Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 October 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 17

Dialing digits and calling cost

What could costs less? Dialing “0” or “+” first/before a whole phone number, when dialing in the same country or another? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This depends on what country you are phoning from, and whether you are using a landline or mobile phone. It might be simplest for you to contact your network provider directly. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Does it even make a difference? Sjö (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Help me get my head around the concept of dialing "+" —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

See International call prefix which explains the technicalities of dialing "+" --Jayron32 20:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

For me at least, the international call prefix begins with 0, so the OP could be asking whether to start dialing with 0 or with 0. —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It's years, if not decades, since this made any difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh? International calls are still quite often expensive and billed differently from domestic calls. Or were you being cheeky and making a point that many people don't make international calls anymore because they use the Internet instead? --47.138.165.200 (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the OP's question. When dialling an international nasumber, you can either prefix it with an international call prefix or, on a mobile phone at least, you can type '+'. The OP is asking which of these prefixes will make the call cheaper. --Viennese Waltz 07:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Is he asking that? In many countries "0" is the required first digit of most or all domestic calls (see trunk prefix). The IP of the original question geolocates to Bangladesh which is a country that uses "0" for domestic calls. For example, in my country, to dial me locally you call 079 xxx xx xx, but internationally it is either +41 79 xxx xx xx (or from Europe 0041 79 xxx xx xx, or from US 011 41 79 xxx xx xx). My initial impression of the question was asking whether it costs more to call a local number by dialing the local prefix ("0") or to dial the same number by using the international prefix ("+"); however, on reading the responses, I'm not at all sure what is being asked. Dragons flight (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The telephone system of the past often had explicit end results according to how you controlled it from the phone, even where this wasn't useful to the network. By dialling particular sequences, the caller could control not only where a call went, but how it got there. This could be used to force a transatlantic cable rather than a satellite link (avoiding the delay of a satellite). It could even be used to make a long distance call by bouncing between local exchanges rather than through the trunk system, saving charges at the cost of poorer quality.

From the 1950s, control systems became more sophisticated, replacing human trunk operators, and allowing the development of STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialling) in the UK. Each destination phone was identified by a number, a single consistent number by which it was called from anywhere in the network. Before this, a local dialling code was needed - the code to call one exchange from its neighbours, and a code which might be different according to from where it was being called. In physical street address terms, this was the difference between an address of "23 Sesame Street" or a routing instruction of "Turn right, then second left". Books of these codes were distributed to phone users, or a large poster of them was inside each public phonebox.

The Director telephone system was at the core of replacing this - the network still needed to use the routing instructions, but the customers were given a single consistent number to dial. Each local exchange (actually a trunk exchange at the large town scale) had a "Register Translator" set (a pair of them, for hot backups) which were a lookup table of the public numbers to the routing number from that exchange. The first of these were valve computers with magnetic drum memory - the RT5 set was still in use into the 1980s.

Later in the '80s, stored program (i.e. computer controlled) exchanges became widespread and these were far more sophisticated. The caller and the numbers they dial became further and further distanced from the physical route used. Exchanges might even route calls differently, according to network load. In the 1990s we saw the shift from switched circuits to packet switching, and the voice network starting to be carried by the data network. Previously these had either been separate, or ad hoc data connections by modem ran over the voice network.

There are now a few ways to dial "the same" number. "+" (usable internationally) has the same effect as "00" (the UK's international dialling access code). If they're in the same country as the destination, a caller also has the choice to dial "0203 1234567", "+44 203 1234567", or "0044 203 1234567". These will all reach the same London number - but two of them are "international" numbers. In the past this would give an expensive international call, or a warning message ("You don't need to dial this internationally, please try again without the code") or (later, and as now) the network is smart enough to recognise that it's a same-country call and so doesn't need to be routed or billed internationally. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that UK London's dialing code is 020 and the phone numbers have 8 digits, many starting 3, 7 or 8. So I guess your numbers above should be "020 31234567", "+44 20 31234567", or "0044 20 31234567". -- SGBailey (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

So don't dial the space. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not the point. If you live in London and you want to call your first example number, you would dial 3123 4567, not 123 4567. The spacing is crucial. See UK telephone code misconceptions#Misquoting. --Viennese Waltz 15:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

But no-one does dial that. Not even Londoners. If you're in London, "31234567" might work, but who uses that, rather than "02031234567"? Younger phone phreeks? Old ones (like myself) still think of Inner and Outer London as distinct, even though we know they aren't any more. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, who knows what people dial. All I can say is that if someone living in London dials 02031234567 when they only need to dial 31234567, they're an idiot. --Viennese Waltz 15:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As a general issue, even outside London, fewer of us are dialling anything numerically, we now use pre-programmed phonebooks in our mobiles, or we click web links, or we simply use what's written on the billboard / plumber's van / business card. All of these use the full code, or even the international version. Certainly my phone has everything in with +44 at the start, even the house number. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Your house number starts +44? -- SGBailey (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The copy in my mobile's contact list does. Otherwise it wouldn't work if I'm abroad. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

SGB interpreted house number the same way I would, as per the link. What you called your "house number", I'd call your "home number" or "home phone number". --69.159.61.230 (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm old enough to think the division of Inner and Outer London (1990–2000) was recent. (I might not think that if I'd ever called London more than a handful of times.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Formalities envelope colour

When/For what purpose should you use a white, brown, yellow (and so on) colour envelope? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We have articles on red and green ones, but not the colours you mention. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Historically, brown envelopes have tended to be used for official correspondence from governments, city councils, utilities and the like, whereas white envelopes were more for personal correspondence. See [1]. --Viennese Waltz 07:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I was taught at secretarial college many moons ago that brown envelopes were used because they are cheaper than any other colour! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Brown are cheaper, stronger, and used to be considerably cheaper as the paper is unbleached and an be made from wood pulp rather than rag. So were favoured for "official" correspondence, i.e. things that needed to be read, whether one wanted to or not. White's greater expense was justified if the sender wanted to encourage the recipient to read it. So a job applicant would write in a white envelope, be refused with a brown one, and accepted with either white or brown depending on whether it was a commercial or government role.

Buff envelopes were also used, especially in the USA, for strength. In the UK they were generally restricted to padded or extra-strong envelopes. One example is a multi-use internal post envelope, used within large businesses. As these were frequently opened and re-tied, and repeatedly labelled (they usually have a printed grid to addresses which were crossed out and re-written in the next space), these needed to survive a lot of handling. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not really about formalities, but brown envelopes are connected to bribery, see e.g. Brown envelope journalism and Urban Dictionary. Sjö (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Formalities; paper folding

How/In what way should you fold an A4 (or any other kind) of paper when handing it to another? Beside, how should/could you possibly hand it to another? In what way(s)...? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A trifold is often used, as it allows one side to be hidden, ensuring a degree of privacy, if the writing is on one side only. It also fits into a common envelope size that way, for even more privacy. See [2]. Note that the folds should be parallel to the lines of text, and between the lines, if possible, to ensure legibility (ink right at the fold can be lost, over time). StuRat (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You ask how the piece of paper should be handed to another. Are you thinking of whether to use one or two hands? According to Etiquette in Japan, both hands are always used in that country, to show respect. Or are you thinking of something else? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There used to be a convention in the UK that if handing a communication in an envelope to someone to pass on to the intended recipient, one left the envelope unsealed* to demonstrate trust in the intermediary. The intermediary might then seal the envelope in front of the recipient before handing it to him/her to show that this trust had been extended.

(* referring to the glued flap – use of sealing wax for routine business documents predates even my office training and practice.)

Since StuRat's trifold is a red link, I'll clarify that this refers to folding the paper into three sections, using two folds.

The OP's question falls into the category of Business etiquette, for which we have only a section under the article Etiquette, but this may point to other more detailed treatments appropriate to the particular cultural milieux involved. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Tri-fold redirects to Brochure, but seems to have information on the folding mentioned. 220 of ^Borg 15:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The link I provided (pointing outside of Wikipedia) has a diagram. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Formalities; pen colours

What colour pen should you use for what purpose? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Black and blue are used for most formal correspondence. In accounting, black may be used to indicate positive amounts and red for negatives (see debits and credits). In proofreading, red is often used to indicate corrections, although other colors, like green, may be used by auto spellcheckers to indicate grammar problems. When using software with revision tracking, it may be helpful to use a range of colors to indicate change levels. However, due to the large portion of the population who are partially colorblind, it may be unwise to rely solely on color to convey critical info. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please indicate what sort of revision-tracking software produces its output using colored pens! --69.159.61.230 (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

see Google: here. 2600:8806:4800:5100:DD6A:D0FE:F6C9:448C (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's how to compare two version of an MS Word document using black for text and blue for changes: [3]. StuRat (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the IP's point. The question was about pens, not computer software. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've often heard the ink color called the pen color, perhaps left over from the use of plotters, which do use pens. StuRat (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Many composers have used ink of different colours when writing their scores. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Green ink is the accepted colour for writing sprawling incomprehensible conspiracy-mongering letters to your local newspaper. Smurrayinchester 07:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Green ink is commonly used by auditors in the UK. I wonder if there is a correlation? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As an ex-editor, I'll expand on StuRat's proofreading references. Manuscripts are preferably submitted to the publishers written/printed in black. (Yes, I have had to deal with actual handwritten pages of MSS before now.) The publishers give a black typewritten copy with corrections and amendments (and mark-up instructions) written in blue to the compositors/printers. The printers return the printed proofs to the publisher with any of their own errors they have already spotted marked in green.

After proofreading, the publisher returns the proofs with unspotted printers' errors corrected in red, and further amendments in blue. The authors will also be included in some or all of these stages, may spot errors and will make further amendments, and hopefully follow all these conventions.

The significance of the different colours is

(1) that all corrections and amendments should differ from black so as to be better visible and legible, and

(2) to calculate cost allocation: the printers will be responsible for the cost of correcting their self-spotted mistakes marked in green and publisher-spotted printing errors in red, while the publishers will pay for the costs of the blue amendments. If the latter are particularly numerous,

(a) the printers might make an additional surcharge, and

(b) if the authors are responsible for more than a contractually defined amount of proof amendments (such as more than 10% of the text) the publisher may pass on some charge for them (which in practice will usually be deducted from royalties when payable).

All this refers to traditional pre-computing publishing procedures using paper MSS etc., which is what I worked under. Doubtless the use of computer files, author and publisher compositing (misnamed "Desktop publishing") and so forth has introduced new or different conventions, but the OP was asking specifically about using pens, implying paper. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In Pakistan I was severely scolded for using green ink which I was told could only by used by the president. But they couldn't explain why green ink pens were sold in shops, or whether the president tended to buy quite a lot of pens from every stationary shop I ever visited.Hayttom (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the unstationary ones were moving too fast for him to visit? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)