Talk:UK telephone code misconceptions

message: I therefore invite people to submit any further comments at my talk sub page: User_talk:Eurosong/02x. EuroSong talk 19:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forum-like posts moved to separate page

message: I'd like to say that BT recently fixed their area code list, but in reality they just messed it up again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eurosong/02x#BT_fixes_it._Or_do_they.3F
(90.193.31.98 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BT fixed their area code list. Or did they? 

message: As watchers of this page will be aware, there was a recent article for deletion discussion about this page. I'm happy to say that not only was the consensus unanimous that the article should be kept, but the nominator withdrew his original nomination as well. However, one important issue which arose from the discussion was that the misquoting problems with all the non-London codes do not have reliable references to accompany them. OFCOM conducted a survey for the 0207/0208/0203 problem, and the link is available as a reference for the London problem.. so that is all well and good. But unfortunately there do not appear to be any ready references for all the rest.
Just to clarify, for the benefit of newer editors - there are two points which need to be kept in mind. Firstly, that the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not just truth - but it is the presence of reliable third-party sources. It is undoubtedly true that the misquoting problem happens for many other areas than 020 - but in the absence of such references, the article really can not include the details. Secondly, in recent times the Wikipedia community has become stricter in its definition of reliable sources. While it is possible to find mention of, for example, people incorrectly saying "02920" for Cardiff - the sources tend to be blogs, comments, or online versions of local newspapers. And unfortunately, such sources are not considered reliable. There is good reason for this: just take for example the report here. This is a reference used in the article as an example of where the press have given incorrect information. But if you look at it from another angle - it just backs up the point that such media sites are not reliable information. We know which reports are correct, and which ones are written by idiots who should not be able to call themselves "journalists" - but there is no independent measure of which reports are correct and which ones merely serve as examples of the press getting it wrong.
Therefore - our priority now is to find reliable third-party sources which describe the problems for other areas than London. They don't have to be online. So if anyone can help - please do! EuroSong talk 21:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search for 0208 OR 0207 OR 0203 site:www.ofcom.org.uk/ shows the problem nicely. Try also bt.com, www.bbc.co.uk, parliament.uk, gov.uk. Of course, some hits are valid or irrelevant. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest developments 

message: I think there is a big POV and verifiability problem – yes 0207, 02920 are in no way the correct ‘dialling codes’, however it is repeatedly stated that certain spacings of numbers are ‘incorrect’ – if people wish to give out their full number (verbally or in writing) as ‘02920 xxx xxx’ (for the very good reason that it is much easier to quote / for somebody else to note down in that format), then that is their choice and it is not a matter for OFCOM or anyone else, certainly not an encyclopedia article to criticise them.
I (and I believe many others) use this more old fashioned and sensible number spacing while fully understanding that the actual dialling code is ‘029’ and that the ‘20’ will be necessary if dialling locally.  I’m confident that this is also the case in London and other areas - where is the evidence and source that this is always motivated by error, as implied?  
It is also debatable whether there is much of a problem caused by misconceptions or how people choose to quote their number – in fact the vast expansion of mobile phones at the expense of landlines since the Big Number Change means that it is far more common to dial full numbers than it used to be, thus reducing the risk of incorrect local dialling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.173.21 (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The space between area code and subscriber number is mandated by the ITU E.123 standard. Writing 02920 xxx xxx is a very bad idea. By writing it that way, by definition, you are implying that xxx xxx is the local number and that it can be dialled using six digits from any other number that begins 02920. It also implies that 02921 xxx xxx is a number in a different area code and that all eleven digits will have to be dialled to call it. Both assumptions are wrong. (80.42.229.83 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The standard does not rely on "local" knowledge, something which visitors and tourists will not have. It shows a simple rule: the bit before the space is the area code, and the bit after it is the local number. Additionally, if the area code is shown in parentheses, and you are calling that number from a number allocated within the same area code, then the area code can be omitted. (80.42.229.83 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

text: To write "02920 xxx xxx" is not implying that xxx xxx is the local number, it is stating that xxx xxx is the local number.  It is a dissemination of false information.  Every day millions of people are being told that there are such codes 0207, 02476, 02890, etc., leading to misdialling.  It is not "their choice".  On the contrary, it is the right of the public not to be victims of these lies, directly or indirectly. -- Smjg (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

text: It's not implying or stating anything. It's just the preferred way of giving out a number for a given person who was used to having a home or business number in a 3-4 or a 3-3 format, and didn't want to change. Why should they? If the listener/reader misinterprets that information then the fault lies with them. 'Victims' and 'Lies' are a bit laughable. Also, I like to give out my mobile no as 0785 4xx xxxx, not 07854 xxx xxx. I do it intentionally, knowing the latter is 'correct', just because I grew up memorising a lot of 3-4 format numbers. I am not a liar, nor am I seeking victims, and whatever you or BT or Virgin or anyone else says I'm going to carry on saying my number (and any others that I don't wish to 'rememorise')the way I want to.Jabberwock359 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

text: The only people who find the numbers "easier to quote" in their incorrect format are the people who are simply so used to the audio rhythm of repeating the numbers that way that they find it hard to think of anything else. There is no inherent ease of speach or writing by grouping 4-3-4 over 3-4-4. As long as it's not, for example, 2-7-2: "02 0722212 34" - or something silly like that which would involve many unspaced digits in a row - then there's no "easy" or "hard" way. There is, however, a correct way and an incorrect way. EuroSong talk 14:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I'll be 'incorrect' then ... and you know what? I don't care Jabberwock359 (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

text: ... also - it's very condescending to say we're " so used to .. the numbers that way that they find it hard to think of anything else". I don't find it hard to think of any phone number in any configuration you care to present to me (given a bit of time for memorisation). What I object to is being told that I HAVE to change my way of writing or saying because it's become 'incorrect' for someone else.  If they misunderstand, (later, when using another number that's nothing to do with me) then that's their lookout.Jabberwock359 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various comments on the OfCom website stating that business PBX exchanges were adversely affected if not properly programmed as accepting 020 as the London code, especially where the system used different providers depending on the locality of the call - on incorrectly programmed exchanges 0203 was not recognised as London and was put through via a potentially more expensive supplier.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The statement below has also been implied in other wiki articles but I've yet to see one actually cite any reliable reference as evidence that it is in fact the case.
"The geographical significance of the "7" or "8" has been lost with regard to new number issues, so that, for example, some newly allocated numbers in central London now begin with an "8"."
In fact the "National Code & Number Change Framework Document" produced by Oftel dated Issue 20th March 2001, (and referenced in the "Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom" wiki article), actually implies that the opposite may be the case quote: 
"2.10.3 Split between Inner and Outer London
The future of the existing split between Inner and Outer London is to be reviewed by OFTEL. Operators should note that present arrangements require that (020) 7XXX XXXX numbers to be used in the (0171) Inner London area, and (020) 8XXX XXXX numbers to be used in the (0181) Outer London area."
So unless further evidence can be produced stating the above edict was reversed, the split is to be presumed still in existence. Area code of London being 020 not withstanding.  192.91.191.29 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When people talk about a "split", this is merely a reference to the historical split. The "split" which is still in existence is not an actual split in terms of telephone technology or number allocation - but it merely a legacy of the time before London was reunited. Of course, MOST numbers beginning with "(020) 8..." will still be in outer London - but that's simply because the vast majority of the numbers were rolled over from the split. The fact that (020) 8... numbers are now also allocated in central London is evidence that there is no split now. EuroSong talk 14:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Additional - Re-reading your post, I see your point more - that you're asking for citation of evidence that (020) 8 numbers are allocated in central London. Sorry, I missed that bit. Yes, you're right: it would do the article good to have a citation of this point. I'll see if I can find one. EuroSong talk 14:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Inner / Outer London split

message: Do Google searches really count as a valid reference? The results of the search probably change every few months and the fact being cited should probably be more or less stated in the reference, rather than an inference that can be made from it. Will Bradshaw (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Google search results are not valid references. Using a search page to demonstrate that, say, 02476 is commonly believed to be the code for Coventry (rather than 024), is original research. What is required in such a case is something like a link to an article in the Coventry Evening Telegraph which describes the matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for "Other numbers" section 

message: There hasn't been a concept of "long distance" telephone calls in the UK for decades. Similarly the use of the 0 as a trunk code is historic. Simple fact is that BT and OFCOM state the area code includes the 0. (https://www.thephonebook.bt.com/DiallingCodes/DiallingCodeSearch/?SearchType=1&AreaIdentifier=020&InternationalCodeId=0&InternationalCodeId=0 & https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/advice/telephone-area-codes-tool). It's simple, if you are inside the area covered by an area code and wish to call another number within it you ommit the area code (with the 0), if you are outside it and wish to call the same number you MUST call the full area code includeing the 0. Dialling 20 from outside London from anywhere else in the UK will result in NU. Therefore there are NO valid numbers diallable within the UK which don't inlcude the 0, (with the exception of calling within an area code and special numbers). So whilst it may have been true in the past that the 0 was a "Trunk" or "long distance" prefix, it hasn't been the case for a very long time. I can call my next door neighbour in the next area code and will need to dial the area code including the 0, next door isn't long distance. In my entire life the UK (unlike the US) has never had the division of local and long distance for anything other than billing purposes. We are not required to use a "Long distance" carrier (like they do in the US) to call from London to Aberdeen for example, and never have been.  I also worked for BT for over 8 years as an engineer and not once did I hear anyone refer to the Trunk dialing prefix, nor did I in any subsequent Telecoms companies I worked for, until I worked for a company who the majority of their business were in the US. So the whole argument is rather moot.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:104:4001:71:25DC:74C8:B202:D664 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic 

message: I tagged this article as, much as I like it, it really needs more solid sourcing. There's a lot of what looks like original research in the article. I can list the issues here, tag them in the article or both. Northern Ireland is mentioned early on in the article but it is never explained why it was affected. There's a lot more. --John (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged for reference imrovement 

message: This article is about the fact that ten years ago a survey showed: 59 % (of whom? Londoners?) incorrectly believed that 0207, 0208 etc. were local area telephone codes for London, while it is in fact 020, and that businesses still (or at least ten years ago) advertised their numbers as 0207 123 456, which is WRONG (it should be 020 712 3456 - this is the only correct way to do it!). 
The practical consequence would be that some older persons trying to make a call to their local grocer with the aforementioned number, and having a phone number also starting with 0207, would just call 123456. And of course they would not be connected, as the correct local number is in fact 7123456. 
Disastrous! Imagine all the time spent over the last ten years by all these people unseccessfully trying to call their local grocer or hairdresser! Imagine the loss for local shopkeepers because their customers can't call them as they fall for this FATAL misconception!
Therefore this article is a real help to thousands of Londoners, as it will help them save time by telling them THE TRUTH (if they read it). This is an encyclopedic article as any should be. So get on your feet wikipedians, make some reaserach of your own as the authors of this article have done, find some misconceptions in your communities and correct them in valuable articles like this one! Vicki Reitta (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, AFD is thataway. Be our guest; it is probably a better home for your views than this, and will probably get you more useful responses. Before you go there, you might want to sort out your sarcasm a bit, as it may not be appreciated or understood, and you might want to get examples that are plausible - your example has too few digits however you slice it and dice it. 020 7123 4567 would be more acceptable but a seven-digit local number won't work in whatever flavour. Hope this helps. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for sharing your wisdom. That was very helpful. I liked especially the information about the number of digits, which seems to be very important in this case, as the number of digits seemingly has a bearing on this awful misonceptions (and I thought is was the "wrong spaces", can you believe it!). I would of course never ever suggest to delete this valuable article, as I don't want to waste other's precious time with lengthy discussions about matters so unimportant. Vicki Reitta (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're most welcome. I'm glad I was able to help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very funny! 

message: At the end of section called Misquoting it says "Confusion is also caused by exchange automated changed number announcements where the voice synthesiser assumes that ALL area codes have four digits and places the spoken pause incorrectly.[citation needed]". I've definitely heard correctly grouped automated changed number announcements for 0118 numbers. Maybe this problem is fixed now. BrianDGregory (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Misquoting

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on UK telephone code misconceptions. 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/20100710141637/http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2009/08/phone-numbers/ to http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2009/08/phone-numbers/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526041356/http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/numbering/faqlondon.pdf to http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/numbering/faqlondon.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220055920/http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/numbering/dial-the-code/ to http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/numbering/dial-the-code/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140329000124/http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2009/09/telephone-area-codes-tool/ to http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2009/09/telephone-area-codes-tool/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526041356/http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/numbering/faqlondon.pdf to http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/numbering/faqlondon.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) 04:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the last few months I've got cold called by numbers starting 020 0xx xxxx. What's this all about? 137.205.238.140 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoofed (Fake) caller ID perhaps? BrianDGregory (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "020 0xx xxxx"? 

message: There exists a cafe in Sheffield where they have managed to twig that Sheffield has 7-digit telephone numbers.... but *also* use the wrong dialing code. Yes, in 8-inch high lettering they claim you can call them on 01142 267-xxxx.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.251.53 (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even worse... 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49523759 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  London 0204 imminent 

message: "Further increased demand for telephone numbers in London led to the need for more number-space; rather than again split area codes, it was decided to merge the 0171 and 0181 area codes back into one but add an extra digit to the start of each London local number, thus increasing the available numbers by a factor of 3.5 (local numbers starting 0, 1 or 9 still being impossible)."
Local numbers starting 9 are not impossible. The east sector (for example) uses 980, 981, 982, 985, 986, 987, 989 and has done for decadess
Where does the factor of 3.5 come from?
7 digit range = 200 0000 - 998 9999 giving 7,990,000 numbers in each area.
8 digit range = 2000 0000 - 9989 9999 giving 79,900,000
a factor of  5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.135.239 (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reunification 

message: When 020 3xxx xxxx numbers first became apparent I was told that the 020 had to be dialled. I demonstrated the falsity of this. I am unsure if the person who said it believed it to be the case with all 020 numbers, but I believe he would have been using landline phones pre 020 and would have omitted the code in the usual way. I am also aware of someone with an 020 8xxx xxxx number who believed the 020 could be omitted when dialling another 020 8xxx xxxx number, but not when dialling an  020 7xxx xxxx number (only those two ranges were in use at the time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinal 1962 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquoting