams was selected in the initial squad, but had to withdraw due to injury. He was later called back into the squad and played in the quarter-final, scoring four tries, followed by the semi-final and the final against New Zealand, which South Africa won 15–12.

Williams was 1.74 m tall with a playing weight of 84 kg. He was the first non-white player to be included in the Springboks squad since Errol Tobias and his uncle Avril Williams in the early 1980s. The selection of non-white players was not common in South Africa before 1992 because of the country's policy of apartheid, and there were separate governing bodies for whites, blacks, and coloureds.

He made his debut for the Springboks at the age of 23 against Argentina on 13 November 1993 in Buenos Aires, a game that the Springboks went on to win 52–23 and in which he also scored a try. Williams was on the Springboks team that won the 1995 Rugby World Cup, notably scoring four tries against Western Samoa in the quarter-finals. His Boks career, hampered by knee injuries in 1996 and 1997, ended with a 23–13 win against Wales on 26 November 2000 in Cardiff. In total he played 27 games for the Springboks, scoring 14 tries and a total of 70 points. His honours included a Currie Cup win in 1999, with the Golden Lions, a Tri-Nations title in 1998 (albeit that he only made two short appearances as substitute) and the World Cup win in 1995.

Provincial
Domestically, Williams played rugby with the Western Province, appearing 63 times between 1991 and 1998, wearing jersey number 11. He then went on to win the Currie Cup with the Golden Lions in 1999.

Test history
World Cup Final

Biography
In 2002, Williams released his controversial authorised biography, simply titled Chester, in which he claimed that he was shunned by some of his team mates in the 1995 Springbok squad and was called racist names by James Small, though he later clarified, "When we were together as a team, the team-spirit was good. We partied together, we had fun together, we stuck by one another. Those other things happened while we were playing against one another in the Currie Cup or domestic competitions. But that's in the past now. We have all moved on and everybody's happy."

Clint Eastwood directed Invictus, which is about the 1995 Rugby World Cup and how it helped South Africa heal after years of apartheid. It features many scenes involving Chester, portrayed by McNeil Hendricks, including his face on the side of an SAA aeroplane. It also showed several scenes showing black children in South Africa idolising him, although author John Carlin has questioned the accuracy of this as Williams in fact identified as coloured rather than black. Carlin also wrote that during the team's visit to a township, Mark Andrews had attracted more attention than Williams as he was able to speak Xhosa. Williams himself worked as one of the film's rugby coaches, alongside Dubai-based coach Rudolf de Wee, a childhood friend whom he recruited to the film. Williams and de Wee worked with the actors, including Matt Damon, in recreating the games depicted in the film.

Williams was selected to carry the Olympic torch on behalf of South Africa on two occasions, the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, and the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.

In 2010, Williams completed the Absa Cape Epic mountain bike stage race, joining several former Springbok Rugby players who have also taken on the rugged challenge of the Untamed African MTB Race.

Williams died on 6 September 2019, at the age of 49, from a suspected heart attack. He was the fourth player from the 1995 world-cup-winning side to die, after Ruben Kruger, Joost van der Westhuizen, and James Small, the last having died two months before Williams.

Coaching career
In 2001 Williams was selected as the coach of the South African sevens team that won bronze at the 2002 Commonwealth Games and ended runners up in the World Sevens Series. He remained sevens coach until 2003.

Despite having almost no experience at coaching the fifteen-man code at any senior level, Williams was mentioned as one of the possible successors to Springbok coach Rudolf Straeuli after he resigned in 2003, but the job was given to Jake White in 2004. He became coach of the Cats Super 12 team instead. He remained coach until July 2005 when he was fired after a series of poor results, when the Cats finished next-to-last in the 2005 super 12, achieving only one victory. However, in 2006, he was brought back into the South African coaching ranks as the head coach of the national "A" side (a developmental side for the Boks). Also in 2006, he spent a successful few months as coach of the Uganda national rugby union team, the Cranes.

He was named as the new coach of the Pumas, the team representing Mpumalanga in the Currie Cup, on 7 September 2006. He signed a two-year deal with the team, effective 1 October 2006, but resigned as coach in mid-2007. When White stepped down as the national coach in 2008, Williams was again in the running to replace him, but the job instead went to Peter de Villiers.

Williams lastly was head coach of University of the Western Cape in Varsity Rugby. Under his leadership UWC won the 2017 Varsity Shield competition.

title: Chester Williams


text:
Talk:Spanish orthography

b and v
"The letters b and v were originally simply known as be and ve. However, as Spanish doesn't distinguish between these sounds, it is necessary to add something to the names to tell them apart. "

This is completely false. The prnounciation of "b" and "v" are different. The problem is that the sounds are so closely related that people get confused. "B" is pronounced using both lips, while "V" is pronounced with the lower lip touching the upper teeth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.142.220 (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * What Spanish-speaking region are you from, or what dialect do you speak? In the dialects I have heard, vaca is pronounced with both lips and no teeth, while cabeza is pronounced with the lower lip touching the upper teeth.  That is, the pronunciation doesn't depend on whether the letter is b or v, but on whether the letter is the first in the word or between vowels.  Rod (A. Smith) 17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This B is be, & V is ve, it's proper they remain different but this is due a blurring of the letters in some regions especially the less educated ones. --72.38.211.144 (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As a Spanish from Spain (and I'd say from an 'educated' region as it is Madrid, working for a university) I should say that nowhere in Spain, as far as I know, there is a dialect where b and v are pronounced different. Askateth [|Askateth]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.216.86 (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a matter of where Spanish is spoken? Perhaps in modern "Spanish" Spanish, b and v are equivalent, but I was raised speaking Mexican Spanish, and I pronounce b and v differently, inclusively, I hear a difference when other speakers use it. I say "vete" for "leave," and "ver" for "see." I say "Vamos a ver," and "Viva la vida." If somebody pronounced any of these words as they do b, I can tell a difference, and I would think there was something funny with their pronunciation. Just my two cents...Solar3939 (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

 * 'Something funny with their pronunciation'? I suppose you laugh at the TV every time you watch the news, it's the standard pronunciation in Mexico... Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually (I don't know in spain) in school teachers always make the distinction of B and V pronunciation, being the 1st one bilabial /b/ and the 2nd one labiodental /v/, it's in spoken vulgar spanish that those two merges but not to one sound, it's just interchangeable and adding /β/ for both, all depends on the dialect and how much you care to pronounce well.--Akhshiel (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Care to provide citations? This looks like a description of a strongly non-standard pronunciation, or perhaps a regional standard (Paraguayan Spanish?). Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To see what the Royal Academy's Diccionario panhispánico de dudas says about b and v, go to  and read section 3, the paragraph that begins with "No existe en español diferencia alguna en la pronunciación de las letras b y v." Where is the corresponding documentation of a b/v contrast? Kotabatubara (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Merger request
I just created this by moving out the text from Spanish language. Spanish orthography redirects here. However, silly me, I didn't check beforehand that Spanish alphabet is already a full article, with content overlapping this one all over the place. I'm requesting a merge (into this one, since the title seems to cover more ground that "alphabet"). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

IPA mess
Who did the original IPA on this page? It's a mess. I'm going in and fixing it. Should have it done today but if not don't revert without a reason for the insane number of diacriticals (which, even if they had much to do with the Spanish system, for simply giving the name of letters in a language with as many dialects as Spanish is rather overkill). Every single a is listed as ä, which whilst technically is centralised as realised in Spanish, it's not normal represented as such in IPA (just a normal a does fine). Ditto for e, which is always shown as being lowered, the s as laminal (which is simply s, except in Castilian where it is apico-dental). The t doesn't need a dental diacritic -- it's already dental, and since it doesn't contrast we don't need it mentioned. The g is only in certain dialects and in certain conditions realised as ɰ, but that doesn't happen in the word grande (in bueno, as güeno, it is). *sigh* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guifa (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Previous reforms
I've been doing some reading which includes excerpts of old documents about the time of the Conquest of Mexico and I'm seeing both systemtic and random differences to modern Spanish orthography. I cannot find anything on Wikipedia about anything but the current orthography. I would like to know if there were previous reforms, what those changed, or if Spanish orthography was unruly until recently. Any details greatly appreciated! — Hippietrail 03:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Examples of systematic differences:
 * á for modern a
 * muger for modern mujer
 * coraçon for modern corazón
 * dixo for modern dijo
 * ansí for modern así
 * mas for modern más
 * Examples of non-systematic differences:
 * é or i for modern y
 * io for modern yo
 * Letter v in many places taken by modern b
 * Letters u and v are interchangeable
 * Many missing modern acute accents

I'm cross-posting this question to Talk:Spanish language since this page seems to receive little traffic. — Hippietrail 16:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical overview
The history of the spelling reforms of Spanish is ancient, rich, and interesting. The Spanish Royal Academy led the way in eliminating etymological fads from European languages. This topic deserves to be expanded.

Corta
Translate the Spanish word "corta" into English. (It says that "ve corta" is a name of v.) Georgia guy 01:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

short.--AleG 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

b and v
they almost sound the same
 * Mexican Americans are using the V sound more often due to English influence.

WRONG: ORGININALLY THE LETTERS BE & VE WERE DIFFENT!--72.38.211.144 (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

--- I deleted the part that said that only Spanish and Puerto Ricans call b and v "be and uve". Although in Mexico or Argentina they call "be grande-chica" "be alta-corta", all Spanish speaking people (not only Spanish and Puerto Ricans!)recognize ve and uve as their legitimate names. Meaning that in formal context a Mexican or Argentinean will address those two letters as be and uve, respectively.

 * Correction the proper Spanish v is a v sound. Many educated speaker of Spanish know that. It only later that ones blurred to two to point almost in some area sound the same.

 * V: V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The v sound does not exist in the vast majority of Spanish dialects. FilipeS 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Some people even call them be labial and ve labiodental (dentilabial), not realizing that if this were true, there would be no need for such names." <- don't confuse language 'evolution' with people not realizing their 'mistakes'. Spanish (as in Spain) has different sounds for these, and labial/dentilabial would be accurate descriptions. Only because our dialects are now the most common doesn't mean people "doesn't realize". This also seems POV and insulting in some way. ("some people even call them this... haha, some people are just stupid..."). A more accurate explanation is that "this no longer seems to be the case" or "this doesn't seem to be the case in most countries". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.45.90 (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

rr vs r
I learned R as ere, without the trill, and RR as erre, with the trill. It isn't doble erre. 67.188.172.165 18:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Nope, letter R's name is erre, and RR is said to be doble erre. --Mariano (t/c) 13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the RAE's dictionary on-line, either one of them serves as the letter's name. Benami (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

SI
Si is definitelly not a preposition. It literally translates to if, wich is a sentence conjunction. I'm reverting Blindman shady's edit. --Mariano (t/c) 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

 * If is both a conjunction and a preposition, now that I think about it. If you die, I will be sad. If is a preposition with the object "you". That is regardless though, so I will leave it as is.  Blind man   shady  18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. If/si is always a conjunction in conditional clauses. FilipeS 19:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ch and Ll
I understand that these two digraphs are no longer supposed to be treated as individual letters in collation, but I think this is different from not belonging to the alphabet. I think they should be included in the list of letters. FilipeS 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

agree-- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the article to reflect that both CH and LL are actual letters in the spanish alphabet according to the RAE entries for CH (fourth letter of the alphabet) and LL  (fourteenth letter of the alphabet). In addition the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas states in the entry for abecedario that the spanish alphabet have twenty nine (29) letters and not the twenty seven letters shown in the article. Such entry in the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas also states in its third item that the digraph RR has never been considered a letter in the spanish alphabet because the phoneme represented by it is exactly the same that [one of] the phoneme[s] for R. This is not the case for the phonemes of CH and LL and thus those two are considered letters in Spanish (of course special ones as for collation). This change I made has been undone without reason and as I consider the references already present in the article enough for the change I made (at least considering that even the entries CH and LL says that those two digraph are letters in Spanish) I am doing it again. --cromdia (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that they were no longer considered letters. Even if they aren't, though, I see above that others feel that they should still be included in the table.  It's funny, because even as I was reverting, I was thinking "it's too bad we can't put this here because otherwise we're not indicating the pronunciation of the letters."  I'll leave it to others to determine the status of these digraphs as letters and the only thing that I'll be changing is the  under  since the IPA representations are only for Castilian Spanish (per the IPA link in the table).  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  07:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not letters but digraphs, and whichever current Spanish dictionary you have a look at, it will NOT show them as letters. They should be included in a digraph table apart, but they are NOT a part of the alphabet in their together form. --Jago (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 * this is not easily understood.. as per RAE in the link on the page for CH: Dígrafo que, por representar un solo sonido, es considerado desde 1803 cuarta letra del abecedario español -- that is to say, 1. it is a digraph, 2. it is a letter, as it is a single letter corresponding to a single sound, and 3. it is explicitly a part of the alphabet (see, for example, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortografía_del_español ). See also the page in spanish for Ll and Ch ("El dígrafo ch es la cuarta letra..."). But in the orthography of español, the RAE changes the rules and calles the diagraphs not part of the alphabet. --—  r obbiemuffin  page talk 20:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Largely a combination of Latin and Arabic"?
Spanish orthography (the alphabet, punctuation and orthographic rules of the Spanish language) is largely derived from a combination of Latin and Arabic, as well as the influence of other Iberian languages.

This remark in the intro sounds absurd. If no one steps up to defend it, I think I will remove it. FilipeS 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

 * This is a fallacy. Spanish alphabeth has no Arabic influence. Arabic has only influenced some of the Spanish vocabulary. Spanish uses the Latin Alphabet in addition with some letters borrowed from the Greek (e.g.k, w). And the ñ is a unique letter created by Spanish not Arabic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.10.214 (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I had already removed the remark from the intro. FilipeS 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

 * On a tenuously-related note, I have wondered if the long history of Moorish rule in Iberia helped deracinate Spanish orthography. During this period, was Spanish commonly written, and in the Latin alphabet?  I know that Spanish was at least sometimes written in the Arabic alphabet.  Or did it become for a period merely the vernacular, spoken language, with Arabic the sole language of administration?  Either way, if it ceased to be commonly written in the Latin alphabet, then the etymological history would have been severely weakened by the time the Latin alphabet was resumed, and that could have encouraged the tendency towards phonemic orthography.  Anyway, I just wondered if anyone knows of any literature on such a topic.  -- χγʒ͡ʒγʋᾳ (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 * What do you mean by 'deracinate'? FilipeS (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Moorish rule did not affect Spanish orthography in any way. The present-day practice of writing Spanish in the Roman alphabet comes from an unbroken tradition reaching back ten or more centuries to the Christian kingdoms of the north (see Reconquista). True, some Mozarabs in the south occasionally used the Arabic alphabet to portray their Latin-derived speech (see Mozarabic language), but this emphatically does not imply that the vast bulk of Spanish writing ever ceased to be written with Roman characters. Kotabatubara (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

X and J
Regarding the use of x in words like México, RAE does recomend the use of x instead of j (In Spanish). I have made a little change in the article. Cpt.Miller (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Madness
Is it crazy to want to see the basic Spanish phonemic values next to the letters? Four Wikipedia articles on Spanish and none deigns to describe what the letters represent in a clear way. Suggestion: Edit this page, displaying the alphabet in a vertical list and indicate what phoneme(s) they represent along, commenting as needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.90.84 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Spanish orthography - Shows a chart of letters, but not the phonemes they represent
 * Spanish phonology - Shows the phonemes, but not the letters that represent them
 * Spanish_language - Shows an IPA chart, but not the letters
 * IPA_for_Spanish - Shows the phonemes, then two or three random non-comprehensive examples.
 * You're right. I've re-added the phonemes the letters represent, though we could probably do even more to explain the relationship between letter and sound.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  07:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish phonology article used to have this information, but it was removed. I kind of understand the desire to make this article stick to phonetics/phonology, but at the same time I can't help feeling that the older version was more useful than the current one to many readers. FilipeS (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

u, v and q?
I am bilingual (my two languages are Spanish and English). In all my years of speaking Spanish, I have never heard "u" called "uve doble." At least in my experience, it is called "doble u" or "doble ve," which brings me to another point. "V" isn't pronounced "uve," it's pronounced "ve."

Also the phonetic spelling of "q" isn't "cu," it's "ku." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.92.179 (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 * As I see it, the table of the alphabet lists the names of the letters written with their normal spelling, not phonetically spelt, regardless of the phonemes they represent being also there. This is, by the way, why I wonder when and where eye was ever accepted as a correct spelling of the name of ll—those who still pronounce ll without yeísmo (i.e., [ʎ], as opposed to y [ʝ]) would have to call the digraph ['eʝe] nonetheless, so both they and the vast majority of Spanish speakers who do pronounce ll identically to y would have every reason to believe this weird name refers to y, instead of ll. Needless to say, the RAE does not accept it. I'm thinking of reverting it if no explanation is given. Splibubay (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm removing eye as a name for the digraph ll. The odds of its presence in the table being ever justified look minimal. Splibubay (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

More simplifications for the Spanish orthography

 * http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/i/griega/llamara/ye/elpepucul/20101105elpepucul_9/Tes
 * I griega changes to ye and be alta/be larga to only be.
 * ch and ll now are not included in the alphabet (this is very good, so not anymore the old fashioned alphabet A B C Ch... Ll M...Z → A B C D... L M...Z).
 * Orthographic simplification; quórum → cuórum, Qatar → Catar.
 * Accents simplification; sólo → solo, guión → guion, ó (between numbers) → o.
 * Jaume87 (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alphabet modfications added! thanks for the report. Serg!o (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to phonemic orthographies
The opening paragraph assert that the Spanish orthography "is fairly phonemic, especially in comparison to other language orthographies using the Latin alphabet, having a consistent mapping of grapheme to phoneme."

This seems like a very strong and unjustified statement. The Spanish orthography may be much more phonemic than English or French, but it is not significantly more phonemic than any other Iberian orthography, or than Italian, German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian or Albanian. Some other Latin-alphabet orthographies are way more phonemic than Spanish: most obviously Finnish and Estonian, but also arguably all major Slavic and Baltic orthographies besides Polish. If you make a tally, just among the official languages of Europe, you will find at least two dozen "in comparison" to which the Spanish orthography can claim no phonemic advantage.

Saying merely that it is "fairly phonemic" is probably the maximum that can be reasonably claimed.

Any objection to removing the incorrect comparison? I'd also be content to see a comparison to some specific other languages (like English and French) instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.131.187 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of saying "especially in comparison to other language orthographies using the Latin alphabet" it should be "especially in comparison to more opaque orthographies like English and Irish." — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 19:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.57.36 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

z
I changed 'zeta' to 'ceta'. Check with the RAE before you think of changing it back to 'zeta'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.95.26 (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Contra-Madridian?
Can someone who knows the meaning of "contra-Madridian" please replace it with a standard term? To my knowledge it exists only here and on other websites derived from this article. Kotabatubara (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't think it can mean anything other than that some features of the rural Mexican pronunciation being discussed contrast starkly with the standard from Madrid (Spain). This is hardly worth mentioning, as the Madrilenian standard has other traits (most prominently the distinction between /θ/ and /s/, rather than seseo) which differ from very much any form of Spanish found in the American continent. What is peculiar to the rural Mexican variety is the retention of the /ʃ/ phoneme from Nahuatl in indigenous words like mexicano, whereas it's replaced by /x/ in more standard Spanish, even in Mexico itself. Since this information is mostly redundant in that section of the article, I think the best option is simply to delete that word, which I'm about to do. It's really high time to get rid of it. Splibubay (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A question about the Q+U combination...
I have read in a few places online that some people spell certain words informally as "quo" and "qua" instead of "cuo" or "cua" (such as "quatro", instead of "cuatro"). I have also read in the wikitext spanish textbook, in the section on Spanish spelling, that words containing the "cuo" or "cua" combinations can be written as "quo" or "qua." Could someone verify that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.242.125 (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 * See "Older conventions" in the article. Kotabatubara (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My question was, in modern informal written dialogue, do people use "qua" or "quo" combinations instead of "cua" or "cuo" combinations? Such informal dialogue would include Myspace, Facebook, text messages, and even sending letters back and forth. If so, it would seem like something to note on this article of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.242.125 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Some people do it under the influence of Catalan. It's usually regarded with contempt by most people from the rest of Spain. Splibubay (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish names of the letters
Not only do letters have Spanish names, but these, like any other word in the language, have a correct way to be spelt, and this is what the table in the "Alphabet" section of the article used to show along with the letters themselves and the phonemes they represent. Now I see someone has replaced those names with approximations fitting English phonetics and spelling rules, and there might even be an ongoing edit war about the matter. Perhaps these adapted versions should be kept as an aid to pronounce the Spanish ones—especially along with IPA transcriptions of the latter—but should the correct Spanish forms of the names of Spanish letters really be excluded from an encyclopedic article on Spanish orthography? I find it absurd. Splibubay (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the changes. English approximations of foreign words is so misleading and oversimplistic that it's basically wrong.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  15:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

‹w›
Aeusoes1, does the ASALE's Diccionario panhispánico de dudas suffice as a reference for the pronunciation of ‹w› in Spanish? If you look up "w" in the DPD, the following will show up:

"2. Aparece en palabras de origen germánico, principalmente inglesas y alemanas, y en transcripciones al alfabeto latino de palabras procedentes de lenguas orientales. Representa dos sonidos diferentes, según los casos:

a) el sonido bilabial sonoro /b/ (→ b). La w se pronuncia como /b/ en determinados nombres propios de origen visigodo: Wamba [bámba], Witiza [bitísa, bitíza]; y en voces de origen alemán o derivadas de nombres propios alemanes: wolframio [bolfrámio], wagneriano [bagneriáno], weimarés [beimarés]. En los nombres propios alemanes puede pronunciarse, como en alemán, con sonido labiodental fricativo, pero lo normal es hacerlo con el sonido bilabial /b/, ya que el sonido labiodental no existe en español: Wagner [bágner o vágner], Weimar [béimar o véimar].

b) el sonido /u/ (→ u1). La w se pronuncia como /u/ —o como /gu/, cuando forma diptongo con la vocal siguiente (→ u1, 2)— en la mayoría de las palabras de origen inglés que conservan esta letra: waterpolo [guaterpólo], hawaiano [jaguaiáno, haguaiáno], newton [niúton], así como en las transcripciones de voces orientales, muchas de ellas incorporadas al español a través del inglés: Taiwán [taiguán]."

It should be noted that the DPD, like many other Spanish-language academic publications, uses a sui generis phonological alphabet, based on the Spanish writing system, and probably fit only for this language: /z/ for IPA /θ/, /j/ for IPA /x/, the acute accent—rather than a prefixed ˈ—to mark stress... Bearing this in mind, the text can be translated both into English and into IPA like this:

"2. It appears in words of Germanic origin, mostly English and German, and in transcriptions into the Latin alphabet of words borrowed from Eastern languages. It represents one of two different sounds:

a) the bilabial voiced /b/ sound (→ b). W is pronounced /b/ in certain proper nouns of Visigothic origin: Wamba /ˈbamba/, Witiza /biˈtisa/ or /biˈtiθa/; and in words of German origin or derived from German proper nouns: wolframio /bolˈfɾamjo/, wagneriano /baɡneˈɾjano/, weimarés /beimaˈɾes/. In German proper nouns, it can be pronounced, as in German, with a labiodental fricative sound, but it is usually rendered with the bilabial /b/ sound, since the labiodental one does not exist in Spanish: Wagner /ˈbaɡneɾ/ or /ˈvaɡneɾ/, Weimar /ˈbeimaɾ/ or /ˈveimaɾ/.

b) the /u/ sound (→ u1). W is pronounced /u/—or /ɡw/, when it makes a diphthong with the following vowel (→ u1, 2)—in most English loanwords keeping this letter: waterpolo /ɡwateɾˈpolo/, hawaiano /xaɡwaˈjano/ or /haɡwaˈjano/, newton /ˈnjuton/, as well as in transcriptions of Eastern words, many of which were borrowed into Spanish through English: Taiwán /tai'ɡwan/."

I used, both here and in my reverted edit, the common convention of representing i and u before the syllable nucleus in a rising diphthong as /j/ and /w/, respectively, since there is no distinction in Spanish between glide-vowel sequences and diphthongs. I, therefore, have no idea which "one of those isn't even a separate phoneme of Spanish"—note /ɡw/, the only pronunciation given for ‹w› before my edit, only makes sense if we agree to represent a u preceding a syllable nucleus and forming a diphthong with it as /w/ in the first place.

I know the DPD doesn't mention the possibility of a ‹w› pronounced as a lone /w/ (/u/ in the peculiar phonological alphabet it uses) when it is part of a diphthong with the following vowel, but it must be so in any of these loanwords in which the w is preceded by a consonant other than g belonging to the same syllable, for Spanish phonotactics wouldn't allow a /ɡ/ following this consonant: swahili is pronounced /swaˈxili/; it would take a ridiculous effort for any Spanish speaker to distort it into /sɡwaˈxili/, even if there were an actual reason to do so, which is not the case (in fact, the draft of the next edition of the DRAE plans to adapt its spelling as suajili, which corresponds to the /swaˈxili/ pronunciation according to the normal rules of Spanish orthography; you can see it by pressing the "Artículo enmendado" button, meaning "amended article"). Furthermore, the /ɡ/ sound before /w/ is simply a particular case of the following phenomenon (DPD, looking up "u"):

"2. En posición inicial de palabra o entre vocales, cuando la /u/ forma diptongo con la vocal siguiente, se suele pronunciar delante un sonido levemente consonántico cercano a una /g/: [guérfano] por huérfano, [aguekár] por ahuecar (→ h, 3)."

That is:

"2. Word-initially or between vowels, when /w/ forms a diphthong with the following vowel, a slightly consonantal sound much like /ɡ/ is usually pronounced before it: /ˈɡweɾfano/ for huérfano, /aɡweˈkaɾ/ for ahuecar (→ h, 3)."

This reinforces the notion that /w/ or /u/ is the real sound ‹w› represents in English and romanized East Asian loanwords, while /ɡ/ is a systematic addition which happens in the language in certain contexts, whether the /w/ is spelt as a ‹w› or the normal ‹u›. Splibubay (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Ahh, nice find. I wasn't as skeptical of /b/ (particularly, as your source points out, it is an approximation of a labiodental fricative of other languages) as much as I was of the existence of a separate phoneme  that contrasts with non-syllabic  as well as the cluster of  with non-syllabic .  Your source doesn't back this up and, although you say that it "must be so in any of these loanwords," the research that I've done on Spanish phonology indicates that this is unlikely.
 * In Spanish, when becomes non-syllabic, it is .  There is the phenomenon of an acoustically related sound-akin to the contrast between  and non-syllabic  (e.g. abyecto vs. abierto)-that is potentially (though weakly) contrastive for certain speakers.  There are some competing analyses about this, some of which see it as a separate phoneme and others as a simple cluster of  and non-syllabic  (since it isn't contrastive with this cluster.  To keep it simple, I went with the cluster approach, though by putting it as, that makes it imply that there is a phoneme.
 * I also think adding as something ‹w› represents isn't backed up by your source, as it says it represents  only when it forms the non-syllabic part of a diphthong.  The example of newton really indicates that the digraph ‹ew› can indicate  (.
 * Since w is so weird, we might consider a section or paragraph on it, rather than try to fit all potential pronunciations in that little box. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  23:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The word swahili should not be taken into account: it is written in italics in DRAE, which means that it is not a Spanish word but an extranjerismo crudo, i.e. a foreign word which has conserved its spelling, like jazz. DPD gives suajili. Newton is strange: it is given as an extranjerismo crudo in DRAE but as an example in DPD. Burzuchius (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Preantepenultimate or earlier stress examples
Not only words in verb form with enclitic pronouns can be sobresdrújulas but also some adverbs such as fácilmente (easily). I am not an expert on neither spanish ortography nor wikipedia conventions, otherwise I would add it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.157.114 (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I've added a note about the accent mark on adverbs in -mente (as this article on orthography should focus more on the written accent than on spoken stress). It's hard to justify calling these adverbs "sobresdrújulas", since their _primary_ stress is penultimate. (If we can find such an adverb at the end of a line of poetry, surely it will be rhymed as a paroxytone.) Kotabatubara (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Examples in poetry can be found in Jorge Manrique's "Coplas por la muerte de su padre" ("presente ... sabiamente") and in Garcilaso's "Égloga I" ("estrechamente ... frente"). Also in Góngora and in Sor Juana. Kotabatubara (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of different letters for the same sound sound
I think there's a mistake in this table, under the Orthography section. However, I'm just starting to learn Spanish, so I can't be sure enough to change it myself. This table says that the phoneme /kw/ is written ⟨cu⟩ and ⟨cu⟩. Am I crazy or are those the same spellings? Is the phoneme /kw/ supposed to be written ⟨cü⟩ before the letters 'i' and 'e'? If not, then why is the phoneme /kw/ even in this table? Thanks for the help, Terrencereilly (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no mistake. The phoneme sequence /kw/ is always written ⟨cu⟩ regardless of what vowel follows. You are not crazy, ⟨cu⟩ = ⟨cu⟩. There is no ⟨cü⟩: ⟨ü⟩ can only occur in the sequences ⟨güe⟩ and ⟨güi⟩. I think the phoneme sequence /kw/ is in the table just for symmetry: voiced and voiceless /g/ and /k/ are there, so likewise voiced and voiceless /gw/ and /kw/ are included. Kotabatubara (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why can't I use ligatures with IPA?
I made a change to the IPA character for the phonetic symbol for the Spanish digraph ‘Ch’ from this: ‘tʃ’ to this: ‘ʧ’ notice the first one is two symbols yet it was change on the back to the original form I’m just wondering why was this done? I'm saying this because that is one of the symbols I saw on Wikipedia's IPA page about the sound that digraph does. sion8 5:10 April 01, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ligatures are deprecated in the IPA nowadays. Unicode still encodes for it, but Unicode also has other outdated IPA symbols.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  15:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead wikilinks
The following wikilinks are dead on my computer. That is, they appear blue, but when I mouse over them no popup text appears, and nothing happens when I click them. They work as I preview this talk page edit, but not in the article.

In Spanish orthography: Latin alphabet, palatal lateral, yeísmo, Spanish phonology, IPA for Spanish, acute accent, rr, Association of Spanish Language Academies, alphabetize, and RAE.

In Spanish orthography: Real Academia Española and alveolar trill.

In Spanish orthography: status quo.

In Spanish orthography: ó.

In Spanish orthography: Real Academia Española.

Some of this list has changed since the first time I listed it, but most of it is the same. I use Windows XP Service Pack 3, and Firefox 12.0. I can't duplicate the problem on other articles, other computers, or other browsers, so it doesn't matter much unless others are having the same problem. Are you? Art LaPella (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a problem with your computer. Those links work when I try them. Maybe try clearing your cookies or something.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  22:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Spanish MOS Needed?
I noted three months back to a couple of IPA pronunciation expert editors that Category:Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style_(regional) has: but not:
 * Manual of Style/Canada-related articles Shortcuts: WP:CSG WP:CANSTYLE WP:MOSCAN MOS:CA
 * Manual of Style/China-related articles Shortcuts: MOS:CHINESE WP:MOS-ZH WP:MOSCHINA
 * Manual of Style/France & French-related Talk Shortcuts: WP:MOS-FR WP:FRMOS
 * Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles Shortcut: MOS:HAWAII
 * Manual of Style/India-related articles Shortcut: WP:MOSIN
 * Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles Shortcuts: WP:IMOS WP:MOS-IE
 * Manual of Style/Japan-related articles Shortcuts: WP:MOS-JA WP:MJ MOS:JAPAN
 * Manual of Style/Korea-related articles Shortcuts: MOS:KO WP:MOS-KO WP:MOSKOREA
 * Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles Shortcut: WP:MOSPHIL
 * Manual of Style/Poland-related articles Shortcut: WP:MOSPOL
 * Manual of Style/Singapore-related articles Shortcut: WP:MOSSG
 * Manual of Style/Spain & Spanish-related, Talk Shortcuts: WP:MOS-ES
 * Is there really nothing at all that could benefit by giving guidance? For instance:
 * Is there really nothing at all that could benefit by giving guidance? For instance:

In ictu oculi (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Like when to use a Catalan place name, when to use a Spanish one?
 * 2) Like whether to use accents on capitals, like Oscar or Óscar?
 * 3) IPA pronunciation?
 * 4) Spelling between Iberian and American varieties of Spanish?
 * 5) How to treat Quechua (Runa Simi) and other articles?
 * 6) and so on?
 * My understanding is that some of our more general policies provide answers to those questions. As I recall...
 * Use the one that's most common in English
 * Put accent marks on capitals only if they're done in English
 * WP:IPA for Spanish covers this, though there's a bit of ambiguity/wiggle room about European vs. Latin American pronunciations
 * A topic can usually be reasonably associated with one or the other. Otherwise, it's ambiguous.
 * What's the issue with Quechua (Runa Simi)?
 * — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be that simply linking to existing guidelines will be enough, but it would still be good to collect those links in one place. One editor on WT:SPAIN has responded. (In answer to 5. There may not be any issue) In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Quetzal
In the Consonants table, quetzal appears as quetz'al, apparently an attempted phonetic spelling carried over from somewhere when it should be standard spelling and typography. I haven't fixed it because I'm afraid of messing up the table, but somebody should, please. Thanks, Awien (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Acentuación de las mayúsculas
Why is this article linked not to its own Spanish-language version (Ortografía del español), but to one just about the accentuation of capital letters (Acentuación de las mayúsculas)? I can't find the code for this link in the source, so I don't know how to fix it. The only interlanguage links I can see there are the Arabic, Hungarian and Italian ones. Splibubay (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Hello.

 * I took care of it:

 * For some reason, one colon wasn't enough to prevent it from being interpreted as an interwiki link, so there could be some sort of issue with the "further" template or some sort of bug or limitation in the software.

 * Espreon (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Intro
"a relatively consistent mapping of graphemes to phonemes; in other words, the pronunciation of words can largely be predicted from the spelling" -- actually, the pausal pronunciation of native words can be fully predicted; it would be better to say that the spelling can be largely predicted from the pronunciation, the pairs like ge/je being much less numerous than in English or Irish. 46.186.35.242 (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Native words" is quite the caveat, but I think you may be right about the rephrase. I don't see a problem with changing the wording.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  00:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Spanish orthography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121213201123/http://www.rae.es/rae/gestores/gespub000018.nsf/%28voAnexos%29/arch8100821B76809110C12571B80038BA4A/%24File/CuestionesparaelFAQdeconsultas.htm to http://www.rae.es/rae/gestores/gespub000018.nsf/%28voAnexos%29/arch8100821B76809110C12571B80038BA4A/$File/CuestionesparaelFAQdeconsultas.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Spanish orthography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070906105503/https://www.spanishpronto.com:80/spanishpronto/spanishalphabet.html to http://www.spanishpronto.com/spanishpronto/spanishalphabet.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914002335/https://www.spanishpronto.com:80/ to http://www.spanishpronto.com/
 * Added tag to http://bibliotecadigitalhispanica.bne.es/view/action/nmets.do?DOCCHOICE=829244.xml&dvs=1200524718064~596&search_terms=Filolog%EDa&usePid1=true&usePid2=true
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091120202344/http://spanishmoment.com:80/introduction-to-the-spanish-language/ to http://spanishmoment.com/introduction-to-the-spanish-language/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

LL, Y, J, Z, C, S, B & V pronunciation
In Latin America countries, the "z" is pronounced like the phoneme /s/, of course, in Spain, the letters pronounced like /θ/ are "z" and "c" when it's before an "e" or "i". In Latin America, both letters "b" and "v" are pronounced like /b/, but both have got different names, "b" is named "be" and "v" is named "uve", because of their likeness in the pronunciation, but in Spain, people does differentiate "b" and "v" with their respective phonemes (/b/ & /v/). The pronunciation of both phonemes are: /b/ is pronounced using both lips, and /v/ is pronounced using the lower lip touching the upper teeth. In Spanish, the digraph "ll" is pronounced by a palatal lateral like in the world "calle" (street) it would be pronounced like /k//a//ʎ//e/, and it needs to be differentiated by the "y" letter, which in Latin America is pronounced like /ʎ/ and in Spain it is pronounced like /ʝ/, for example, in Latin America, the word "adyacente" (which means "adjacent") is pronounced /a//d//ʎ//a//s//e//n//t//e/, but in Spain, it's pronounced like /a//d//ʝ//a//z//e//n//t//e/. The "y" can also be pronounced like /ʝ/ in both Latin America and Spain when the word is derived from English, for example, "kayak" (which means "kayak"), the "y" is pronunciated like /ʝ/. The "j" can be pronunciated like /x/ or /ʝ/ (this last one only in words derived from English), like in the word "ajo" (which means "garlic"), it is pronounced like /a//x//o/ in both Latin America and Spain.--201.240.146.128 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The b-v distinction is artificial and absent from standard speech. I don't know where you got that from.

 * The palatal lateral may or may not be present in standard speech. It depends on the speaker. Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Spanish orthography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rae.es/rae/gestores/gespub000018.nsf/%28voAnexos%29/arch8100821B76809110C12571B80038BA4A/%24File/CuestionesparaelFAQdeconsultas.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927170150/http://www.spellingsociety.org/bulletins/b82/fall/spanish.php to http://www.spellingsociety.org/bulletins/b82/fall/spanish.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://spanishmoment.com/introduction-to-the-spanish-language/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

New tables on accentuation
I am unable to edit the new tables about accent marks, but they need it badly. Can someone help? Also, errors aside (see below), I found them confusing. What do others think? Do they help, or detract from the article?

First table:

1. Vertical lettering on left side has "THNA" for "THAN".

2. Last row has "STRESSED SYLLABLE MARKED (TILDE)". Replace "(TILDE)" with "(ACUTE ACCENT)". "Tilde" in English means only the curved mark above "n" for "ñ". Replace "tilde" in second table also; we're not talking about "ñ".

3. Last word "etc" needs final dot.

Second table:

1. Title should be "SYLLABICATION FOR TWO-VOWEL GROUPS..."

2. Green cell, second example word: My dictionary has only "áloe" with the accent mark.

3. Orange cell: My dictionary has an accent mark on "alféizar".

4. White cells: "Non-existent" is a hyphenated word. What does it mean here?

5. Spell out "one-syllable", "two-syllable" (not "1-syllable")—if you use these terms. What do they mean? Not mono- and disyllabic words,...?

6. "As usual" in the table is cryptic. I see you explain later in the Comments. I suggest you connect them with asterisks (*) or superscript numbers.

7. First and second comments (consider using superscript numbers to link items in the table with their comments): Replace "considered in" with "considered to be in".

8. First comment: "diphthong" should have "h" twice.

9. Third comment: Replace "tilde" with "accent mark".

Please, if English is not your native language and you want to edit in English, have an English-speaker review your work before you upload it. Kotabatubara (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Second table, first comment: Is "vieira" supposed to be the Gallego-Portuguese surname?  In that case it should be capitalized.  Why not use a more "indigenous" example, such as "cambiáis"? Kotabatubara (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It probably doesn't matter any more, but vieira ('scallop') is a perfectly cromulent Spanish word. Surely enough, it's an old borrowing from Galician–Portuguese, and it means the same in this language.  The existence of the surname is irrelevant, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to come from the common noun. Splibubay (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the tables, because it looked like original research and they didn't have citations. But being a native speaker of English is not a requirement. Thinker78 (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's better to make the table with the table feature on Wikipedia than to take a screen cap of microsoft excel. Do we want something like that in the article? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]

Juan de Valdés
I have seen a book named Ziento i diez consideraziones by Juan de Valdés. Was that an orthography proposed by Valdés or was it respelled by the reprinter? Could you mention this alternate orthography in the article? --Error (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably related to es:Gonzalo Correas. --Error (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ranking of letters?
I never heard that, in Spanish, letters are ranked nor ranked E A O S R N I D L C T U M P B G V Y Q H F Z J Ñ X W K. I have to point out that I'm a native Spanish speaker and a professional translator. Maybe the editor meant to say that the letters ranked in order of frequency of use are those? Thinker78 (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can only mean that, I'll change the wording. --Jotamar (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On a different matter, I can confirm that user:Error's edition about BMW is correct, so I'll recover it with a Cn tag added. --Jotamar (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

B and V
Copying here misplaced but pertinent comment from : ...there are examples of misspelling b and v since the first old-castillian written records, even in ancient times it was know that latin speakers from the Iberian Peninsula or Hispania were unable to distinguish between b and v, so there are an old famous quote "Beati Hispani quibus bibere vivere est".

Cheers, Awien (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't have a reference now, but the Beati quote is not Roman. It is from some Renaissance author. --Error (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 * So it is (Scaliger/Scalígero)! Live and learn. Awien (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 * See discussion on the Word Reference Forum at .

 * Unless it was Horace. Hmm. Awien (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"gu" Consonant's Got a Weird Context Description for [gw]
Look in the table for consonants in the Orthography section of the article. Now look at "gu".

before ⟨a⟩ or ⟨o⟩, and either word-initial after a pause or consonant, or after ⟨n⟩; but only in some dialects | [gw]

It ends with "but only in some dialects". What's only in some dialects? The [gw] pronunciation for "gu" and its whole context? The "or after ⟨n⟩"? It's not clear. The word examples given to the right of it link to two words on Wiktionary. Both pages list the pronunciation of "gu" as [gw], which implies that "but only in some dialects" shouldn't even be in the context. This is unnecessarily complicated. Ντόναλντ (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who added that, but you're right that it doesn't make any sense. I've removed it. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

No discussion of quotation conventions
I'd expected this article to have mention of the conventions around quotation marks in Spanish, but none such were found. 82.31.82.76 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Spanish reform" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spanish reform. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 18:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

chica
This section says "Some Mexicans and most Peruvians generally say be grande / chica ('big B' / 'little V')", linking "chica" to Wiktionary, which only defines "chica" as a girl/gal/chick. Assuming the Alternative name's actually one that people use, is the translation incorrect, or is Wiktionary's entry incomplete? --96.244.220.178 (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "chica" is the feminine form of "chico", so the link should lead to "chico". Burzuchius (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Please Help!
Hello, I just made an edit (marked as minor, because I originally thought it would be) involving changing or adding a few links in one of the endnotes to the table in section "Consonants." However, somehow I seem to have severely messed up the formatting of said table in the process! I could not read through the long mass of WikiText to figure out what was wrong, and I am confused how to fix it without reverting my edit. I also worry that if I did that, and then tried to make the same change I intended to originally, I might also again screw something else. Could someone who knows a whole lot more about formatting wikitables or whatever the appropriate field of expertise go back in and fix my mistake if possible? If it helps to revert my change first, and then go back in and enter in the links I modified again afterward, please go ahead and do so; I just don't feel confident solving it that way myself after this happened. Thank you very much to whoever corrects my inadvertant error!

2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:9C31:280F:F2A:A762 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Corrected. Burzuchius (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Examples under <r>
I see that there are a bunch of examples in the table next to r for the trilled r sound, /r/. These examples are rumbo, honra, Israel, ... amor puro. But then the next part, with the alveolar tap, the same examples are used. To clarify, this is saying that these words can use both sounds? I ask because for example with "honra", there are no examples in wiktionary or Spanishdict which show the alveolar tap here. I'm just making sure this wasn't some editing error. Cooleric (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good catch, it looks like an anon user messed that up a few years ago. I've undone their edits and conformed the examples with what is at Help:IPA/Spanish. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Spanish the only language that uses ⟨¿⟩ and ⟨¡⟩?
Here, “Spanish is the only language that uses ⟨¿⟩ and ⟨¡⟩;” but at Inverted question and exclamation marks, they're used “in Spanish and some languages which have cultural ties with Spain, such as the Galician, Asturian and Waray languages.”

The latter claim is sourced, but to a book that I don't have. — Octavo (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alphabet of Spanish which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

De-merging Spanish alphabet proposal
That page got created and merged several times:
 * originally created the article in 2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_alphabet&oldid=1331061
 * merged the article into Spanish orthography in 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_alphabet&oldid=22740765
 * tried reviving the article on 4 November 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_alphabet&oldid=1183482327
 * re-merged the article on 9 November 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_alphabet&oldid=1184311229

I personally wanted to argue in favor of de-merging the article, but I don't want to create an edit war. Hence creating this proposal instead. 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉 (talk|contributions) 18:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We should begin by exposing the advantages of each alternative, shouldn't we? --Jotamar (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Spanish orthography


text:
Alphabet to E-mail

Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading (ISBN 0-415-18685-4) is a book by linguist Dr. Naomi Baron, a professor of linguistics at American University, Washington, D.C. It was first published in 2000, published by Routledge Press.

In it, Baron explores the history of the English language in written form, and considers how it has evolved through its history, ending with an evaluation of the state of the English language today, and how the Internet and the use of email and text messaging has affected it.

Baron considered that email did not have an inherent writing style, and believed it was evolving to resemble speech. She also expressed her disappointment with the effect of electronic means of communication upon the written word.

Baron noted that 25-years of research revealed that:

".. people offer more accurate and complete information about themselves when filling out questionnaires using a computer than when completing the same form on paper or through a face-to-face interview. The differences were especially marked when the information at issue was personally sensitive."

title: Alphabet to E-mail


text:
Chronos (disambiguation)

Chronos may refer to:
 * Chronos, or Chronus, the Greek personification of time
 * ancient name of the Pregolya River
 * Chronos (comics), the various characters from comic books that have used this name
 * Chronos (film), a 1985 IMAX film by Ron Fricke created with custom-built, time-lapse cameras
 * Chronos (1987 video game), a shoot-em-up arcade game
 * Chronos (2016 video game), a role-playing game for Oculus Rift
 * Chronos (EP), an EP by Callejon
 * Chronos (band), a Russian band
 * A series of novels by Madeleine L'Engle, beginning with Meet the Austins
 * chronos, the root password in ChromeOS

title: Chronos (disambiguation)