The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator informed me that has elected to withdraw the AFD, with no other arguments for deletion. –MuZemike 02:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK telephone code misconceptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In the scope of an encyclopedia, this article is far from encyclopedic. Yes it has a lot of references, but the material included is essentially about how one country (UK) changed some of it's telephone area codes, and how some people still misquote them. The article was written in 2005, and the general use of these codes today means the article is now seriously out of date despite updates being performed by IP editors, mostly.

The article also has a number of statements which have not been sourced or tagged for checking, it is marked as possibly containing OR, which is not allowed here, and essentially, this article is not fit for inclusion here.

It is large, longwinded, and unencyclopedic. My gut instinct says "Coat this with something volatile, and strike a match near it." Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - The article just needs cleaning up a bit, that's all. However, it is a very, very notable issue - and has multiple verifiable sources which are cited. The telephone code misconception is something which affects millions of people on a daily basis - both to a lesser extent (where they simply misquote) and to a greater extent (where the misconceptions cause calls not to be connected, or to reach entirely the wrong person). EuroSong ^talk 17:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Do any of the cited references describe this as an issue as defined by the scope of the article or is they entirely a synthesized collection of materials describing the various aspects of the misconceptions as seen by the editors? I can't find any cites that actually address this as a single issue. If there are none than this is clearly WP:SYN issue, if there are then the article does not fit the criteria for deletion. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer The OFCOM reports are cited in the article - currently references #1, #2 and #4. OFCOM is the official telecommunications regulator of the United Kingdom. The misconceptions problem is large enough that the regulator is aware of it, and that they even spent money to commission surveys to measure the scale of the problem. Their findings indicate that the majority (over 50%) of people do not know their own correct telephone number. The population of Greater London currently stands at 7.5 million. Therefore possibly just under 4 million residents of London do not know their own phone numbers. When you include all the other cities in the UK to which the misconceptions apply, this number grows. I do believe that a problem which is large enough to be recognised by the governing body to the extent that they commissioned surveys to record its scale, is certainly a large enough issue as described in the article. EuroSong ^talk 20:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I misunderstood the exact nature of the reports when I first looked through the citations. It would appear to me that this is an issue that is relevant, real and sourceable along with being recognized by relevant government and private parties. With that in mind I can't really say that it is Original Research but it still very much borders on violating WP:SYN. I can now concur that deleting the article is probably not the best response to the issues with citations but I'd urge interested parties to actively search for independent, third parties that have also identified and are discussing this subject as it is presented in this article. It seems that the editors that created this article might simply be trending ahead of the media on this one. Also, keep in mind that wikipedia is not really the place to disseminate data points; it's purpose is to present encyclopedic articles. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - you're right that the article needs work at the moment. But - as you correctly said - it should not be deleted! If we deleted all articles which needed issues addressing, then we would have no articles left! With regards to being "ahead of the media" - well, the fact is, telephone area code formatting is not seen as a very sexy topic, therefore you don't tend to get many mainstream media articles directly addressing the misconception issue. However, media articles are not the primary measure of notability. EuroSong ^talk 22:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true but it is important to keep in mind that the collection of data points to create a narrative is the definition of WP:SYN. To state the policy page: ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." I understand that the collection of these studies is valuable but the lack of a reliable source reflecting the narrative and conclusions of this article leave it in a precarious position. The article needs to find a source for it's "C". TomPointTwo (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - The cites at references 1 and 2 date back to 2004 and 2005, are they still essentially relevant, 5 and 4 years on respectively? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The problem is as big today - if not bigger than it was several years ago. Just because OFCOM's survey was commissioned a few years ago - and they haven't done a more recent one - that doesn't mean that the problem has gone away. If anything, it simply means that the problem has become even more entrenched - given the lack of any reports stating that people have now finally began to understand the area codes. EuroSong ^talk 22:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - In the first few years after the number changes, the main issue was the dialling of too few digits on local calls, and the call therefore failing to connect. After many years of people having an incorrect belief as to what the area codes really are, and with new number ranges coming into use in all these areas, the problem is now much worse. For the new number ranges within each area, people are prefixing what they believe to be area code on to the new numbers, and dial too many digits. The call now connects to the wrong number. The problem is increasing, and will continue to do so as more new ranges come into use within these areas. On the anniversary of the changes, there is always a huge traffic spike on pages about the changes: [1]. Perception of the new codes is still very low, even as we approach the tenth anniversary of the latest changes. The UK media continue to misquote UK numbers daily, and many websites (even new ones built this week) are quite likely to misquote them. I guess there will be a lot of media activity on the tenth anniversary, with stories about how BT and Ofcom botched the information campaign, when in fact it's the UK media that have spent the whole of the last decade spreading mis-information. The article describes real problems which are not diminishing. (79.73.227.213 (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep but encourage pursuing new sources per Q & A above. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge useful, verifiable and notable content to Big Number Change and Delete remainder. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article seems to be something of a content fork. Most of it is horribly unencyclopedic, built on original research and synthesis and supported by references to unacceptable sources such as directories and forums. The mainstream sourcing that there is is almost all from the same short period a fairly long time ago - a sign the article may violate WP:NOTNEWS From WP:NOT: A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. This article seems to be merely an attempt to be "a complete exposition of all possible details" regarding the Big Number Change. This is really not a sensible subject for an encyclopedia article at all. Brilliantine (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and edit. The subject of the article is notable. However, it makes a number of claims that are not supported by reliable sources. It may be that the problem occurs in other code areas, but the bulk of the reliable sources (such as the Ofcom reports and press coverage) point to it being a problem most associated with 020. It needs to be edited and claims unsupported (that is, unsupported by reliable sources) must be removed. The inclusion criteria is verifiability, not truth. MRSC (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's of interest to technical historians, and to nerds like me. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that "interesting" is not the litmus for inclusion at wikipedia. Do you have any other reasons? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If I didn't find articles interesting, I wouldn't be here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is saying something being interesting is bad, it is just not a criterion for the existence of an article. Brilliantine (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that makes sense. I was just suggesting that if you desire to see an article kept the best way to do so is to advance a position that is inline with the relevant policies, in this case the one on deletion. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are thirteen reasons for deletion, and the article doesn't satisfy eleven of them. The other two are very subjective: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" and "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". It's very difficult to persuade anybody that something is notable or encyclopedic when they've already decided otherwise. But, I can demonstrate usefulness, which might fit either or both. A year or so back I got into an argument with my boss (well, his boss's boss to be exact); his line was "Reading's dialling code changed from 01734 to 01189". My line was "It changed from 01734 to 0118, and a 9 was added to customers numbers. Try going to Reading, and dialling a 6-digit number. It won't work unless you put the 9 in too". Much arguing ensued. If I had been unable to refer him to UK telephone code misconceptions#Reading, Berkshire it could have turned out worse. Now, that is both WP:OR and unreferenced. The article is not. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that this article has served some purpose in educating your boss' boss! The amount of blind ignorance out there is staggering.

Anyway - I need to comment on the things that have been said so far. I myself was the originator of this article - originally entitled "0207 & 0208". I believe that it is encyclopædic, relevant, verifiable, notable - and educational. However, having said that, I do take onboard the points that have been made with regards to the article having become an "insicriminate collection of information". As a seasoned Wikipedia editor, I understand that the criteria for encyclopædia inclusion include not only truth, but the ability to independently verify the facts from reputable sources. And as it stands, the lists of problems and misquoting with all the other area codes except 020, do not have those credible sources cited. As mentioned above, part of the problem for this is that telephone code formatting problems do not sound like a very sexy and interesting topic for the national media (also, most of the journalists get the codes wrong themselves!) - and OFCOM obviously doesn't want to spend too much money commissioning surveys for every area code around the country.

With this in mind, I recommend that the article be cut down drastically, so it merely sticks to the relevant points with regard to 020. Opinions, anyone? EuroSong ^talk 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is cut down then it would be a lot better, certainly. I would have to say that I would still propose a merger with Big Number Change in any case, as I don't see why the subject is not capable of being covered adequately in that article. Brilliantine (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a merge, for the simple reason that the Big Number Change was simply a single event that happened almost a decade ago. However, the ongoing problem of the telephone code misconceptions has itself grown to be a bigger part of daily life than the single event which preceeded it. In addition, the basis of people's misconceptions (in terms of 020) is rooted in the fact that London was split during the 1990s, and in order to provide a proper explanation for the reason for the error, it is necessary to describe the history of all the London number changes. That goes beyond the scope of the Big Number Change article. EuroSong ^talk 18:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would favour dividing the properly verifiable material from this article between Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom and Big Number Change. I just don't see any way of showing the subject of misconceptions relating to UK area codes to be independently notable. I am open to other suggestions and have to say I appreciate your willingness (as the article creator) to discuss constructively. Brilliantine (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I do see the point some have made re WP:SYN but this is perhaps the result of the scope of the article being widened from its original name of 0207 & 0208 (or something like that). Some editors originally pointed out that there were also misconceptions outside London, and then the scope gradually crept to include Cardiff etc. and after a while the article got renamed to its current title. However, I don't think that the problem outside London is anywhere as severe as it is within London (just my impression - I doubt I can back that up easily). So perhaps the article name should revert to 0207 & 0208 (or whatever it was), and should have notes regarding Cardiff etc. (but I'm not that bothered). In any case, there is a noteworthy problem as regards London phone nos. - it's quite bizarre that perhaps most Londoners don't know what their area code is!--A bit iffy (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. "0207 & 0208" was a nice tidy article, written just about the London misconceptions, and well referenced. However, then people started to add the problems with other area codes, and the article was renamed accordingly. I would not object to cutting out all the stuff about other areas - as, although the information may be true, it is poorly-referenced.EuroSong ^talk 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep for reasons already given. Moreover, the article is by no means out of date as claimed - while the sources may be old, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the facts presented are as true and as important (if not more) now as they were five years ago. -- Smjg (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Eurosong has carried out some of the suggested rationalisation; but an IP editor has made some drastic cuts too, which I think was a bit too far. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - The 2000 Ofcom survey was put in place to monitor the effectiveness of the public understanding of the area code change from dual 0171/0181 areas to a single 020 area. It found a very low understanding; most people incorrectly said that London had two area codes: 0207 and 0208. The 2005 survey was put in place for several reasons. One was to measure whether perception of '020' had increased. Another was to judge people's reactions to the new 3xxx xxxx local number range that was about to come into service. Predictably, most people still wrongly believed London had two area codes. Most also incorrectly assumed that London was getting a "third code - 0203". (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Interestingly, one option that Ofcom had previously considered was to have an 'overlay' code for new London numbers, e.g. continue with 0171 for inner London and 0181 for outer London, and have another code (perhaps 0119, but one was never chosen) as a new area code for new numbers anywhere in London. This was rejected as too complicated, and because it would mean that most calls within London would then have to be dialled with an area code, even for calls within the same street. The single 020 code allowing copious room for future expansion was the solution put in place. When the first additional number range was allocated, the media did their usual half-assed job by getting it wrong. See [2] and others. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'd think it quite likely that Ofcom will do another survey in 2010, and I guess they will find perception to still be very low. A huge chance to raise perception of '020' has been missed with the 2012 Olympic games. The London Olympic games number is misquoted everywhere as 0203 2012 000. It was obviously chosen by someone who incorrectly believes that London does have three area codes. Wouldn't the number 020 3000 2012 have been a whole lot better? We'll never know. I'd guess London was surveyed by Ofcom because: it has the largest population, it is right on Ofcom's doorstep, and it's the most major area that has been split and then recombined (only a decade later). Ofcom did also survey 'the perception of the London area code as seen from outside London' in 2005, and noted similar low awareness. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ofcom are only too aware that the rest of the country (in all 02x and 011x areas) also misquote their own numbers. They don't need a survey to tell them that. In those other areas, Ofcom introduced new number ranges without fanfare, and misdialling rates there have also soared. There are millions of misdialled calls per month where people insert unwanted digits when calling new number ranges, simply because their perception of what the area code is, is incorrect. Newspapers rarely report these issues, unless it is a little old lady being perpetually harassed [3] (and even then they incorrectly reported that 'Sheffield gets new 01143 code') or people wanting to call the local hospital inserting an unwanted digit after the real area code part, and end up calling the Reading fire brigade instead [4]. Most other incidents go unreported because no-one has their eye on the big picture, they cannot see that it is a systematic failure on a national scale. The media are also at least partly to blame for public confusion. In their official Style Guide, at least one newspaper incorrectly tells their journalists and editors to use '0207 for London' e.g. [5] (see Telephone). (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There are many rants on blogs and forums about the general area code misinformation and screw ups, and many more posts where people in 011x and 02x areas report receiving misdialled calls. Those sites are considered 'non-authoritative', cannot be quoted, and so as far as WP is concerned, 'the problem does not actually exist'. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The area code misconception is all around you. Some 30 to 50% of all new 'city' (i.e. 011x and 02x area code) telephone numbers mentioned on a daily basis on [a popular real-time social-media messaging network] are malformed, and a Google search for the fake '0207' area code and just today's date already lists thousands of results: [6]. You'll likely watch at least one 'live' UK TV programme this week where a 'new' number is misquoted, and tomorrow you can find dozens more misquoted in the adverts in your local or national newspaper. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

On another note, BT's area code lists (for all 011x and 02x areas) have been incorrect for the whole of the last decade. I know of at least a dozen people who have informed BT about those errors. Many of those people have informed BT at least several times, and those letters and emails stretch back at least several years, if not all the way back to 2000 itself. Finally, BT amended their lists only a few weeks ago, fixing some of the problems, but also introducing several new problems. A few weeks later they amended some entries again; finally, the London entries are correct, but BT still has errors for most of the other 02x codes, as well as errors for some other areas; see: BT has another go, and fails again. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The WP article was originally heavily London-biased, but the problems extend nationwide to all 011x and 02x areas. This is the sort of mentality that pervades many UK businesses: [7]. How the heck do you call '013066' in Coventry anyway? On the tenth anniversary of the changes, next year, there are a LOT of questions going to be asked as to why this mess still continues. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There are as many issues with the other 02x area codes (created as part of the Big Number Change) as there are with the London code, though the issues may be slightly different. London numbers added one digit and the two London areas were recombined as one; the other 02x codes added two digits to the local number. So, London 020 is misquoted mostly as 020x and occasionally as 020xx, other 02x areas are mainly misquoted as 02xxx and occasionally as 02xx. There are also plenty of issues with the older 011x codes created by PhONEday, especially now that new number ranges have come into use. Those codes are mainly misquoted as 011xx. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Reading changed at a different time to the other 011x codes, and so the misconceptions in those other 01xx areas are slightly different: one of those involves people believing the old code added a 1 at PhONEday, but that didn't happen in those other areas. The article currently also addresses the question as to why there are a lot of problems with the 011x area codes (such as 0116 for Nottingham) and not so many problems with the 01x1 area codes (such as 0161 for Manchester), which is a very valid question for someone to ask. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The main problems stem from both the PhONEday and Big Number Change events, and the original London problems predate those by several years. Problems continue in all 011x and 02x areas, especially when new number blocks come into use in an area. This is not a problem that is confined to London, and it is not a problem solely associated with the Big Number Change. To limit the article to those two topics would remove more than 88% of the real problems from view. The article needs sections for London, other 02x changes, the Reading change, the PhONEday changes, and a note about older 01x1 codes, because there's different scenarios for each of those. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As the tenth anniversary of the Big Number Change approaches, there will be a LOT of media interest in this mess. It's a story that's just about to happen, after a far too long period where far too many people have buried their head in the sand. The problem is, there is nowhere else on the web where can you find the 'big picture' documented in full. There's just snippets here and there. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Dear 86.128.125.222 - thank you for all your input. However, please remember that this is a page discussing whether or not the article should be deleted: not a page to discuss the phone code misconceptions themselves(!). Your input here needs to be in the context of Wikipedia guidelines in support of keeping the article. And the point is - while everything you said is completely true - there is a sad lack of reliable sources for all the nationwide errors other than for the London code. If you read the rules, you'll find that the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth - it's verifiability from reliable sources. And the fact that there are no ready reliable third-party sources for the non-London codes means that, although in the information is correct, its present inclusion in Wikipedia is in question. I'm happy to say, however, that is is quite apparent from all the "keep" comments here that a consensus has been reached that there are indeed reliable sources for the London problem - so the article itself should stay (just needs an admin to close the debate). But all the non-London examples still need a lot of work - or removing. EuroSong ^talk 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per A Bit Iffy and others. Further, some of the original nominator's comments are baffling: why does it matter that it is a UK topic? Plenty of articles here are a lot more local than this, but it doesn't make them bad. Nor does its age, intrinsically, nor its subject matter. It has certainly suffered bloat and needs editing down, but I believe that it is essentially a useful and encyclopaedic article. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.