Talk:Big Number Change

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no merger. I have have taken it upon myself to close the proposal at this point because after over two months there's no consensus for the merge to go ahead -- A bit iffy 05:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC) User:Chriscf has suggested that 0207 & 0208 be merged into Big Number Change.--A bit iffy 10:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I would support this as the content of 0207 & 0208 can easily be incorporated into Big Number Change, which is a subject from which 0207 & 0208 is obviously derived, without making the resulting article too long.--A bit iffy 10:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose see below. FelisLeo^Talk! 12:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The 0207/8 article is about the extremely prevalent phenomenon of the misquoting - which is done by millions of people, in print and in speech, every single day. It definitely deserves its own article. This is a quite separate issue from that simply of the Big Number Change. If such an obscure topic as Nod characters of Command and Conquer can have its own article, then I think this topic is definitely deserving! EuroSong ^talk 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Although not a valid argument in this case, see WP:WAX, I agree with you on the whole videogames thing. I still am in favor of a merge, but not coming from the UK I can have no idea of the scale of the 0207/0208 "phenomenon". Maybe some more UK based editors can add their comment? FelisLeo^Talk! 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah.. I see, Felis - you're not from the UK. In that case, I understand your reservations about this article - I can see why you might think it obscure. However, if you lived in London, you would see the extent of the phenomenon yourself: only 13% of Londoners actually know their own telephone number (see the figure quoted in the article). That leaves several million people, whose actions and speech all contribute to the one huge mess we have at the moment. This mess is in itself a far larger topic - whose effects are still being felt every day - than the simple matter of the number change, which happened years ago. EuroSong ^talk 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading your commments on its talk page and reading the report in references I do think It should stay a seperate article. Changed to oppose. To clarify on my initial support for a merge; we have had a similar big number change where I live some years ago, and besides people no longer able to remember their number, the change was implemented painless FelisLeo^Talk! 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

EuroSong, I must admit you're starting to persuade me - memorable telephony moments are flooding my mind as I type. I'm thinking of the time I was dictating a phone number to someone, saying Oh-Two-Oh <pause> Seven... and he got utterly confused, and he couldn't get a grip on it until he said Oh-Two-Oh-Seven <pause>... back at me. Also the time I told someone "you don't have to dial the 020", and he didn't, but he was obviously very uncomfortable and seemed to think it was some weird hack. However, but I'm not quite convinced 0207 and 0208 should be a separate article - this widespread misperception is charming in its own way, but not especially noteworthy in that it requires its own article.--A bit iffy 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but since when is the positioning of the pause in reading a number an encyclopaedic topic in its own right? Chris cheese whine 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you're addressing my latest comments, Chris - if you are, then I ought to clarify that I still support the merge. (I do see now that my comments were rather rambling - a consequence of the state I was in at the time.) Cheers, A bit iffy 08:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not you particularly, just the thread in general. Chris cheese whine 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the article is encyclopaedic or not is higly subjective. The facts are that the article does meet the primary criterion for notability and does not match any of the examples in WP:NOT also, there seem to be some more statements on merging on the article's talk page Talk:0207 & 0208. FelisLeo^Talk! 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Again with the wikilawyering. The public toilet around the corner from my house happily meets the PNC. Chris cheese whine 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems I upset you so much that you feel the need to lash out. My apologies. FelisLeo^Talk! 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris: it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because it is a) not original research (a survey has been published which documents the extent of the social confusion); and b) it is something which affects millions of people every day. It's not the fact that it's an "issue of where to put the pause" per se, but the fact that the phenomenon is so widespread. If it were a mistake that only a couple of people were making, then you would be right: no-one would bother with an article. But ask yourself this: if it is just a simple matter which is not worthy of an encyclopædia entry, then why would the UK telecoms regulatory authority spend money on conducting a formal survey to assess the extent of the problem? Answer: they wouldn't. It is a widespread social phenomenon, which is officially recognised as such, and which is contributed to by millions. There are Wikipedia articles on topics a lot more obscure than this one. EuroSong ^talk 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how do you go from "spending money" to "worthy of an encyclopaedia entry"? Chris cheese whine 23:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per discussion. -- Smjg 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note. I have listed this proposal on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#March 2007 as this is being contested and to see if anyone else has any opinions. --A bit iffy 07:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: We are providing a service with this page to the many people (like myself!) who get annoyed at the number of people who still get this wrong. By having a direct link to a page specifically about the issues we make it easier on the person pointed to the information here that would not be so effective were they to have to search amongst the content of a larger, more generalised page. --AlisonW 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose : This is a very specific issue that requires its own article. JAJ 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.