Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications

Latest comment: 2 months ago by Onegreatjoke in topic Good article reassessment for Telecommunications
WikiProject iconTelecommunications Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Dialling codes in the United Kingdom Edit

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01489 was closed as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01207 (2nd nomination) has been initiated, and articles about 5 other codes prodded (I've deprodded them pending this discussion) despite there having been no discussion that I can find about these articles as a set. (Nearly?) every area code in the North American Numbering Plan area has an article, so it's clear that area codes can be notable, and 020, 0114 and 0191 were not nominated for deletion, so it seems that at least some UK codes are (likely) notable. What should a good article about an area code in the UK look like? What information should it contain (and not contain)? What makes one notable and another not (e.g. is the population of the area covered relevant)? What are good sources for the information the articles should have? When looking to find sources about an area code, what are good places to look? What search terms provide relevant results? I know this is an awful lot of questions, and I don't have answers, but until they are answered then I do not believe that it is possible to accurately evaluate the articles we currently have. (I will link to this discussion from the ongoing AfD and from the UK WikiProject). Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick comment that at least from here, 0114 and 0191 do appear to be PRODded. Flip Format (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I have now deprodded them as this discussion should conclude first. I guess I missed them as they didn't appear on the article alerts list that made me aware of the other prods. Do you have any substantive comments? Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I'd start by asking whether the current articles can be improved. At present, to take 01932 as a random example from Category:Area codes in the United Kingdom, it's just not a particularly good article. It doesn't make any assertion as to why 01932 is notable over and above non-notable telephone area codes, it's not well-sourced (most of the references are to lists of area codes that WP:EXIST), it contains a lot of WP:OR (see all the references where the information has been "deduced from" something or where it's just asserted with no source), and in its current state I don't think it should be an article.
So - can this currently very poor article be improved, by an editor with sufficient knowledge of the specialist area, into something that is properly sourced, verifiable and meets WP:GNG? If you take out all the unsourced and OR bits, you are left with an article with a map that says "01932 is the dialling code for Weybridge", which is very much WP:NOTDIR territory and doesn't leave us with a reason to have these articles rather than just entries in the List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom.
Even the articles that are about codes in major cities are not well-sourced. 0191 contains a lot of OR and what is sourced refers to a personal blog and a list of area codes that exist, along with a random recruitment agency website, a supermarket store locator and a church yearbook, apparently just to prove that these places have/had a certain telephone number.
The only one of these articles that clearly shows notability with good references to significant coverage is 020, and even that isn't really about 020, it's about the general history of telephone numbers in London and should be titled Telephone numbers in London or similar. Other than this, I just think UK area codes in general are the definition of WP:MILL and without major improvements and a clear assertion of notability, they don't warrant standalone articles. Flip Format (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an assessment of the current state of individual articles, and doesn't really answer any of the questions. What would an article about a notable phone code look like? What information should be included? Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry. You might have missed somewhere along the line that I don't work for you in any capacity, so talking to me as if you're my boss isn't an appropriate way to interact. I've spent time contributing to your discussion, and instead of a 'thank you', I get a snippy response saying I haven't done exactly as you asked and to try again.
Best of luck with your discussion. Flip Format (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not trying to act as your boss or anything like it, and I appologise if I come across as snippy or anything, but I'm trying to facilitate a productive discussion about this class of articles for the betterment of the encyclopaedia long-term and the only responses other than silence have missed (deliberately or otherwise) the entire point. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might get better responses if you engage with people who respond to you as humans, rather than as if we're machines that haven't quite come out with the precise result you wanted. You are coming across as rude, snippy and impatient with the only person who has so far taken the time to engage in good faith with you on this. Once again, you don't get to talk to me (or anyone) like this - accusing me of deliberately misinterpreting your point is yet more negativity and bad-faith assumption from you. Flip Format (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Flip Format - I understand your point, but please also see that you formatted your text as a response in this thread, not as a new comment. So, the OP might rightly be frustrated that it's not at all addressing the questions they originally asked. Also, Thryduulf has apologised, so your continuous aggressive tone is simply a WP:PA. Please stop. — kashmīrī TALK 10:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've arrived here from an AfD on a number, where someone quite reasonably suggested that this discussion should take priority over a set of AfD's, and thereby determine the general framework for whehter (and if so which) area code articles should be retained. My view is that an area code is notable, and may be worth an article, if it has been written-about independently of the specialist, directly-connected sources. For example, the article about 01708 contains information about an area with the last Strowger exchange, which became a working exhibit in a museum. This fact is clearly of interest to the general public, and is wikipedia-worthy.
When I write "specialist, directly-connected" I mean telecom technical stuff. I don't mean a popular history of the telephone written by an ex telecoms engineer. In fact such a history would be the ideal secondary source for an article here.
What I don't think we should have is a set of near-identical plug-and-play articles each with an identically-laid-out map and info-box and near-identical information about what an area code is, defining the area corresponding to a code, backed up by the national telephone numbering plan and nothing much else. This would be an unnecessary duplication of primary information already widely available.
A further problem is that this is not the United Kingdom Wikipedia, and in any case we cannot assume that everyone in the UK is using it to find out information about the UK. 01634 is therefore the area code for Abohar in the Punjab as much as it is the Medway area of the UK. Which would we show in the article? Elemimele (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this reply. I don't have time to fully respond now, but on your last point I fully agree and an article on the 01634 area code would be better titled something like 01634 (UK dialling code) or 01634 (UK area code) (and we should agree on a consistent disambiguator to use), the shorter codes particularly are likely to be highly ambiguous (e.g. 029 is already a disambiguation page). Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My overall view is that articles for dialling codes in the major cities should be kept whereas the articles about dialling codes which only cover small towns would not meet the notability threshold. Therefore, going by the articles Flip Format has asked to be deleted. I'd vote to keep the 0114 and 0191 articles but delete the 01527, 01633, 01708 and 01932 articles. Rillington (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The principle of dialling codes being notable appears to be established by all US area codes having articles, from the biggest cities to the most rural areas. Keep them all. MRSC (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has there been a discussion that has concluded that all US dialling codes are notable? Or has someone written articles (English Wikipedia is US-centric after all) and no-one has challenged this yet? Do US dialing codes just cover much larger, populous areas and generate more interest? I can easily imagine there is publicity and promotion when new codes are introduced, or old codes are changed, but is there ongoing coverage in reliable independent sources? For the majority of codes I would think it is unlikely and, at the very least, I would expect to be shown some evidence of wider interest than fan-websites and technical documents. Sionk (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example, I live in Cardiff (a reasonably sized city ...a capital city too) and remember the old 0222 dialing code had a strong identity (because of the 3 2's) with businesses, music and albums named after it, for example. It changed to 029 in 2000, though this has much less recognition and people in the city don't all quite understand it [1]. But all of this can be easily incorporated into the Cardiff Wikipedia article, without a standalone article filled with technical and non-notable data. Sionk (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Came here from an AfD on an area number. I concur with Elemimele that there needs to be a longer discussion. At AfD, there has been discussions closed in the past due to a consensus that North American area codes are inherently notable. I haven't seen any discussion that proves this. That being said, the same does not exist for British area codes, and AfD discussions about this have been closed as no consensus or keep in the past.
If said larger discussion or RfC was to happen, ideally it would be in policy rather than a consensus. I don't know where you would put it, potentially, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NUM or WP:NGEO. None are perfect fits, but could work. It could just be a consensus if that doesn't work. I think there would be at least a few options, those being:
- All area numbers are not considered notable unless they meet WP:GNG.
- All area numbers are considered notable.
- Area numbers are considered notable if they cover a highly populated area (This came up in this AfD, "highly populated area" would need to be defined.)
- North American and British area numbers are considered notable, others aren't. (I've put this down because, as per Elemimele's comment above, area codes can apply for more than one area, and there only seems to be articles for North American and British area numbers as far as I know.)
Personally, I trend towards the former. I think we need a longer discussion, but I think the question is where and how. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My strongest feelings are that if some area codes in a given country/numbering area are notable then all the rest should redirect to a list and/or article about area codes in that country, and that if any individual code in a country/area are notable then the list of codes of which that is a part is automatically notable. As an initial reaction, I don't like the idea of defining automatic notability of area codes on the basis of population, but I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the comment, and I agree with you about the redirecting and list notability. The reason I added the "highly populated area" option is because it came up in an AfD and I could see a substantial minority or compromise grouping of editors preferring that. If it was to happen, it would make more sense to define it around city status rather than population. I'm not a fan of it anyway, and I really don't see this happening. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do the people here think of an RfC on the matter? I think it would be worth it, as it would be good to get a larger community consensus, and I'd be willing to open one. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would need to be explicitly limited to articles about individual area codes, and would need to be clear about whether it applied globally or to just e.g. NANP, so I recommend drafting before launching but I think it would be worthwhile as this discussion hasn't attracted the participation I hoped or (or is required). Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thryduulf:I've made a draft RfC, it's available at User:JML1148/Area codes RfC. Feel free to make changes. I suspect the issue with the lack of discussion is because we are in a Wikiproject talk page. Is it worth making a comment at WP:VPP to bring attention to the draft? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JML1148, @MRSC, @Elemimele, @Kashmiri, @Flip Format and anyone else. Now the 01633 AfD has closed I intend to start this RFC using the draft at User:JML1148/Area codes RfC if there are no comments in the next few days. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thryduulf: I would say just go ahead with it now. This conversation has been dead for a week. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, please do open it. Elemimele (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree – go ahead now, no need to wait. — kashmīrī TALK 10:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I intend to do it later today (I haven't got time right now). Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parameter update request for Template:Area code box Edit

Hello, if someone knows how to update the |State= parameter in Template:Area code box to show a new overlay code; could you edit "910" to show as "910/472" for the state of North Carolina as the code was recently updated. Thanks for your help and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Telegraph Chappe#Requested move 2 June 2023 Edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Telegraph Chappe#Requested move 2 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 11:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC regarding individual area codes Edit

You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications/Area codes RfC regarding the notability of articles about individual area codes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:TIM San Marino#Requested move 10 June 2023 Edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TIM San Marino#Requested move 10 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Telecommunications Edit

Telecommunications has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]