Talk:Big Number Change

[Untitled]

Is there now too much detail on this page? -David McCormick

Proposed merge of 0207 & 0208 into Big Number Change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no merger. I have have taken it upon myself to close the proposal at this point because after over two months there's no consensus for the merge to go ahead -- A bit iffy 05:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC) User:Chriscf has suggested that 0207 & 0208 be merged into Big Number Change.--A bit iffy 10:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I would support this as the content of 0207 & 0208 can easily be incorporated into Big Number Change, which is a subject from which 0207 & 0208 is obviously derived, without making the resulting article too long.--A bit iffy 10:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose see below. FelisLeo^Talk! 12:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The 0207/8 article is about the extremely prevalent phenomenon of the misquoting - which is done by millions of people, in print and in speech, every single day. It definitely deserves its own article. This is a quite separate issue from that simply of the Big Number Change. If such an obscure topic as Nod characters of Command and Conquer can have its own article, then I think this topic is definitely deserving! EuroSong ^talk 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Although not a valid argument in this case, see WP:WAX, I agree with you on the whole videogames thing. I still am in favor of a merge, but not coming from the UK I can have no idea of the scale of the 0207/0208 "phenomenon". Maybe some more UK based editors can add their comment? FelisLeo^Talk! 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah.. I see, Felis - you're not from the UK. In that case, I understand your reservations about this article - I can see why you might think it obscure. However, if you lived in London, you would see the extent of the phenomenon yourself: only 13% of Londoners actually know their own telephone number (see the figure quoted in the article). That leaves several million people, whose actions and speech all contribute to the one huge mess we have at the moment. This mess is in itself a far larger topic - whose effects are still being felt every day - than the simple matter of the number change, which happened years ago. EuroSong ^talk 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading your commments on its talk page and reading the report in references I do think It should stay a seperate article. Changed to oppose. To clarify on my initial support for a merge; we have had a similar big number change where I live some years ago, and besides people no longer able to remember their number, the change was implemented painless FelisLeo^Talk! 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

EuroSong, I must admit you're starting to persuade me - memorable telephony moments are flooding my mind as I type. I'm thinking of the time I was dictating a phone number to someone, saying Oh-Two-Oh <pause> Seven... and he got utterly confused, and he couldn't get a grip on it until he said Oh-Two-Oh-Seven <pause>... back at me. Also the time I told someone "you don't have to dial the 020", and he didn't, but he was obviously very uncomfortable and seemed to think it was some weird hack. However, but I'm not quite convinced 0207 and 0208 should be a separate article - this widespread misperception is charming in its own way, but not especially noteworthy in that it requires its own article.--A bit iffy 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but since when is the positioning of the pause in reading a number an encyclopaedic topic in its own right? Chris cheese whine 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you're addressing my latest comments, Chris - if you are, then I ought to clarify that I still support the merge. (I do see now that my comments were rather rambling - a consequence of the state I was in at the time.) Cheers, A bit iffy 08:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not you particularly, just the thread in general. Chris cheese whine 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the article is encyclopaedic or not is higly subjective. The facts are that the article does meet the primary criterion for notability and does not match any of the examples in WP:NOT also, there seem to be some more statements on merging on the article's talk page Talk:0207 & 0208. FelisLeo^Talk! 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Again with the wikilawyering. The public toilet around the corner from my house happily meets the PNC. Chris cheese whine 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems I upset you so much that you feel the need to lash out. My apologies. FelisLeo^Talk! 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris: it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because it is a) not original research (a survey has been published which documents the extent of the social confusion); and b) it is something which affects millions of people every day. It's not the fact that it's an "issue of where to put the pause" per se, but the fact that the phenomenon is so widespread. If it were a mistake that only a couple of people were making, then you would be right: no-one would bother with an article. But ask yourself this: if it is just a simple matter which is not worthy of an encyclopædia entry, then why would the UK telecoms regulatory authority spend money on conducting a formal survey to assess the extent of the problem? Answer: they wouldn't. It is a widespread social phenomenon, which is officially recognised as such, and which is contributed to by millions. There are Wikipedia articles on topics a lot more obscure than this one. EuroSong ^talk 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how do you go from "spending money" to "worthy of an encyclopaedia entry"? Chris cheese whine 23:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per discussion. -- Smjg 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note. I have listed this proposal on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#March 2007 as this is being contested and to see if anyone else has any opinions. --A bit iffy 07:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: We are providing a service with this page to the many people (like myself!) who get annoyed at the number of people who still get this wrong. By having a direct link to a page specifically about the issues we make it easier on the person pointed to the information here that would not be so effective were they to have to search amongst the content of a larger, more generalised page. --AlisonW 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose : This is a very specific issue that requires its own article. JAJ 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Numbers for Drama?

I'm sorry if I am being thick, but what on earth is the "Numbers for Drama" section about?? All enlightenment gratefully received. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

ah yes I see. I've added a sentence, which I think is necessary if the reader does not immediately leap to grasp the context. Please feel free to improve it. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"BigNumber"

There are two instances of "BigNumber changes" in the article. There used to be a handful more places where "BigNumber" was used. Was it ever officially known by this obvious false splitting? Or is it just a colloquial name that has come about? -- Smjg (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The London (and national) renumbering had multiple phases spanning nearly 7 years (from memory). Only one of these in particular was actually dubbed "The Big Number" in the publicity campaign.

• London numbers were split into inner and outer (01 xxx xxxx -> 071 xxx xxxx; 081 xxx xxxx). Numbers dictated by circumstance because 021 to 061 were already taken, the latter being Manchester.
• Extra digit added (071 xxx xxxx; 081 xxx xxxx -> 0171 xxx xxxx; 0181 xxx xxxx). National change, not just London.
• - Region codes change (0171 xxx xxxx; 0181 xxx xxxx -> 0207 xxx xxxx; 0208 xxx xxxx) - the so called Big Number [1].
• - Enforced re-unification of London (0207 xxx xxxx; 0208 xxx xxxx -> 020 7xxx xxxx; 020 8xxx xxxx).

The final two steps were part of the same Big Number change. It is more than just a notational issue. During a migration period local calls in the inner region (and similarly in the outer region) could still be completed using the previous numbers (with only 7 digits). The final step some months after introduction of 020 dialling the 8-digit exchange/line numbers were enforced, but now worked across London once more. Over 10 years after the fact most Londoners do not realise that they can omit the 020 and dial only the final 8 digits to complete a call within Greater London (if only the numbers were quoted correctly) as used to be the case with the 7 digit exchange/line numbers in the 01 days.

-- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 13:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no "0207 xxx xxxx/0208 xxx xxxx" step. London numbers started as 01-xxx xxxx. They changed to 071-xxx xxxx/081-xxx xxxx in 1990, doubling capacity but splitting London into two zones and requiring the full area code to be dialled when calling the other zone. In 1995, they changed again on PhONEday to (0171) xxx xxxx/(0181) xxx xxxx, still as two zones. At the Big Number Change, the first step in 1999 allowed 020 7xxx xxxx/020 8xxx xxxx to be dialled nationally with the area code, but NOT as 8 digit numbers locally within London. The 7-digit xxx xxxx local dialling within each of London's two zones continued, as did national (0171) xxx xxxx/(0181) xxx xxxx dialling. The next step, in 2000, was to stop 7-digit xxx xxxx local dialling within London, and start 8-digit xxxx xxxx local dialling as a single zone covering all of London. At that time, both 0171 xxx xxxx/0181 xxx xxxx and (020) 7xxx xxxx/(020) 8xxx xxxx national dialling continued. The last step in 2001 was to stop 0171 xxx xxxx/0181 xxx xxxx national dialling. After this point, only (020) xxxx xxxx national dialling and 8-digit xxxx xxxx local dialling within London continued. There was no "0207 xxx xxxx"/"0208 xxx xxxx" step, but there was "020 7xxx xxxx/020 8xxx xxxx national dialling but without xxxx xxxx local dialling" between 1999 and 2000. -- 86.144.216.92 (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not just London

Cardiff is also among the afflicted. Cardiff now uses (029) 20xx, (029) 21xx, (029) 22xx but the locals still assume 02920, 02921, 02922. - 212.139.110.165 (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(082 06) and (0820) area codes

(082 06) xxxxx was Banbridge, NI, but where were (0820) xxxxxx or (0820) xxxxx numbers used before the Big Number Change? - 91.85.50.153 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: Nowhere. There were no other 0820 numbers in use other than 082 06.

Long answer: As noted in the article, Northern Ireland did things a little differently in the original STD plan. In Gt. Britain the general rule was that each charge group was allocated its own STD code, with few exceptions. There were also quite a number of charge groups which were divided into two or more separate number groups, each with its own STD code. The typical example was the "core" and "ring" of a large city area which were part of the same charge group but were two separate number groups, such as 0272 & 0275 for Bristol, or 0202 & 0201 for Bournemouth. This was repeated for Belfast, which had the central 0232 surrounded by a "ring" of 0231 (023 123 Castlereagh, 023 126 Drumbo, 023 17 Holywood, etc.).

But throughout most of Northern Ireland, mixed charge groups were employed, in which a single STD code served more than one charge group, and the D digit determined to which charge group the call was destined. In the original plan, 0762 for Portadown served not only the Portadown charge group, but also the Armagh charge group, the Rathfriland charge group (Banbridge) and the Dungannon charge group, with D digits of 5, 6, and 7 respectively from Portadown (Portadown being the GSC - Group Switching Centre - for all those groups). Unlike the STD equipment in Gt. Britain which determined the charge rate from just the ABC digits, the equipment in N.I. examined the D digit as well (although it still translated on just the ABC digits). On calls to N.I. from Britain it didn't matter that the equipment in Britain looked only at the ABC digits, since all calls to N.I. were the highest rate anyway.

So from Portadown, 5x codes went to the various exchanges in the Armagh charge group, 6x codes to the exchanges in the Rathfriland charge group, and 7x to the Dungannon charge group. 8x codes routed to the various exchanges within the Portadown group in the usual way. Calls from Portadown itself to any of these groups were local anyway, of course, being adjacent charge groups. Naturally, this limited Portadown numbers to beginning with the digits 2, 3 and 4 only.

It was in later years that separate STD codes were allocated to these three dependent charge groups to allow for expansion. (I don't have the exact date, but from the records I do have it was after 1968 but before 1976) The three news codes were 0861 for Armagh, 0820 for Rathfriland, and 0868 for Dungannon. But to take just the case of 0820, this was set up with a D digit of 6 to mirror the 6x codes (076 26x from the outside world) which were used in Portadown. Although there were changes in this charge group over the following years as some exchanges moved from 3- and 4-digit numbers to 5-digit numbers on a linked numbering scheme with Banbridge, there was never any need to expand beyond the original 082 06 range. Hence no other 0820 numbers used. 46.208.146.35 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)