Talk:UK telephone code misconceptions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UK telephone code misconceptions article.
Article policies
"The Albert Memorial" - the London Portal's current "Showcase Picture" This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Merge?

Shouldn't this be merged with UK telephone numbering plan? It seems to repeat a lot of information in there. Fagstein 18:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought about that.. but decided that a clearer and more precise explanation may be desirable. This article is specifically about how the misquoting is perpetuated, and includes the history and reasons behind it. The Numbering Plan article is not about the misquotions - it deals with the actual plan itself. You are perfectly right: a lot of the information is repeated. However, I thought it would not be good style just to explain how the numbers should be quoted, and then put a link to the Numbering Plan atricle saying "click here to see the history".
If this detailed explanation were merged into the main Numbering Plan article, it would go quite off-topic, so so to say. Therefore I decided to make a separate page. Hope this answers your query. Eurosong 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I might still remove some background on how the system works and just focus on the misquotations and why/how they happen. Fagstein 20:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you think it's possible to explain why and how the misquotations happen, without explaining how the numbering system evolved? Sure, give it a go if you want... ;) Eurosong 20:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To avoid fragmentation of discussion, please contribute to Talk:Big Number Change#Proposed merge of 0207 & 0208 into Big Number Change where relevant, rather than here.

[edit] Changeover period

I like this article. It might be worth mentioning that for a brief period during the changeover (I forget how long but maybe as much as a year) it was possible to dial full length 020 xxxx xxxx numbers within London but you could not dial eight digit local numbers (but you could seven). This was the bit that got communicated badly and some people assumed from that the codes were migrated 0171 > 0207 etc. as that was their experience of it. And during this time a lot of the corporate stationary and signage was redone. I was working as a marketing exec at this time and had to get stuff reprinted, the information I was given by the facilities management staff was that the code was changing to 0207 - luckily I ignored them and researched myself but others were mistaken.

Also need to mention that 020 7xxx xxxx and 020 8xxx xxxx are re-used anywhere in the 020 area. Could also mention that 020 7... ran out but 020 8... still had numbers left but they decided to start issue only 020 3... numbers to try and avoid any more confusion. MRSC 21:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also the 020 3xxx xxxx blocks are the only 'new' numbers being issued to telecoms providers but they are able to re-use any 7xxx xxxx and 8xxx xxxx numbers they have so it is not technically true that "only 020 3xxx xxxx numbers are being issued". MRSC 21:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, Mrsteviec :) Do you want to have a go at explaining what you said above, or shall I? I fixed your typo btw.. hehe. Eurosong 21:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
According to this [1] it was 1 June 1999 to 22 April 2000 that it was possible to use 020 xxxx xxxx numbers but only the the old seven digit local numbers worked giving one the experience/impression that the number was either 0207 222 1234 or 222 1234 - and the mess began! Please incorporate as you think best. MRSC 21:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for providing those dates. Eurosong 22:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That's great. The media do nothing to help the problem - do a google for "0203 London" and see the results - [2] - this is from the Times! MRSC
That Times article is truly scary. Do authors not research anything these days? Eurosong 23:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closed numbering

People who say 0207 and 0208 are on an intellectual par with those who say 'PIN number'. However, if the UK scrapped local dialling and adopted a closed numbering plan then giving out a number as 0207 or 0208 wouldn't be that much of a problem. Still, I don't know why people in the UK get it wrong - Australia switched to eight-digit subscriber numbers for landlines, and you don't see Sydney numbers given out as 029 xxx xxxx instead of 02 9xxx xxxx Quiensabe 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Did the Australians go through several stages of numbering plan revision, as the UK did (as detailed in the article)? My guess is that, if they did NOT go through these stages, but the change all happened at once - and with enough accompanying publicity, then it was relatively obvious to everyone over the country how to write the new numbers correctly. This, as opposed to the bungled British situation in which London was split up and then re-united. EuroSong 18:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
True, the Australians didn't have the constant changes, and the fact that the number of geographic area codes was reduced and the old area code was generally incorporated into the new eight-digit number (hence Armidale 062 xx xxxx became 02 62xx xxx) made things a bit easier. Quiensabe 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah the capital got 3 changes within a decade which must have been a bit rough but i guess thats the price paid for a migration plan that gave people grace periods to change stored numbers and mostly avoided such horrors as splits (did anywhere except the capital ever get split?) and overlays (like the yanks had to put up with).
As regard splits, the Bristol 0272 -> 0272/0275 immediately springs to mind. A split that is still in place despite the vastly larger numbering capacity now in 0117. Owain (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone can correct me, it was originally 0272 and 027 5x(x) which all became 0272 only to split into 0272 and 0275 again. See http://www.rod.sladen.org.uk/Bristol.htm. There were a lot of 'ring' STD codes getting subsumed by the neighbouring 'core' code like that (both having the same group switching centre in the core code), but I don't think any of the others split again. Rapido 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

I very much like this article (and the external one here which, yes, should be linked. I strongly disagree with the idea (months ago) of merging it with the numbering plan one - I feel that is a terrible idea when this is quite different and highly specialized. It is important that this continues to have its own separate existence where this very particular issue is explained. I do have a very strong urge when misguided people claim their number is, say, 0207 222 1234, to rush up to them screaming, "show me the magic phone on which you can dial seven-figure local London numbers!", as I suspect that they cannot, as they don't own one. :) 138.37.199.199 16:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To avoid fragmentation of discussion, please contribute to Talk:Big Number Change#Proposed merge of 0207 & 0208 into Big Number Change where relevant, rather than here.

[edit] Has anyone seen a news article about the stupidity?

The only thing I've managed to find is this archived Guardian article from just before the old codes were withdrawn. It's long past time the papers, along with news services on other media, got their act together and shamed the people properly.

And even the Guardian has been getting it wrong on and off, at least on the Notes & Queries page. I haven't seen today's yet, but it's been wrong, right, wrong, right and then wrong again all since the Berliner switch. Does anybody have the slightest idea what's going on here?

And here's my piece on the whole issue. -- Smjg 13:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'm wondering how much of what I've written it would make sense to incorporate into this article, or whether to add a link to it. Thinking about the external links policy here.... -- Smjg 13:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] anyone know

why london numbers weren't just extended to begin with. Especially as they had a shorter area code than anyone else.

i see three possibilities

1: the switching tech at the time couldn't cope with it. 2: noone thought of it at the time. 3: they were alreading thinking about freeing up 01 for insertion into other area codes?

anyone know which if any of theese explanations are correct? Plugwash 13:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's 3. They needed to move London OUT of 01 in order to free up the 01 to add into everyone's (geographical) numbers, hence making all numbers longer and getting another billion or grillion or squillion or whatever. So first they moved London into 071 and 081 and for a while nothing began 01. Then they moved lots of geog numbers into 01 including London so we became 0171 and 0181 and 0665 became 01665 and so on, freeing up ALL the ranges 02-09 (with some exceptions) because all the stuff previously spread out there was now in 01. Then it was possible to populate those "new" ranges with 02 for extra geog numbers, 07 for mobiles; whatever. (Remember that before this mobile devices were all over the place on 0836 or whatever - there was no consistent "07" like now.) And so London (along with a few other places) ended up in 02 where there was a LOT more room than in the former ranges. There is, or was, quite a lot of good stuff on the net about this, how the decisions were made, the logic of the numbering plan etc. Cynics will of course ask when we will NEXT have to renumber everything! There will never be a time when some adjustments do not need to be made, but the most recent changes did produce so many new numbers that another total revision should be a very long way off. And maybe by then technology will have moved on to the point where we don't use phone numbers in this way any more ... :) 138.37.199.199 16:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It was 2 and 3. Properly planned, there could just have been two changes in London, but those dealing with London's capacity problem started earlier and did not co-ordinate with the national number changes until it was too late. --Henrygb 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surgery

I've performed radical surgery on the article. This was frankly appalling before - it was a long rant (polemic if I'm feeling charitable) about a relatively trivial usage error. I've now cut it down to an appropriate size, whilst still keeping the essential points. I've also moved the page to be about the code itself. We could perhaps have more information about the code - it would be good to outline how far 020 extends out from Charing Cross. I see Dartford, Staines, Watford, Slough, and Esher all have separate prefixes. Morwen - Talk 13:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an article about UK STD code 20, maybe this article could be merged into that? //74.56.91.108 06:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think probably not. There's certainly a case for putting something about 0207 & 0208 confusion into the UK STD code 20 article, but putting all of 0207 & 0208 into UK STD code 20 feels a bit inappropriate somehow.--A bit iffy 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How big is the problem?

One thing the article doesn't (can't?) say is how big the problem is. Someone put in a para saying "it's still all over the pace on shopfronts and vans" (owtte) and it made me wonder just how deeply-rooted (routed, haha) it is? I think it's probably not unfair to guess that some quite large proportion of those editing this article have, like me, a bee in their bonnet about it. (Well, OK, to be honest it pretty much causes me physical pain!) But of course that perhaps just means that we are sensitized to it and so seem to see it everywhere! I wonder if there exist any stats, surveys etc which demonstrate something more concrete. You know, 50% of Londoners still say it wrong, 10% of commercially painted signs are wrong - whatever. I suggested can't as well as doesn't above because I do recognize that this data might be difficult or impossible to obtain, but it did make me think it would be interesting, if available, to include some indication. Like I say, my view - and maybe yours? - of how common it is is not likely to be all that NPOV nor totally encyclopaedic! :) 82.45.248.177 10:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

According to research by regulator Ofcom in February 2005, only 13% of respondents correctly identified, without prompting, the code for London to be 020 and 59% identified it as 0207 or 0208. [1]
You missed the opening paragraph. MRSC 08:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blimey. Yes, I did, thank you. :) 82.45.248.177 17:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiff

Re: Edit by Welshleprechaun. Do we really need a separate paragraph to talk about Cardiff here? Especially considering that it's most certainly no different from anywhere else affected by the BNC.

Moreover, claiming "all numbers within the Cardiff area code begin with 20" to be the motivation for this strikes me as nonsense. The problem is occurring in all the 02x codes, regardless of whether the areas in question have started allocating in the growing space that has been created. -- Smjg 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the situation is like elsewhere, but the lack of allocation of new numbers following 029 is definitely having an impact here in Cardiff - I have to take down a lot of phone numbers from members of the public and I'd say something like 9 out of 10 Cardiff-based callers read out their number in the form "(02920) XXX XXX" rather than "(029) XXXX XXXX". It drives us just as crazy as Londoners, I guarantee you! 84.92.8.222 12:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other causes

I'm not sure how to word this for the article but is it possible that part of the problem stems from more and more people regarding the entire eleven digit sequence as a phone number? With the explosion of mobile phone usage, more and more people have to use the full number for "local" calls (and some, myself included, always use them on the rare occasions we use landlines for local calls because of habit) and so never actually find ourself dialling a 7 didget local number?

Also my recollection of the publicity is that it was badly handled. When I was young the Epsom area code changed with (03727) xxxxx numbers becoming (0372) 7xxxxx and all the information can I recall was very clear that "7" was moving from the area code to the phone number. But all the publicty (and media coverage) for the last two changes for London focused very much on "area codes are changing". Plus many smaller businesses didn't change their hoardings and vans overnight because of the cost and it was assumed that locals would be as frustrated with number changes as they were, so once more the change to the number itself wasn't very well communicated. Timrollpickering 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The recent rename

This article has just been renamed from 0207 and 0208 to Erroneous UK telephone codes. The explanation given: "The article has been expanded to include Coventry, Cardiff and Reading so the original title does not adequately describe the contents."

This is hardly more accurate. Nearly all of the article is still about two specific erroneous UK telephone codes: 0207 and 0208. Just about the only bits that aren't are the Similar errors with other area codes section and some of the external links.

If we're going to keep this new name, we should rewrite the page to redress the balance. -- Smjg 15:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems like a fine name - 0207 and 0208 are just used as the major examples throughout the article. Naming it back to them would again push the Reading/Cardiff/Coventry stuff to the back, which is not good. Thus I'm afraid I disagree with the tag that was added today, and as such will be removing it. TheIslander 21:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That you as an individual disagree with an opinion isn't a valid reason to remove a maintenance template. And that you disagree with which maintenance template has been added isn't a valid reason to leave it with none at all. Meanwhile, I've tagged it for cleanup. The structure and wording of the article still does push Reading/Cardiff/Coventry to the back, regardless of the title. -- Smjg 21:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is clearly still about "0207" and "0208", with other codes as a small example at the end (and especially the lead is completely about the former). Title should've been left. But now it has been changed, the article should be rewritten so it's structured around general code changes (especially the lead). If "0207" and "0208" happens to be the large part of the focus, so be it, but at the mo the article is geared towards those two. Smoothy 21:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
To Smjg: that I as an individual disagree with an opinion is just as valid a reason for me removing a maintenance template as you as an individual feeling it needs the template is a reason for you to put it there in the first place. And yes, I should have left a cleanup template in it's place, but it as at this point that I'd appeciate it if you assumed a little good faith - sorry, I clean forgot. Please, tone down the attitude, and realise that, as a human, I'm just as prone to making mistakes as you.
Back to the subject in hand, I believe that this title should stay, but yes, it needs slight re-wording to reflect the title change. TheIslander 21:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have boldly re-written the opening paragraph for this, but left the tag on because I think more needs to be done to balance the article. MorganaFiolett 11:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to best re-write this article?

Since the rename, this article seems to be a bit of a mess. It's all very well to say that, since the confusion does not only apply to London, the article should be titled to cover all the codes and not just 0207/0208. However, the article is by far best written by example. It is necessary to narrate examples of codes and phone numbers in order to explain how the misquoting confusion came about. And in order to give examples, a particular area code must be chosen.

That means, therefore, the article will naturally be written as if it's just about the London codes - with the other misquoted codes mentioned as an afterthought. I personally don't especially see anything wrong with having it written as such - as long as it's clean up from its current dreadful state. However, it has been tagged as in need of a clean-up for the reason that the article's title does not entirely match its subject matter. Any comments? EuroSong talk 15:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Having just come across this article and read through it, I'd say it's pretty good. There could be some more information about the other codes but concentrating on London as a case study allows the reader to "get the point" without confusing them with too much information. -- DatRoot 00:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
A small point though, maybe the article could instead be named "Erroneous UK telephone area codes"? Or somehow include "area" in the title because I feel the phrase just "telephone codes" is a bit meaningless and confusing. -- DatRoot 00:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - glad you like my reworking :) Thanks also for your contribution - it does indeed make it clearer. With regards to your renaming suggestion, I don't really have any strong feelings one way or the other about it - but maybe that's because I'm about to go to bed :) Anyone else have any thoughts? EuroSong talk 00:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous?

I have noticed amongst friends and acquaintances that those who live in the old 0181 area all use "020 8xxx xxxx", but those who live in the old 0171 area use "0207 xxx xxxx"... The survey in the OFCOM report does not question whether the respondent lives/works in London (0207, sic) or in the suburbs (020 8), it's a shame as I'd be interested to hear if the disparity is a general one. Perhaps it's snobbery: maybe dialling codes are as prestigious as postal codes, and those in central London don't want to feel lumped in with those from the sticks! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.15 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sites like http://www.everyphonenumber.com/telephone-numbers/centrallondon-0207-2000000.html perpetuate this myth. Aaaarrrgghh!!!
Aaaarrrghhh indeed! I just sent them the following message through their contact form:
Please note that the dialling code for London is "020".
London is NOT split in "central" and "outer" regions, as it was during the period of 071/081 - and later, 0171/0181.
When the new codes came in, London was reunited under a single code. The "7" and "8" are merely relics from the days of the split, and now form a part of the LOCAL NUMBER.
So - if your full telephone number is (020) 7222 1234 - then it's possible to dial this from a landline inside London, as simply 7222 1234.
So you see - the code is 020 - NOT 0207. The 7 is the first digit of the local number.
I read, with disappointment, pages on your site such as http://www.everyphonenumber.com/telephone-numbers/centrallondon-0207-2000000.html
Please make all your staff aware of how London telephone numbers work - and amend your site accordingly. Currently it looks ridiculous, and is an embarrassment to your company. EuroSong talk 08:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
UK Phone Info is in a total mess in this respect. I've tried emailing them a few times but don't seem to be getting through to them at all. And those idiots who like to think that advertising that they don't know their own phone numbers makes them superior in some way clearly need their heads examining. -- Smjg (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hah - what a piece of crap! I sent them the following:
Dear UKphoneinfo,
In your search box I tried searching info for the London code - 020 - but the message was returned that the code was "too short".
Why don't you have the London area code on your system? It's the most important one... similarly with Cardiff, 029 - it does not seem to exist.
Please add these codes to your system.
Wonder if they'll get the message. EuroSong talk 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Try entering 020 71 or 023 8 or 023 80 in the search. You'll see that they almost get it. They use both the right and wrong format on the resulting page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.68.65 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That's half EuroSong's point - that you have to enter something that isn't the area code you're trying to find is unacceptable. -- Smjg (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of text from introduction

I'm not sure about the recent removal of a lot of text from the introduction. Certainly it needed to be modified; some of the text before was a little sensationalist and not very encyclopedic, but there was still some good information and explanation. I think the introduction is very much inferior now without it; it doesn't really explain the topic of the article and jumps straight in to the statistics about London without even mentioning other areas. -- DatRoot 20:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The editor who made this change called the previous version non-encyclopædic - but I think the new version is poorer, as it does not serve the article well. An article's lead is supposed to summarise the article, while providing an introduction for context. The previous version was not perfect - and needed more references - but it did its perscribed job. The changed version does not. I think I'll change it back. The issue should be discussed here further: in particular, discuss how to improve the lead, and what precisely is non-encyclopædic about the current version. EuroSong talk 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've made a few changes, by merging a couple of the paragraphs and toning down the language a bit. I think we now need a source or two that references the other regions, and the last last paragraph needs some work. I'm not sure we can keep the sentence about 6.5 million people not knowing their own phone number. -- DatRoot 00:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The trouble with what has been added back is there are no credible sources (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) used to back it up. The Ofcom reports (2004 and 2005) do not say he problem as significant beyond London so they should not be used as a basis for constructing a nationwide "problem". Without sources to back it up, it should be removed again. I haven't had a chance to look through the Ofcom archive, maybe they comissioned a report following one of the other changes which may help? MRSC • Talk 07:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Error/misconception in the text?

The article states that "The area code and local number is 11 digits long. For historical and population density reasons, the split of area code and local number digits can be 3 and 8, 4 and 7, or 5 and 6". However in the 01524 (Lancaster/Morecambe/Carnforth) area there are numbers whch are 5+5 (01524-3xxxx, 01524-6xxxx) 5+6 (01524-4xxxxx, 01524-8xxxxx) 6+5 (015242-xxxxx) I'm not sure how common this is in the rest of the country - here locally we have a mix of city and rural exchanges, plus the legacy of the 3xxxx numbers being originally used with a prototype electronic/mechanical hybrid exchange in the late 1970's may complicate things. The 015242 numbers are all rural. I'm loathe to attempt to alter the text myself as (a) it may not be a nationally significant confusion and (b) I'm hard pressed to see how to do it without causing more confusion. Any thoughts?81.86.230.16 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why the mess?

Countries all over the world use and have used predetermined standards for their phone numbers. For example in the US, all area codes are three digits, all prefixes are three digits, and extensions are all four digits, thus eliminating the confusion. The rest of the world figured it out? I would think we could, since we've had the telephone longer than most.

213.123.228.82 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Erik

But this system is so...um...ah... quaint? --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I read somewhere that the USA was fast running out of telephone numbers and radical changes were planned. New york was to be wrenched from its longstanding city code and split up. Has that been implemented yet? (Ah, but American's are so conservative when faced with change...) It is happening all over the world; the codes were designed for the 1960's, but suddenly every business needs huge numbers of 'phone lines, telephone, fax and data connection, a bank of direct dial numbers etc etc.
No wonder people get the technicalities wrong. It doesn't make them bad people, unless they are in the telecom industry of course.
LG02 (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstated parentheses around area codes

This article used to show all area codes with parentheses: (020) 8888 8888.

117.104.179.8 removed the parentheses from the London section when doing a slight simplification of the language; I can only assume that the editor did not appreciate their significance. Rapido put some of them back in (but wrote the pre-2000 numbers with a dash instead: 0181-888 8888). JGXenite removed the parens and dashes with the comment "hardly ever see area codes quoted in brackets now", and Rapido put them back ("brackets are required for geographic numbers"). None of these editors made any change to the later parts of the article which discuss other areas of the UK -- these continued to show the area codes in parentheses.

Parentheses around the part of the number that need not always be dialled (i.e. the area code) are recommended by both Ofcom and by the ITU-T. They also serve to clearly distinguish the optional from the non-optional parts of the number; a distinction which is absolutely central to the point made by this article, and therefore more critical here than in most contexts.

The dash format used by Rapido for pre-2000 numbers was originally used for all-figure numbers, but has not been the recommended format for years -- certainly the parentheses format was in use immediately before the Big Number changeover. Furthermore, I feel it is clearer for the reader if the article sticks to a single convention (the one in current use). Using an old formatting convention for older numbers risks confusing readers who may wonder what the difference is between 071-888 8888 and (071) 888 8888. Finally, the article should be consistent throughout.

For all these reasons, I have reverted all full phone numbers in the article to showing the area codes in parentheses.

TomH (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I fully agree. The presence of the brackets serves to make absolutely clear the distinction between the area code and the local number - which is, as you say, the focal matter of this article. EuroSong talk 10:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)