Wikivoyage talk:Phone numbers

Untitled[edit]

We haven't been 100% consistent on phone numbers in the past. Although most of the listings formats say to leave off the area code, some discussion pages have talked about leaving them in.

I started this page to document current usage, and to provide a place to discuss the format. My feeling is that since prefixes are so variable (you need to dial the country code if you're out of country, but not if you're in country, and sometimes you need to dial the area code, and sometimes you don't...), it's easier to just have the local dialing info, and the area code listing somewhere, and let travellers figure out their own needs for dialing. --(WT-en) Evan 17:32, 19 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Country Code One?[edit]

What is the correct way to do phone numbers within "country code one" (USA, Canada, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Dominican Republic, etc?). I've seen them written the following ways:

(XXX) XXX-XXXX
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
XXX-XXX-XXXX
+1 XXX-XXX-XXXX

I propose the following rules:

For USA and Canada, use (XXX) XXX-XXXX regardless of whether the region being discussed is a single area code or not. In the USA/Canada, area codes change all the time
For countries within +1 that have single area codes or share area codes (Bermuda, Dominican Republic etc), simply use XXX-XXXX. --(WT-en) Bletch 14:12, 9 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I disagree. I don't see a good reason to write the same area code 50 times in the same guide. How about we just put the area code in one place ("Contact") and stick with the (very simple) rule of just writing phone numbers as they would be dialed locally? --(WT-en) Evan 17:54, 9 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Fair enough. So in cases in the USA/Canada where 10 digit dialing is the norm (which is pretty much every metropolitan area with greater than one million people), what format should we use? (XXX)XXX-XXXX, (XXX) XXX-XXXX or XXX-XXX-XXXX? --(WT-en) Bletch 22:03, 9 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Well, i live in the Dominican Republic, and we no longer have to write phone numbers as a 7-digit format, because this year a new area code (the actual area code is 809, the new code is 829) will be introduced in an overlay style (809/829)(actually we're in the transition period, when it's still permisive the 7-digit dialing, that ends on August 1st., 2005.), so the number format for calls within the Dominican Republic will be XXX-XXX-XXXX.

Newer phones[edit]

You know, newer phones, like almost all mobile phones can take the whole number including the country code and then figure out what to dial based on where they are calling from. This is my main reasoning for always putting the country code in the listing: It's exactly what you would dial into a mobile no matter where you are in the world. -- (WT-en) Mark 14:17, 9 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Counterpoint...[edit]

The reason that I lean against that idea is for the following reasons:

As I recall, pretty much all guidebooks (LP, Fodors) that I've personally used omit the country code when listing restaurants and lodging, even when those guide books span multiple countries.

In the cases of the USA and Canada, for whatever reason it seems that half of everyone is not familiar with the +XX syntax or even familiar with how to make international calls at all. (Granted, the (XXX) XXX-XXXX syntax may have the convese problem outside +1, which is a case for XXX-XXX-XXXX) -- (WT-en) Bletch 15:02, 9 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Countercounterpoint: This July I spent some time with a LP in Dublin figuring out how to dial the numbers for hotels on my cell-phone. The information was in there but not easy to extract. Do you dial the country code? is there a city code? What about that leading zero.

I would favor the longest number you can dial from a cellphone, payphone, and a normal phone. After some time in an area you might start skipping unecessary digits. Of course I live in DK where all numbers are 8 digits. -- (WT-en) elgaard 20:15, 2004 Sep 10 (EDT)

North American Phone Numbers[edit]

There has been some discussion on how to format North American (region 1) telephone numbers in places which have 10 digit dialling.

The general rule of thumb Wikivoyage uses is that the number that should be listed is the number a visitor needs to dial if they are already in the city. My understanding of 10 digit dialling is that you never just dial the number without the area code (ie. XXX-XXXX). To me (as a non-US resident) using a bracketed form in that case seems confusing, as that means to me "don't dial the bit in brackets if you are in the same city". All of this leads me to conclude that:

If the number is in a 10 digit dialling area, numbers should be listed in the format XXX-XXX-XXXX and the contact section should explain how to dial these numbers from outside the city (prefix with 1?) and outside region 1 (prefix with +1 where + represents the diallers international access code).

If the number is not in a 10 digit dialling area, numbers should be listed in the format XXX-XXXX and the contact section should explain how to dial these numbers from outside the city (prefix with 1-XXX?) and outside region 1 (prefix with +1-XXX where + represents the diallers international access code).

By implication, US or other region 1 numbers should never be listed in the (XXX) XXX-XXXX or (XXX)XXX-XXXX formats.

--(WT-en) Chris j wood 10:57, 10 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Chris, you've based this on the very incorrect assumption that we always dial all 10 digits of a 10-digit number. In fact, it's by far the norm to just dial the 7 digits without the area code. Only in some pathological cases (like very dense cities, with a lot of area codes) is it necessary to always dial the full 10 digits.

So, I think XXX-XXXX is probably fine for most numbers. There are a lot of differing formats for adding the area code at the beginning; I think (XXX) XXX-XXXX is probably the most common, but I could be wrong. (I personally prefer XXX-XXX-XXXX, btw).

I'll add info on US numbers with area codes on the page itself. --(WT-en) Evan 12:10, 10 Sep 2004 (EDT)

You are of course right that most people here dial the 7-digit number when they are within the same area code. But it's worth noting that the 10-digit number always works -- even if you are in the same area code.

Secondly, I'd like to put myself into the always write the 10-digit number camp. If you put only seven digits in, you always have to look at Contact first to see which area code is needed before you can usefully use the phone number. That's more work than should be required.

(And yes, this is a bit hypocritical of me since I also think we should leave out the international prefix except on the main pages for Canada and United States :-) -- (WT-en) Colin 13:48, 10 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I personally favor 10 digit, simply because while ten digit dialing is a necessity for only a few places, these few places disproportionately include some of the most significant destinations in North America. Additionally, the rules for when you have to do 10 digit dialing are often quite complicated to locals, to say nothing for tourists. -- (WT-en) Bletch 16:10, 10 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I live in Charlotte, which is in 704 and 980. I have to dial 704 even on local calls, and AFAIK people in Weddington do the same. I can also call some numbers in South Carolina (803) without the 1 prefix. It used to be, before 980 was introduced, that some numbers in 704 I had to dial with 1, but not 704; however, there's a station code 408, which is also an area code, so that can't work any more, 980 or not. -(WT-en) phma 20:02, 10 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Local numbers vs international[edit]

Does it really make sense to stick to the "local" phone number format policy today, when everyone travels with his mobile and uses international codes ? This is a guide for travellers, not locals after all. (WT-en) Wojsyl 14:36, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)

Though I am joining the debate at a rather late stage, I bring a New Zealand perspective, where we have 2 landline and 3 mobile telephone service providers who provide service nationwide and have been arguing over the national numbering plan for 15 years.

Although most numbers are going to be dialled locally, it should be possible to dial the national number with exactly the same result in most countries, these days. Besides you will probably need to do this if you have a mobile telephone, even if you are calling locally.

Thus there are then two possible alternatives.

Either give the international number in the form +CCC AAA DDD DDDD where + indicates the local international code access; CCC indicates the 1-3 digit country code; AAA indicates the national area code; and DDD DDDD indicates the 4 to 8 digit Directory Number.

Or give the national number in the form T -AAA- DDD DDDD where T indicates the local toll dialling code access; AAA indicates the national area code; and DDD DDDD indicates the 4 to 8 digit Directory Number.

The international alternative has the disadvantage that it cannot be dialled directly. International telephone calling generally does not have a consistent number format as different number sequences are needed to call the same number from different countries.

By "international" I meant "+" prefixed. This seems most universal as it can be dialed directly equally regardles where you're calling from (at least true for Europe). Do phones in NZ not recognize the "+" notation ?

(WT-en) Wojsyl 16:57, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)

Only the most recent mobile phones/devices can dial international numbers that way. BTW: New Zealand currently has 5 different mobile phone network technologies, AMPS, D-AMPS, GSM, CDMA, and 3G, as well as analog land lines and broadband, so I was aiming for the most practical alternative. The number one can dial from a plain ordinary telephone with just 10 digits on it. The NZ network is still backwards compatable and even a dial telephone still works on it!. (Some people still have them too!) -- (WT-en) Huttite 17:14, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)

I admit I'm biased towards European travels. Most of the mobiles bought in Europe are multisystem these days and work equally well in Europe, US, Japan etc. I'm not sure about the other way round, though. I've heard that US cellphones lag behind a bit but sooner or later they'll be all similar. (WT-en) Wojsyl 17:33, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)

Myself, I haven yet been to NZ or AU, but my phone works fine in the U.S., Europe, and China, meanwhile I've dialed all of the digits including the "+" in a number of countries. I feel that it's really easy to explain to people that you still have to start with a 0 and then whatever follows the country code in payphones in some countries, and to list all Wikivoyage phone numbers as the entire number. -- (WT-en) Mark

I am comfortable with using the international + format if the dialling rules are explained in the contact section of the page, or on a travel topics page. Generally its a matter of dropping the country code and adding a toll access prefix. Doing it the other way around means that the potential exists to include the toll prefix in the number and dialling incorrectly. Besides, the + format is obviously a telephone number and follows an international standard. Also, those places with INMARSAT mobiles, like ships and very isolated places, only have an international number. -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:00, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)

The national alternative can be dialed directly from within the country and also has the advantage that toll-free and other service numbers, which often can only be dialled from within a country, can follow the same format. Generally, the national telephone number has the same dialling sequence from any telephone in country.

I would go for the national number format, unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise, as most telephone number will be used in country. Although there is a good reason for giving the international number for accommodation places, this does not really apply where booking internationally is impractical, such as the local takeaway, who do not deliver around the world. International number conversions can then be explained on the country page. -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:01, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)

One trouble with international numbers is that it's not really deterministic how to produce the local number from them: in Australia, for example, you need to put a 0 in front when you remove the international prefix, but in the US you don't. (WT-en) Hypatia 23:20, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)

Yes, but you can usually call them locally without removing the international prefix. Whereas you cannot use the local number when calling internationally.

I understand that 0 or some other number is used in many countries as the toll access and only North America does not follow this practice. Also remember that there are a lot of toll free (800, etc.) numbers that cannot be dialled internationally but can be called within a country. My first preference is to list the dialling sequence that would be used to call a number nationally from a public telephone in country, with an explanation on how to convert the national number to international format. My second preference is the global (international) number representation, with an explanation how to use the global number in country. As a last resort giving the local directory number and letting the user sort out the mess. -- (WT-en) Huttite 00:44, 2 Jan 2005 (EST)

I call US 800 numbers from Denmarks, I have to pay a little, but I can call them. --(WT-en) elgaard 06:57, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

RFC 3966[edit]

We now have a RFC 3966 describing phone numbers. (WT-en) elgaard 22:49, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)

This is based on the older standard ITU-T E.164 for representing global telephone numbers in the PSTN. However, as the standard freely admits it does not address the issue of representing service numbers such as N11 and other numbers that are not able to be dialled internationally. -- (WT-en) Huttite 00:23, 2 Jan 2005 (EST)

So what do we agree on?[edit]

I updated the article to using "national numbers". That is as least closer to a middle ground here. I would still prefer international numbers as they can be dialed from a cell-phone. By far the most travel-related phone calls I make are from my cell phone, to hotels in another country, or to restaurants in another country. The few times I call a local number from a payphone, international numbers also works. Even when I make a local call on my IP-phone I have to use the international format--The phone company do not know what country I am in --(WT-en) elgaard 07:11, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

Erk -- not the best of compromises. I (still) think international numbers are the most user-friendly, computer/phone-friendly and least screwuppable form of presentation. I hate local dialing rules and missing area codes with a vengeance, and on Wikivoyage a few extra digits isn't as big an issue as in a printed guide. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:35, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

Per our goals and non-goals, Wikivoyage is a printed, or at least printable, guide. --(WT-en) Evan 08:24, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

I think there might be a better compromise. Could we do something with formatting to show the whole number, but also show what part of the number isn't required for when dialing locally? Like, maybe, "+1 514 555-1000"? I agree that it's frustrating to try to figure out the country and city code for a place when you're calling from overseas, but it's also frustrating to figure out what parts to leave off when you're calling locally. Maybe we could do both. --(WT-en) Evan 08:35, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

Works for me. -- (WT-en) Mark 08:38, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

Me too --(WT-en) elgaard 10:34, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

You know what might be fun? If we used some kind of technology to enhance the presentation. Like, say, [+1-514-555-1212] would render to <a href="tel:+1-514-555-1212">''+1-514-'''''555-1212'''</a>. Once I get Turtle working, we could put metadata in an article to define the country code and/or local code, and if there's no +, the full number would be generated by magic. --(WT-en) Evan 08:58, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

Yes! I love the idea of treating a phone number as a URL. Cool. -- (WT-en) Mark 09:15, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

I would love that too. I could set up my browser to make an IP phone call when following the link. It should also be possible to download a country to a cell-phone, so we could browse it and call directly. Or we could make a script that would extract phonenumbers and generate a (name,number) list that could be added to the phonebook in a cell-phone. --(WT-en) elgaard 10:34, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

Me too. (Gasp! Have we captured that elusive beast known as a clear consensus?)

I'd also like to extend 'automated formatting' of this style to, more or less, all systematic entries so they look consistent across the guide. But that's a topic for another page =) (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:59, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

I make another try at updating the page while we seem to have a consensus.--(WT-en) elgaard 18:07, 11 May 2005 (EDT)

I hate being a Negative Nancy, and I think it's a good idea to use formatting to show the international number, but I'm not entirely thrilled with the specific formatting we have (I proposed it as an illustration of the concept). In most listings, only the name of the restaurant/bar/site/hotel/whatever is bolded. Having the local part of the phone number bolded is going to look weird, since we use boldface to call out important topics, and phone numbers just aren't the focus of a listing in the way the name is. If there's no better formatting, I'd suggest +1 514 555-1212. --(WT-en) Evan 20:31, 11 May 2005 (EDT)

Agree with Evan and edited as such. But I think this should just be a stopgap until we do have automated formatting magic in place. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:01, 11 May 2005 (EDT)

I'll get my Mediawiki sandbox set up and see if I can hack this in. Evan, I see that they like changes to originate in HEAD... do you think they'd be more likely to accept a patch there? or on the 1.4x. branch? -- (WT-en) Mark 01:16, 12 May 2005 (EDT)

Toll-free Numbers in Country Code 1[edit]

In Country Code 1, certain area codes are actually toll-free numbers. The problem with these numbers is that they can only be dialed from Country Code 1 phones. Worse, businesses can sign up for a toll-free number that only works in one state or a small region. Usually a business with a toll-free number also has a regular number which can be dialed internationally.

In my opinion:

An internationally usable number is preferable to a toll-free number in a listing
Toll-free numbers which don't work throughout Country Code 1 should not be listed.
All toll-free numbers should be identified as such so international travellers don't waste their time dialing them.

So here's how I suggest formatting listings with toll free numbers. (I don't really care what the format is, I just want a standard).

Best Western Carson Station Hotel/Casino, 900 S Carson Street, (775) 883-0900, Toll-free: (800) 501-2929, Fax: (775) 882-7569, [1].

-- (WT-en) Colin 19:00, 9 Jul 2005 (EDT)

In your case, I prefer "+1 775 883-0900, Toll-free: (800) 501-2929, Fax: +1 775 882-7569" to use local format for Northern American toll-free numbers. Simply saying, we should generally stick to international formats, but toll-free numbers accessible in just part of the world should use local format.--(WT-en) Jusjih 01:00, 24 February 2011 (EST)

Country code 1[edit]

This page was self-contradictory: the example for international format was for a country-code-1 number, and then we said that CC1 numbers shouldn't be formatted that way. I'm not sure I buy that US, Canada, and Caribbean phone numbers require such an exception. So, I removed the CC1 section. Comments and changes requested. --(WT-en) Evan 12:20, 31 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Aiieee. I really like the ten-digit format we've managed to compromise on for CC1. But first I'd like to hear what you propose as an alternative. I assume you mean ''+1 XXX'' XXX-XXXX? USAians are a rather non-worldly bunch, and while I guess they can parse that ok, it's certainly not the standard format for the locale. And it seems to me that we could handle the country code issues in the Contact section of the CC1 countries.

I will say that it makes sense to me to use the full international format for Caribbean locations since it's less obvious that they are in Country Code 1.

While I don't like the change, I'll keep mulling over whether it's livable for consistency's sake. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:21, 31 Jul 2005 (EDT)

OK. I'd like to close this down. I'm fine with having an exception, but I think we need more of a reason for it than "Americans are too dumb." This a) is insulting and b) doesn't really factor, since it's not just Americans reading the USA listings. --(WT-en) Evan 19:43, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Americans are too dumb regarding phone numbers. Okay, they're merely ignorant due to a history of living in a large single-language single-country-code region. For example, on the Intercontinental Hotel chain's website, Country Code 1 phone numbers are often listed with the wrong country code. My scraping script has to treat 0, 00, 1, 11, 011, 001, 010, and 01 as all equivalent to CC1.

But that's not why I'm averse to this change. I'm averse to it because los norteamericanos ain't never gonna use it. There are only a few of us who bother to fix the format of listings as it is. No i18n-ignorant Canadian/American contributor is going to write ''+1 AAA'', so that's just more work for editors. Who is volunteering to do any of this work? I work on the recent listings-format change, but that has far better reasons behind the change, and there's still a lot more work to be done there.

I went through the Main Page and looked at the first article in each section -- i.e. the most recent feature article for each region. Not one of the recent featured articles uses the correct phone number format that we already established! Only Longyearbyen uses the format at all -- but even it missed the italics on one.

We already have a dearth of editors going around fixing i18n numbers. Do we really want to add CC1 to the list? So rather than say no, let me ask, "are you sure? [y/n]". I'm not going to object to the change, but I'm not going to work on it either. -- (WT-en) Colin 23:28, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Also, if we're going to make this exception, let's at least change the example for the "main" rule so it's not in country code 1! --(WT-en) Evan 19:48, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

My brain hurts.[edit]

So I'm not even sure that the actual article makes any sense, much less the dozen or so opinions expressed above. Can someone ((WT-en) Evan, (WT-en) Ryan, (WT-en) Colin, (WT-en) Jpatokal, etc) do a nice, clean, sensible re-write of article? I mean, I know its not neccessarily their place to write a policy, but the debate has raged for some time and it all seems so messy. Maybe these WikiTravel vets can bring order to chaos? -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 15:52, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

My preference would be to list phone numbers in the format in which they would be dialed from within the country; people are smart enough to understand that when dialing from outside of the country they must include a country code, and methods of dialing vary so wildly (calling cards, 001 vs 1, etc) that I don't think we want to deal with the numerous variations that would arise. Thus my proposal would be that for the United States numbers are (area code) + number: (999) 999-9999. Area codes should always be included since there are now so many places that have multiple area codes or require 10 digit numbers. For other countries list it in the format used in that country, for example in the Falkland Islands it means the five digit number: 99999. The Contact section of the country article can then explain how to call internationally ("From outside of the US, dial 1 + area code + number (1-999-999-9999)"). -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:29, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Responding to myself, I started reading the messy argument above, and might amend my comments to say that the phone number policy might best be defined country-by-country to follow whatever the most common phone number format used within that country is. Thus the policy for the US would be (999) 999-9999, while the policy for the Falklands would be +99999, etc. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:33, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I think we're close. The rule now is "show the full international dialing number, but use italics to hide everything but the local number". I've rolled back Colin's rollback so it's at least consistent. Let's make sure that we want to make an exception for country code 1 in the discussion above. --(WT-en) Evan 19:47, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Okay, I think with the rollback, the article at least makes more sense now... now its just back to the standard debates of whether or not it is entered into every phone number or if it is stored in the contact section of each template. I don't like the idea of having to look all the way back to the country article to find how to dial the phone number internationally, though. If I'm going to print out information, I'd really not like to have to dig through a pile of papers to figure it out. I started a discussion on the article template page considering placing "Contact" in each city template. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 11:31, 23 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I do not want country-by-country rules for spelling, phone numbers or anything else. I do not see why we should make an exception for country code 1 numbers. Yes there is a lot of CC1 numbers, but that is why the CC is only one digit. With VoIP CC does not even correspond to a country anymore. I live in Denmark but also have a US phone number from IPkall. I know people in USA and Canada that have a Danish phone number. --(WT-en) elgaard 06:23, 23 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Malaysian mobile numbers[edit]

Just a querry which I don't think has been addressed in the multitude of discussions above. When calling mobile phone numbers in Malaysia, we have to dial the code of the respective provider. The three-number code starts with a "0" (eg 012, 013, 016, 019), making them just like area codes, which have two numbers and also begin with a "0". How do I depict this according to the Wikivoyage style? A normal telephone number will be +60-3-XXXXXXXX, where the XXXXXXXX can be dialled locally. A mobile phone number, when calling from overseas, would be +60-12-XXXXXX. If dialled locally from anywhere in Malaysia, the number would be 012-XXXXXX. Do I depict this as +60-(0)12-XXXXXXX, breaking the Wikivoyage style rule of prohibiting numbers in brackets? Or distort Malaysia's 60 international code and write it as +6-012-XXXXXXX? I cannot depict it as +60-012-XXXXXXX because that would mean dialling two zeros, nor just XXXXXXX as it will not connect to a mobile but a land line. While the second option conforms to the style and still works, I don't like it because of the distortion of the international code, and also, it would not work for countries - if they follow the same system as Malaysia - where the international code does not end with a zero.(WT-en) Slleong 06:14, 25 February 2006 (EST)

US number format[edit]

We should make the exception for US and Canadian phone number format. Almost every single listing of American phone numbers uses the (xxx) xxx-xxxx format. Due to this using the obscure international format of +x xxx xxx-xxxx might confuse people from the US and Canada. Therefore, we should allow for this exception to help clarify the phone numbers and avoid confusion. Additionally, if you look in a US phone book you see the numbers listed in the above format with the omition of the 1 and the use of brackets around the area code.

I disagree. US phone books usually stays in the US, Wikivoyage does not. Wikivoyagers also call US numbers from outside the US. --(WT-en) elgaard 19:59, 1 March 2006 (EST)

The point is that the traveller comes first. Many US Travellers look at +1 numbers and think "WTF does this mean." Seriously. Many have never seen this format before and have no idea what it means. At the very least it appears to be completely weird. Being foolish, they naturally assume that when travelling within their own country, phone numbers will be written in a format that is at least remotely familiar to them, which +1 is not. On the bright side, they will probably guess that the +1 can be ignored, and will still have a usable number.

Meanwhile, European travellers faced with a (XXX) XXX-XXXX format number for a US Destination are apparently completely baffled by the idea that a US Number might be written in a US-Specific format which is carefully documented in our USA article. This is similar to the bafflement they naturally feel when faced with prices in dollars, which is why all our US articles contain prices in € only.

Either way we inconvenience a group of travellers. Naturally we use the +1 format because reading the USA article is hard, whereas the US travellers will probably guess correctly that they can ignore the international dialing code prefix. (Note: Some exaggeration may have occurred in the making of this comment, but at least no animals were hurt. My point really is that people are not wrong to want to delete the +1, though I can't entirely convince myself either way on it.) -- (WT-en) Colin 20:46, 1 March 2006 (EST)

The same argument goes for all countries. If we omit the US country codes we should omit all country codes. Maybe US travellers make fewer calls to other countries than e.g. European travellers. But I do not want to divide the world into countries that call other countries and countries that does not. And it is a real inconvenience to look up every country article of hotels you try to call, especially when you are standing outside in the rain with you mobile phone and a Wikitral printout, even if you did remember to print out the country article. --(WT-en) elgaard 06:28, 2 March 2006 (EST)

I think we should keep it "as is". People in the US can look at the number and see it is a "one plus - area code - number" and I really don't think anyone in the US will get confused at all! We have had "one plus" dialing on home phones for at least 40 years and we have the area code for long distance dialing. You look at it +1 555 555-1212 and anyone will know the 7 digits on the end are the local number, the next 3 to the left is the area code and the +1 is exactly that "one plus". Is there anyone in the United States reading this that is confused by the phone number listing? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 15:48, 2 March 2006 (EST)

I think we need to look at removing that space and just using dashes between the area code, prefix, and number. That seems to be how it's almost always listed in the USA where there is mandatory ten digit dialing (and the area code is almost always simply omitted where there is not, which does not really help our travellers at all). (WT-en) Jordanmills 18:46, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Please see my "Telephone number template" proposal, below, for a possible solution. (WT-en) Andy Mabbett 10:34, 29 December 2006 (EST)

This is looking like a programming problem[edit]

It looks like we are simply going to have to hack a solution into mediawiki. I'm thinking that it makes sense to try to recognize, or use some markup for phone numbers, and then automatically render them according to the rdf information in the article (isIn).

What do the rest of you think? Do you think it's better to use markup like maybe

{{phone|(555) 4400}}

which would be interpreted exactly the same as

{{phone|+1 555 555 4400}}

or would it be better to take the plunge and go for a much more challenging task of recognizing phone numbers without any special markup?

RFC. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:03, 2 March 2006 (EST)

I would like markup of phone numbers, but for other reasons. I.e. it would be great having Wikivoyage on my laptop and being able to click on phone numbers for hotels and having my SIP-phone client dial automatically.

As for the markup, I think we should always use unique phone numbers (i.e. including +cc). We could make the presentation dependent on personal preferences. I do not see the point of using isIn. I want to see the country code no matter what the isIn is. Besides, I have a phone in Denmark with a US phone number, I know people in Canada with a Danish (+45) phone number --(WT-en) elgaard 09:09, 2 March 2006 (EST)

I think I suggested that already... back when I was young and naive and didn't realize just how flaming hard it would be. But if you'd like to go for it, then by all means!

For the templates, I think we should prefer the + format for many countries. But for convenience it would be nice if there were a CC1 version of the template that allowed omission of the country code but still made Elgaard's phone work, but printed out in the localized. You get many bonus points on this project if you can make Elgaard's phone work but still display it localized. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:22, 2 March 2006 (EST)

December 2006 discussions[edit]

Moved from User talk:(WT-en) Evan by (WT-en) Evan on 11:47, 15 December 2006 (EST)

See recent discussion at Tech: Automatic area codes in listings and on its talk page. Note also the hCard microformat, which allows for telephone number mark-up. (WT-en) Andy Mabbett 18:08, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Telephone number template[edit]

I propose a series of templates, one per relevant country, with wording like, say:

This article uses the international standard for showing telephone numbers (e.g +44 121 123 4567). For use within the country, drop the leading +nn and prepend a zero (e.g. 0121 123 4567). For use within the locality, drop the leading +nn and the next group of digits (e.g. 123 4567). Numbers shown as beginning 0800 are free from land-lines, but may be charged for on mobiles. They may not be available internationally.

This could then be used within the "understand" section of any article for the country concerned.

Would people be happy with that? Is there a naming convention, for templates, which I should follow?

Would it, perhaps, be sensible to have a "telephones" sub-section to the "understand" section, or elsewhere, in each article? (WT-en) Andy Mabbett 10:38, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Update now that we're using templates?[edit]

Should we consider updating this since the templates we're using now don't allow for italics? Evan's also working on form-based listings, don't know much about those yet and if they'll allow for wiki markup.

For US numbers how about either:

+1 (555) 555-5555 or

+1 555-555-5555

? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 05:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, might I put forth an alternative: +1 555 555-5555. But in choosing between Cacahuate's two, I definitely prefer the former. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 06:52, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, you're probably right... if we have to shift to something else, these 2 a probably better since the separate the area code a little more:

+1 (555) 555-5555
+1 555 555-5555

I visually like #2, but #1 provides a clearer indication that the area code can be dropped locally, and is the more standard way to list a US # – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 15:34, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

I lean #2: first because if we pick #1 I'll have to go through and reformat all the phone numbers for South Side Chicago (which I'm thinking of batch-nominating for star status in the future), and second because it is more standard throughout the non-US parts of our travel guide (I don't think any other countries are getting parentheses). Also, using #2 might allow us to change the MoS guidelines for phone listings to say something like, "link the local calling code parts with hyphens, but keep the non-local dialing codes un hyphenated." That would get us around the italicization within the templates problem. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Not a bad idea... but because of the latter reason ;) – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 01:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, are we the only editors who care about this? Can we just declare consensus and edit the policy page? I'd kind of like to have this resolved, since I am currently adding a lot of new listings to various Chicago districts. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 05:44, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I prefer option one as I think it is clearer which is the (removable) area code. Don't worry, Peter, if number one is chosen, I'll help you re-edit South Side Chicago. (WT-en) WindHorse 05:57, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I switch my vote to option one as well because my primary interest is that we just develop a consensus on this quickly. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:24, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Evan has an evil plan to do the italics automatically. I'd like to switch to templates and do away with all this formatting gunk.

Regarding US phone numbers, I have no preference on the exact format. For awhile now I've been thinking we need country-specific style pages that give us a consistent style of implementing the Fine Rules for each particular country. For example, in the US it would be nice to have a formatting page that details how to format phone numbers; how to format highways (is it I-95 or Interstate 95); and whatever else comes up. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I say we don't do anything until Evan figures out what to do. I was the one that brought up the issue in the IRC chat several months back and Hypatia joined in because of other issues we had. The idea's we came up with were, in my humble opinion, superb. As an example, depending on the IsIn all guides would automatically be formatted to have the country code included, then on a guide-by-guide case another template would auto-format the local dialing code. Then there would be options to override any weird scenarios like forced dialings of area codes, say like 212 it could be included in the regular phone number. I don't know if I saved the conversation, but it was a good brainstorming session. -- 71.72.212.152 19:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Big list of number formatting?[edit]

I've recently been adding hotel listings to various countries and just guessing how to format the phone listings, since there are either several different styles being used or I'm the first to add any phone numbers. I know it might be a lot of work to make a huge list detailing how numbers should be formatted, but I think something needs to be do for consistency.

For example, the Bonn, Germany article formats phone numbers eleven different ways:

+49 (0)228 / 98 588 - 0

+49/(0)228/ 429-2538

+49 228-98175-0

+49 (0)228 / 65 55 31

+49 (0)228 / 91 65-0

+49 (0)228 / 776260

+49 (0)228 / 9171-0

+49 (0)228 / 302-255

+49 (0)228 / 9122 211

+49 (0)228 1848-0

+49-(0)228-72690

Alternatively, as Colin suggested in the above thread, we could create "country-specific style pages that give us a consistent style of implementing the Fine Rules for each particular country". Any other suggestions? -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 11:51, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

do away with italics... for now?[edit]

There's occasional confusion for people that see this policy requiring italics, but realize that it's impossible to italicize within our listings templates. I propose doing away with the italics policy, at least for now. Actually for good. We don't need them... we should list full phone #'s, with +1 country code etc, and note in "Contact" that to dial locally, replace the country code with a 0 or whatever – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 00:11, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Since this still isn't possible, and there hasn't been and objections to the above, I think we should move to make the change to the project page, and remove the requirement for italics. Full international numbers, with details in the contact section of the region for how to dial what. Spaces separating the interntional part and area part of the code. --(WT-en) Inas 23:59, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

In the absence any objection, I'll move this to the project page shortly. --(WT-en) inas 22:02, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

By all means, go ahead. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 02:07, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

done. --(WT-en) inas 03:08, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

In the absence of italics, we have only the "Contact" section of a guide to explain whether area codes are needed or not. May I propose formatting a number as "+1-800-555-5555" if the country code must be dialed locally, "+1 407-555-5555" if only the area code must be dialed locally, and "+1 716 555-5555" if only the seven-digit number must be dialed locally? (WT-en) LtPowers 15:49, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Actually, I think that's already our policy. I would not, however, support changing the local format for countries, where that format is already very widely used—e.g., it would not be worth the effort to make the changes across the thousands of U.S. destination articles that conform to the established +1 XXX XXX-XXXX standard. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:02, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Well we could do it going forward then. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:28, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Given that the U.S. is one of the few countries where this information is actually somewhat useful (i.e where you can't tell from a number format whether the area code is optional or not) there would be a certain irony in following this rule for every country but the U.S. --(WT-en) inas 21:01, 26 January 2010 (EST)

I did find a list of every +1 area code in which seven-digit dialling has been broken, http://www.nanpa.com/nas/public/npasRequiring10DigitReport.do?method=displayNpasRequiring10DigitReport with some additional info on http://www.nanpa.com/reports/reports_npa.html - NANPA is the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and these list everything beginning with +1 including Canada and the Caribbean. Fine mess. Looks like NYC, LA and Chicago are incapable of a local call (or anything short of dialling all eleven digits) at all. Given some of the hideously inefficient things still being done (such as handing out blocks of 10000 numbers at a time to each competing local carrier, so a town of 5000 people with three providers gets 30000 reserved numbers, most unused) I'd only expect more of these in future. K7L (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2012 (CEST)

In any case, it looks like italicisation of numbers will be back to normal once the bugzilla:43220 fix is tested and deployed. It doesn't address the problem directly, but sidesteps the issue nicely by feeding everything to {{listing}}, which already handles italics just fine. K7L (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would "normal" be considered? LtPowers (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny's Bar and Grill, 1982 Tutone Blvd., ☏ +1 999 867-5309. can be italicised in a {{listing}} if there were any reason to do so? K7L (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've been working without them for so long, we might need a new consensus to use them again. I don't know if the convention is transparent to most users, but the same is likely true of the hyphen convention. LtPowers (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lettered numbers[edit]

I could have sworn we already had a policy or at least a discussion on this, but I can't seem to find it. Stefan said on the Star Nominations page:

I'd also like to discourage the use of "letter" phone numbers, as these are not used in large swaths of the world, and will be confusing to many foreign readers.

I agree, for the same reasons. Would anyone mind if I add this to the policy article? (If it seems worth keeping the lettered number, better to do it in parentheses after the numbered version, e.g., D.C. Yellow Cab [38], +1 202 554-1212 (+1 202 TAXICAB). --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:04, 7 February 2010 (EST)

I think a more widespread convention (outside of Wikivoyage, I mean) is to put the letters first, followed by numbers. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:36, 7 February 2010 (EST)

I think they should be discouraged in the guide. We have to list the numeric anyway. I think the convention that (WT-en) LtPowers is mainly promoted by the business who have paid for their memorable number.. --(WT-en) inas 04:48, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Numbers only please as the whole world understands those. Pointless putting both. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:01, 8 February 2010 (EST)

It most certainly is not pointless putting both. For example, I can tell you right now that to reserve a tee time at the Osprey Ridge golf course in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, one should call +1 407 WDW-GOLF. Reservations for a fishing excursion along the Sassagoula River can be made by calling +1 407 WDW-PLAY. And dinner reservations for any location at the Walt Disney World resort are +1 407 WDW-DINE. Mnemonics are far easier to remember than a regular 10-digit number. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:58, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Yes mnemonics are easy to remember for some, but pointless as this is a travel guide ultimately designed to be printed and read, not a memory aid. Putting two different expressions of a phone number is duplication. As the world outside North America does not really use lettered numbers, I think it is reasonable that the numerical expression takes precedent--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:14, 8 February 2010 (EST).

If it's duplication you're worried about, you should prefer letters-first, as only the part of the phone number with letters need be interpreted with numbers. (e.g., I can write "+1 407 WDW-PLAY (939-7529)" instead of "+1 407 939-7529 (+1 407 WDW-PLAY)".) (WT-en) LtPowers 13:31, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Eh? Just write the number. Once. +1 407 939-7529. That's it. No duplication, the whole wide world understands and does not feel that they are being sold to. Seems very simple to me. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:22, 8 February 2010 (EST)

But it's silly when there's an easy-to-remember mnemonic available. I don't see how using that mnemonic makes anyone feel like "they are being sold to". You're calling a number to make reservations; I think you've already agreed to be sold to. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:28, 9 February 2010 (EST)

That a word is easier to remember than a number is obvious - that is why companies pay big dollars for these special numbers. There are some of these mnemonic numbers with more letters than they have required numbers, so only duplicating the letters can give you a confusing result in this case. To me the numeric gives the traveller the information they need to call the place they want. To give the letters is just supporting the corporate marketing campaign. In the case of the Disney article you quote, this is pretty much what we are doing anyway, so it doesn't jar that much, but in the case of list of hotels in some town, when one has the paid number +1+555+STAY-HERE... ? --(WT-en) inas 15:07, 8 February 2010 (EST)

If we do decide to use lettered numbers, I'd like to see them excluded from the phone="" part of a XML listing. I see Wikivoyage on your mobile device as being most likely future, and being able to call a listing directly a big advantage. We can use phoneextra for the info if required. --(WT-en) inas 17:35, 9 February 2010 (EST)

If the intention is to dial directly from an XML listing, entries of the form phone="+1-212-736-5000 or +1-800-223-8585" fax="+1-212-502-8712" address="401 7th Ave; 33rd Street; New York, NY" are going to be just as broken as if we'd left the number as "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" and let the computer choke on it. We need two 'phone number fields in too many cases (tollfree is one, the local lodging with one number for their pub and another for their B&B operation is another). K7L (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2012 (CEST)

Don't we have a tollfree in the xml? I'm sure it was there.. --Inas (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2012 (CEST)

It's not in the list of tags under the edit window, which has:

<sleep name="" alt="" address="" directions="" phone="" email="" fax="" url="" checkin="" checkout="" price=""></sleep>.

The full information is buried at tech:listings extension:

<sleep name="" alt="" address="" directions="" phone="" tollfree="" email="" fax="" url="" hours="" checkin="" checkout="" price="" lat="" long="" tags=""></sleep>

where:

lat, long "will be show only if lat, long attributes and the listingsPositionTemplate string are specified". So far, it looks like the template doesn't exist and the co-ordinates do nothing at all.

tags "Additional tags (specifications) of the destination. This information is not shown." presumably does nothing.

If I try this with an example listing:

44.22-76.521 Kingston Penitentiary (The Crowbar Hotel), 560 King Street West, Kingston K7L 4V7 (401 exit 615, then south to waterfront), ☏ +1 613-545-8460, toll-free: +1-800-O-CANADA (6-226232), fax: +1 613-545-8826, kp@csc-scc.gc.ca. always open. Check-in: any time, check-out: 2yrs+. Opened in 1835, accommodates up to 421 guests in four luxurious units on historic Kingston waterfront. Heritage property listed in Canada's constitution, the 1867 British North America Act. Solid, sturdy limestone construction reflects the love of labour of expert craftsmen. Modern (1976-era) Olympic-sized marina next door, handy to historic Portsmouth village, one block to teachers' college, near St. Lawrence College, one mile to Queen's main campus. Museum on-site. Within walking distance of Bellevue House National Historic Site, less than two miles to the foot of downtown and City Hall. Local transit at main gate. Fine view of the Thousand Islands. Prime waterfront location for boating, windsurfing or simply relaxing in the sun. People would kill to stay in this fine Kingston luxury resort. Free food and lodging.

...indeed the (largely-undocumented) tollfree="" works. Perhaps the info needs to appear under the "edit" page with the other known fields? (I still can't see how to enable the co-ordinates, though. Are these supposed to go on a locator map or something? I have a map and a shovel.) K7L (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2012 (CEST)

UK numbers[edit]

An anon has been on a tear changing UK numbers from +44 (0) XXXX XXXXX to +44 XXXX XXXXX. Is this something we want? I always understood our basic phone number system to be that we show the international calling code up front and then the local number. But, if I'm not mistaken, you have to dial the 0 if dialing from within the country. Having the 0 in parentheses would then make sense, right? This always seemed straightforward (including the time I spent living in London...), but after trying to read the convoluted UK#Telephone section, I'm honestly no longer sure. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:52, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Multiple formats have been is use, often within the same page. This should clarify the problem: [[2]] and the solution. 80.42.230.218 09:13, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

With respect, a ranting blog does not clarify anything. +44 (0) XXXX XXXXX is perfectly clear and correct. It means omit the zero if dialing from outside the UK. This is a widely used standard in business and elsewhere. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:31, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

It is not a standard. This [[3]] is a standard. 80.42.230.218 09:36, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

What we're looking for is not to follow standards blindly, but to use a format that the average traveler will most easily understand. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:05, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

I understand his point though. Dialing +440XXXXXXXXX would not get you anywhere. So if anything, then the international calling code would also need to be between brackets, or something like (+44/0)XXXXXXXXX which looks odd. That's why I think using the international standard is best. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:39, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Are there people out there who do not understand what a bracketed zero in a phone number means? Sometimes I wonder if we go too far in trying to cater for the lowest common denominator. Also, don't forget that people within the UK also read Wikivoyage, in which case the zero is relevant. It's not a huge deal either way I guess, as most human beings will figure it out.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Traditionally, things in parentheses are omitted when you dial from within the area and are included when you call from outside the area. Using (0) breaks that understanding. 80.42.230.218 14:49, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

We should follow the Ofcom and ITU-T recommendations [4] - which also work in-country from mobiles and local fixed line phones - so this format makes it foolproof for the traveller --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 11:50, 29 September 2012 (CEST)

Country-specifics[edit]

This edit introduces country-specific guidance on phone number formatting. I fear this could quickly become unwieldy, but we'll see. Specifically, though, I question the guidance in the United States section, which actually says "for the last two examples, this differs from common and recommended local practice" -- so why the heck are we recommending it? LtPowers (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My own preference would be to follow ITU-T recommendations but I do recognise that there is a valid different view - succinctly expressed by your good self in the section that precedes this: "What we're looking for is not to follow standards blindly, but to use a format that the average traveler will most easily understand."

The consensus was to show clearly the part that could be dialled (locally?) using abbreviated dialling.

As for things becoming unwieldy, don't forget that this article is principally a guide to editors so that they can quickly check if a listing has been correctly formatted or not. What's unwieldy about alphabetic order? -- W. Frank^e-mail_talk 20:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the size; it's already fairly large with just a handful of countries listed. But regarding toll-free numbers in the U.S., both usual practice, and our own desire to show which parts must always be dialed, would indicate that the numbers should be formatted as "+1-800-XXX-YYYY", as all parts are required even from within the U.S. LtPowers (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will get big as countries are added, but:

1) The nutshell part at the beginning need not grow since this is the generic explanation of our formatting policy

2) Since this advice to editors is in the Project namespace who care if it grows to a humungous size? Nobody is ever going to print it out and you can go immediately to the relevant section to update or consult using the table of contents. Far better to have all the advice in one spot with the handy shortcut of phones to put in your edit summary to explain what may otherwise be an inexplicable edit to a casual editor.

We show the part than can be dialled locally (by using groups of digits conjoined with hyphen(s)) not the part that must always be dialled. Take a look at the Toll-Free Numbers in Country Code 1 section above to see why the NANCPlan will always be problematic in terms of consistent formatting. W. Frank^e-mail_talk 21:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we use hyphens to connect pieces that must always be dialed; thus, "+1 585 555-1234" in an area code with 7-digit dialing, "+1 416-555-1234" in an area code with 10-digit dialing, and "+1-800-555-1234" for toll-free numbers. At least, that's the convention I've been using. LtPowers (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been using, although I suspect there was one more oddball case - NYC and a couple of similarly-large places have no flatrate local calling area at all, so +1-212-736-5000 requires dialling everything including the leading 1. (Admittedly, eleven-digit telephone numbers as famous song titles would be unwieldy.) The NANP section should be titled "North America", not "US", as +1 covers a huge area of anything even remotely former-AT&T. K7L (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct.

To follow our policy, your example number would be shown thus: +1 212 736 5000 since there is no sub group of number groupings that can be dialled locally and the whole number (obviously excepting the + plus sign indicating the international dial-out code/international access code) needs to be dialled.

I've added a specific Canadian section now but I'm wondering if indeed it would be better to re-title the "US" section and then list countries like Bermuda, Canada, USA etc with just a "See NANPA section". I suspect that many of the US editors would start moaning though - since they seem to believe their fellow countrymen are incapable of understanding the 24 hour clock or need our articles to contain Fahrenheit conversions.

Please help with legitimate Canadian number examples. -- Alice^✉ 04:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Any reason to use real numbers, instead of using a legitimate area code followed by something that can't be a valid number (555-0123, 958-xxxx, 959-xxxx, +1-212-718-xxxx where 212 and 718 are both NYC area codes)? Also, the section should be titled "North America" and not "NANPA" (as the latter is the NANP system administrator, not the geographic region). It's rare that a North American number would be something other than NANP (St. Pierre and Miquelon comes to mind, and there may be a few points in the Caribbean). K7L (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's probably better to use fictitious/impossible subscriber numbers (is there a list?) as exemplars.

If we do go to one specific section, for the NANP, I would definitely suggest naming it something other than "North America" since not all the "North American" countries use it (eg Mexico) and most of the countries (as opposed to telephones) using it lie outside "North America" in the Caribbean - at least to my non-"North American" ears.

For that reason, I suggest sticking with individual country subsections as being the quickest route for editors (who are interested enough to check) to find how to correctly format listings, etc. -- Alice^✉ 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a partial list of fictitious telephone numbers on Wikipedia, although it covers mostly NANP/UK/Australia. Mexico is an odd case in that it fits better with Central America in many ways (standard of living, language) but is in the NAFTA trading bloc. While there once were +1-805- and +1-905 area codes for Mexican numbers with US-style numbering (805's were towns on the border served by US exchanges, 905 was an alias for +52-5- Mexico city) these were scrapped when it became possible to dial overseas directly without an operator and their codes re-used elsewhere. A "North America" section would be viable if it said in its initial text that Mexico is not +1. K7L (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now seen both Alice and W.Frank assert unreservedly that by policy, we use no hyphens to demonstrate that no part of the number can be omitted when dialed locally. But this is simply not true; we use hyphens between the parts of the number that must always be dialed. Parts without a hyphen may be omitted locally. Thus, if all eleven digits must be dialed, then all parts of the number should be connected with hyphens. LtPowers (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and changed this to +1 617-959-9999 format for North America, although this "no hyphens" bit still appears in the text for a few countries for mobile numbers. I'm thinking those should be changed too, so that the minimum number of digits needed to call the number from its own region are always joined by hyphens; anything else seems arbitary. K7L (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So +1 907 958-8888 as seven-digits, +1 647-958-8888 as ten digits, +1-212-958-8888 as eleven digits. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:4BD 16:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a complete mess. Can we delete this section, and start again? It is completely non-conformant with the pre-existing policy. --Inas (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The old guard seem to be missing the points again.

We show telephone numbers in an international format. You should be able to take any of our numbers as shown in Wikivoyage, discard any hyphens and spaces and then dial them exactly as shown (but without any hyphens and spaces) from any mobile phone wherever in the world you are. Mobile phones will automatically translate the + symbol to whatever is the local international dialling access code. This works everywhere - even locally in the US. That's our primary rule.
In the interminable discussions above, the "dumb norteamericanos" wanted a way to quickly see how they could use abbreviated local dialling (to save a few keystrokes and, allegedly, some money). So, contrary to ITU recommendations, we introduced hyphens (ITU specifies only spaces to make number groupings clearer for humans).

The above discussions are as clear as mud but obviously we wanted to use as few hyphens as is necessary to show what sub-set of the whole International format number CAN (please note the word can and not must) be dialled from within the same locale using abbreviated dialling.

Now, in New Zealand as an example, the standard way to show a landline number would be 03-539 0605. In ITU standard international format, that would be +64 3 539 0605. Applying our primary rule number 1 above, we would then show that number in Wikivoyage as being in the ITU standard international format of +64 3 539 0605. That will be diallable exactly as shown from outside NZ. That will also be diallable exactly as shown from inside NZ using any mobile, NZ or foreign. That will also be diallable from inside NZ if one simply replaces the international access code symbol of + with the NZ international access code of 00. If one dials 006435390605 from a NZ landline that will still work.

Now we need to apply our second rule and attempt to show what part of the number can be dialled in an abbreviated fashion from within the locale. In my example, the "3" part is the "area code" for the whole of the South Island and the only part that can (not must) be dialled locally using abbreviated dialling is the 539 0605 part. So, that is the part that is joined with hyphens and the Wikivoyage listing then becomes +64 3 539-0605.

There is no part of a NZ mobile number or tollfree number that can be truncated and dialled locally using abbreviated dialling, so they are shown always without any hyphens in the pages of Wikivoyage.

If there is no part of a NANPA number that can be dialled locally using abbreviated dialling then it should be show as +1 987 654 3210 (ie without any hyphens, brackets, or italicisation at all and following the ITU international format recommendations).

Why the heck would we ever need to sprinkle this with three hyphens, thus: +1-987-654-3210 ?

What is achieved by that bizarre policy exactly?

If, contrariwise, 7 digit dialling is in force, then that situation ("Frank's solution") can be shown using a single hyphen, thus: +1 987 654-3210

The opposite policy is completely bonkers since it would mandate breaking the ITU international standard more often than is necessary and achieve nothing except a proliferation of hyphens.

In a country like Thailand with a closed dialling plan (ie where there is no such thing as local abbreviated dialling), ALL the number groups would then have to be con-joined by hyphens! Surely less is best if it achieves the same result (ie it denotes with the minimum hyphens, what sub-set, if any, can be dialled locally using abbreviated dialling)?

Why on earth would we have a policy where we have to have more characters to show the same thing?-- Alice^✉ 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, a space is a character as much as a hyphen is. Secondly, the reason is that a person who doesn't realise what they have to dial can apply a consistent rule to figure it out. However, what you have done is made massive changes to the policy, completely inconsistent with what it was before. It is going to be a nightmare for someone else to fix it. Your rebuttal consists of calling the existing policy stupid, and some random ad-hominem attack on those who would choose to support it. It should all be reverted. --Inas (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be reverted, invoking E.123 makes no sense as that document presumes that two versions of the number (one national, one international) are published for each listing. For that matter, E.123 does not preclude hyphens as procedural indicators for domestic calls. K7L (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try and analyse where we are agreed.

Is there anyone that think the existing consensus is not to show numbers in a format in Wikivoyage that (completely disregarding hyphens and spaces) a number can successfully be dialled straight off the page using a mobile phone?

Please only speak up if you think that "show telephone numbers in International format" is not the current consensus? (Please hold your breath for a wee while and be patient - or start a new subsection below - if your only quibble is about spacing or hyphens). -- Alice^✉ 01:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't use "International format" ?![edit]

This is the first I've heard of any consensus for anything you've stated. I've never even heard of the ITU until today, and I'm not aware of anything resembling a consensus that numbers should be presented in their preferred format. Presenting numbers in a form that can be dialed using a mobile phone may be a laudable goal, but so is presenting numbers in a format consistent with what travelers will see in local sources like phone books and advertisements. I believe we have had consensus for the latter (demonstrated by years and years of actual practice without objection) but not for the former. LtPowers (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so surprised to see anyone pipe up in objection to "show telephone numbers in International format" that I've separated this interaction in a separate sub-section in the hope that you are just misunderstanding my question above and (if this is indeed the case) we can then mutually agree to strike this entire sub-section on that basis.

I thought this part of things was late to rest 7 years ago by Evan on 24 Feb 2006 with this edit. Do I really understand that you are proposing that instead of showing a Hemel Hempstead, England phone number in International format as +44 1442 59810 we should instead show it in in a format consistent with what travellers will see in local sources like phone books and advertisements: (01442) 59810 ?! -- Alice^✉ 06:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We've been using international format numbers in practice and in policy for a while now. We don't need to necessarily reference a particular standard. There was a short time when people thought a separate policy for North America was required, but I think that has fallen by the wayside. --Inas (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to bring parentheses into the discussion, which is what Evan's edit applies to. This is about hyphens and spaces, I thought. LtPowers (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --Inas (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't "reference a particular standard" then we need to - our own, as described exactly and minutely and unambiguously (on our policy page here and for which this is the discussion page).

We're not a baby project or a gentleman's club any more.

We're part of the WMF family and we need to understand that newcomers need to know precisely what our policies and recommended styles are and what they're not. Newcomers really don't have time to read screeds and screeds of the accompanying discussions that preceded a change if the policy page itself is unclear or ambiguous (in an unintendedly comical and inefficient parody of religious text analysis). I appreciate that a "consensus" is never immutable or eternal, but one of the problems with the previous lax style is that few people ever bothered to formally summarise the consensus that had been reached and then (ie subsequent to declaring what the decision was) make the appropriate edit.

Referencing my "Evan diff" above, I suspect that the decision to actually "show telephone numbers in International format" was made a while before that particular edit. I just referenced it because a) it might be thought that Evan could be trusted to know what the "consensus" was at that time and b) his edit seemed to lay to bed LtPower's helpful notion that we should be "presenting numbers in a format consistent with what travelers will see in local sources like phone books and advertisements".

As I wrote above, my clear intention and procedure now is to "Let me try and analyse where we are agreed." I intend to lay things out in successive stages so we can see exactly where any dissension or confusion lies.

At each successive stage, I shall call for expressions of dissent regarding that particular aspect of the format only. Please wait if you do not dissent until an aspect of the phone's policy is discussed that you do not agree with.

Right now, the sole topic to express dissent on is "show telephone numbers in International format". The next topic will be exactly what that phrase means and that will, in strict sequence, be broken down into

2) is it acceptable to show other formats that (usually) can not be dialled internationally from outside the country in question? (presumed response: yes)

3) if the response to (2) above is yes, then is it sufficient to distinguish the non-International format number by the mere absence of the initial + (plus symbol) or are other methods needed? (presumed response: yes and then no to the second question)

4) is it acceptable to show other formats (in addition to and clearly separated from the main International format, eg: "Letter numbers" such as +44 020 73 SUCK ME or 1 800 BAIL BOnd)

5) can parentheses be used for the International format number? (presumed response: no)

6) can spaces be used in the International format number to make clear the various components of country code, "area" or "STD" code, subscriber (or local) number? (presumed response: yes)

7) can arbitrary spaces be used {other than or in addition to making clear the various components of country code, "area" or "STD" code, subscriber (or local) number} in the International format number to accommodate a local tradition of presentation ? (presumed response: yes, but deprecated)

8) can other punctuation such as /,*,].&,_,[ (other than a - or hyphen to indicate a part or parts of an International format number that may be dialled locally using abbreviated dialling) be used? (presumed response: no)

9) can a - or hyphen be used to indicate the part or parts of an International format number that may be dialled locally using abbreviated dialling? (presumed response: yes, and encouraged)

Finally the last question remaining will, presumably, be exactly how (9) is to be achieved.

Now that I hope you have understood my intended method, LtPowers and Inas, can we agree to

i) declare a clear consensus to "show telephone numbers in International format"

ii) then delete this entire subsection (currently headed "Don't use "International format" ?!")

iii) then proceed next to sequentially ask if there are any objections to propositions 2), 3), 4), etc above (thus distilling the point or points of difference - if any) between us? -- Alice^✉ 00:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, it shouldn't be this hard.

I think the current policy is we use an international format, with hyphens to link numbers that must always be dialed. If there is a leading '0' or similar domestic prefix, we drop it, but mention it in the Contact/Connect section. I didn't see any controversy left in this, until you started putting spaces in numbers to replace hyphens. --Inas (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe this is the problem. What does "show telephone numbers in International format" mean? What is "International format"? The policy says "We format phone numbers as they would be dialled internationally", and has for a very long time, but that's not the same thing as requiring some undefined "International format"? I cannot express dissent until I know what is meant by the question. LtPowers (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with the international format, but suggest to leave the parts only locally necessary in in brackets. (e.g. +49-(0)12-34567 for Germany instead of the currently used +49-12-34567). This would give the traveller all information and work with a single explanation for hopefully all countries (i.e. locally, drop the country code, internationally drop the part in brackets); for other countries where you also dial the "full area code" internationally, we would drop the brackets. Buan~dewiki (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this is likely to not be seen, I will tag User:Ikan Kekek and User:Ypsilon to draw some attention here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to start having different standards for different countries. Already now (especially new) contributors write telephone numbers in all possible different ways because they aren't aware of this policy, don't remember or don't care and starting having different standards for different countries will likely not make things better.

Also, is it necessary to give numbers in a domestic format (too)? I'm asking because I don't know. Here in Finland, while you of course always can dial number the normal way (e.g. 09-1234567 for a random landline number in Helsinki), you can also dial it like from abroad (+358-9-1234567) with no problems. People who frequently travel internationally often have numbers saved in their cell phone's phonebook this format, it's useful when you travel but also poses no problem when at home. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware you can dial the number in the +49 format and reach the number you want to call. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should be true for mobile phones (I do not know whether it is the phone or the operator/network that makes this possible), while landlines require your using the local number. Regardless, here in Finland the recommendation is to skip the "(0)" part when publishing a number in international format. I suspect the recommendation is the same abroad. The convention is easy to describe in Connect sections (there is often some oddness to describe anyway), while the superfluous zero tends to cause a lot of confusion. --LPfi (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the mobile network. When I had a CDMA handset, +1-613-54X-XXXX dialled with the leading + and 1 would translate to 011-1-613-54X-XXXX and fail; on UMTS (same carrier, Bell) the full +1-613-54X-XXXX on a local call is accepted (even if 011-1-613-54X-XXXX would still fail). A leading 1- on a local analogue landline call always fails; a mobile or Internet telephone would be fine with it. K7L (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's a good idea to change a settled policy on phone number format on this site. However, if we were going to do that, could a bot do most of the work? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Part of) the problem is that currently a lot of articles have a lot of yellow (either NOCC or FORMAT) when the error highlighter is switched on and one looks over the phone numbers. So unless the bot is able to fix (09131) xxxxxx into the correct format with no more information than it being in an article on Erlangen (random example, Erlangen has most likely been fixed mostly) or add the leading +1 in all articles on the US in the right way, this is not a thing a bot could do imho. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the NOCC and FORMAT warnings should be treated as warnings for possible problems, which might not need any fixing. It might be relatively easy to make a table about conventions in different countries, which a bot could use – given we have enough information on the countries, which probably is true only for some of them. But is there a real problem? If the problem is numbers being marked, then it is the tool or its documentation that need fixing, or perhaps a flag for phone numbers indeed not reachable from abroad should be introduced. Such a flag would be useful, but how do you figure out what numbers to flag, without actually calling with a non-domestic phone? --LPfi (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that the NOCC and FORMAT warnings are too recent and seen by too few users to have any great effect. Look at the dead weblinks. Introducing a template and making it visible to every user has greatly reduced their incidence greatly enhancing content quality and up-to-dateness. I frankly don't think phone numbers should be Kraut und Rüben (a German idiom roughly meaning inconsistent, chaotic, lying about without order) and the way to do that is make clear rules and enforce them, not add needless exceptions to the rules. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm the one who initiated the further discussion: in my view, the solution should be whatever the majority seems LEAST confusing (and I'm happy to use whatever has been decided upon). One thing to add to that: we should try to ask people who currently do not contribute about what they would understand (as we're all biased in my view, 100% certain for me).
Dialling seems to be specific, but in most mobile networks, the international +... format worked in my experience, hence for mobile that's good. Sometimes, I think people may call locally (e.g. from a hotel). We should also keep that in mind.
A suggestion (subject to feasibility, which I don't have any idea of): to get the numbering streamlined, could we add brief instructions (e.g. with a (?) logo or so) and possibly a JavaScript syntax checker in the "add listing tool" (I know that does not cover everything, but at least a part and could also help to have a low-threshold/-barrier education on the topics) Buan~dewiki (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed replacement[edit]

The Wikivoyage:Phone numbers#Country-specific examples portion of this policy page seems to have strayed away from what we need for writing travel articles, so I'd like to propose replacing it with something like User:Wrh2/Phone numbers (work in progress, not finished). Someone using this page just needs to know how to format a phone number in our articles and doesn't need seven paragraphs of history about the specifics of calling codes in Abkhazia - we can link to Wikipedia for those who want that info - so I think a single line for each country that provides the calling code and an example of the phone number format(s) in use for that country would be far more useful. I don't want to spend the time populating the "example" column for every country unless there is support for the table format, so comments, objections, support, etc? -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for those who are familiar with phone formats in use in various countries, please feel free to update User:Wrh2/Phone numbers with examples. I've put several examples in place based on guidelines in Wikipedia articles, but this is an area where local knowledge would be very useful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like your chart in progress better than the cumbersome information that's currently in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the existing "country-specific examples" should be moved to a subpage? They're valid general info, but Category:Wikivoyage policies doesn't seem to be the right place for them. K7L (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The country code links in the proposed replacement all link to Wikipedia pages with basically the same information, although if we want to save the text currently on the phone number page I would think that the "Connect" section of the relevant country articles would be the best place for it, assuming they don't already have it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved information to the relevant country article "Connect" and plunged forward with the new table. I'll add a request to the pub for people with local knowledge to help update the example column. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local emergency numbers[edit]

Not sure why these were in this page; shouldn't they be in the "Connect" section of the individual country article? K7L (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

==== Emergency numbers ====

From within China, the following emergency numbers are used (mainly in major cities):

110: Police
119: Fire
120: Ambulance
122: Traffic Accident

Also, in Beijing, there is a privately operated Ambulance that can be called using
999
In many cities, the emergency numbers provide assistance in Mandarin and English.

"Connect" or perhaps "Cope," and yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Format change proposal[edit]

Comments welcome at Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Telephone number. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the final verdict on phone numbers?[edit]

The best expression of consensus and policy that I can find in this talk page is Inas's comment at 00:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC): Numbers are to be given in the form that would be dialed from outside the country (in + format and excluding in-country-only prefixes), with hyphens binding the subset of numbers that are sufficient for local dialing.[reply]

But following comments give me the impression that's not entirely clear to all involved. Has this issue been resolved definitively? And does the policy page accurately reflect this? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 21:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the policy page is correct as written, although the prohibition against letters in the phone number fields may be out-of-date (due to technical improvements to the template). Powers ^(talk) 00:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican toll-free numbers[edit]

After perusing the the discussions above, I'm not sure to how to properly format Mexican toll-free numbers, to be dialed from within Mexico, not from abroad. Standard formatting for these numbers should be (in Mexico): 01 800 XXX XXXX. Numbers formatted like this however generate an error tag 'NOCC'. How can/should I fix this? –StellarD (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they cannot be dialled from abroad, then the format you're using is valid (despite the 'NOCC' flag). K7L (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an exception to Module:LinkPhone, so they shouldn't show the NOCC anymore. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help fix the NOCC[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Search Wikivoyage for "NOCC" and you will find many articles that contain phone number missing a country code. You can easily find the country's calling code (look at other articles of the same country) and fix them. Thanks! :-) Syced (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, mais on a une catégorie pour ça: Category:Listing with phone format issue should be the easiest way to find these. :) K7L (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in an earlier discussion, there is now also a gadget that can be enabled that will highlight listings containing bad syntax to make it easier to see what needs fixing - see #New functionality for finding bad syntax on pages - Error highlighter. -- Ryan • (talk) •

I've also noticed that adding the maintenance category to Special:Watchlist will now notify every time a badly-formatted listing is added to a previously-valid page. That seems to catch a lot of "new" contributions, including the hôteliers who pop up once to add a listing praising their own hotel and then vanish. The "no country code" thing is a common mistake for those unfamiliar with Wikivoyage? K7L (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOCC on domestic-only freephone numbers[edit]

Wikivoyage:Phone numbers says to omit the country code if a number isn't dialable from abroad at all, usually as a toll-free or freephone number in a format like Jenny's, toll-free: 01 800 8675309. . That's triggering the "NOCC" warnings. Is this a bug? K7L (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To K7L: It shouldn't be. There are exceptions in place for tollfree numbers beginning with: 0508, 0800, 1300 & 1800. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikivoyage talk:Phone numbers#Mexican toll-free numbers it looks like 01 800 is was the culprit? K7L (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the correct format of that number in the U.S. is just Jenny's, toll-free: 1 800 8675309. . The "1" is the long-distance prefix (trunk code). --Bigpeteb (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What to do for listings with two phone numbers in different countries?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So I did some copy editing on San Juan del Sur recently and found a couple of listings with a Nicaraguan (+505 - nnnn nnnn ) number as well as a US one (+1-whatever). How is the right way to format them? And is there a page that spells out how to do this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikivoyage:Listings: "In nearly all cases only a single phone number should be included, but if multiple phone numbers are required then they should be separated with a comma - example: "+1 234-567-8901 (front-desk), +1 456-789-0123 (reservations)"." -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well this policy does not cover or explicitly mention numbers in / for different countries, which seem to be common in certain regions. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use the same system: "+505 - nnnn nnnn, +1-whatever". In terms of formatting, it doesn't matter whether the two phone numbers are front desk vs reservations telephone numbers or Nicaragua vs US ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

0845 numbers[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Does anyone know if you can phone UK 0845 numbers from abroad? The reason I ask is because I just added an 0845 number in the Events section of the Brighton article, but as I thought you couldn't call them from abroad, I didn't add the +44 country code, but then that yellow NOCC thing appeared, so I added it in. So if you can't ring them from abroad, is there a reason to add the country code? This is probably a bit of a stupid question, but anyway, thanks for your help. Seagull123 Φ 13:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#NOCC_tag section above. Some 0845 numbers can be called from some overseas phones, but not all numbers from any phone. If possible I prefer to use a geographic number instead - saynoto0870 may help. I don't know how common domestic only numbers are around the world - is it worth adding another phone number listing field, or should we just ignore the NOCC tag (which most readers won't see)? AlasdairW (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlasdairW: Thanks for that link to that website, I found a geographic number to use with it! For the use of country codes with non-geographic numbers, maybe there could be a notice or bit of text that says it's a non-geographic number or something, which would appear like, "0845 1234 5678 (non-geographic number)". I don't know. Seagull123 Φ 20:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seagull123: I've added "non-geographic number" as an option to Module:LinkPhone, so if you use the format you mentioned: phone=0845 1234 5678 (non-geographic number) then it will no longer be flaggedand have updated Brighton to use it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WOSlinker: That's great, thank you! That does make it easier when you've got one of those numbers. Thanks again! Seagull123 Φ 12:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phone and Phones redirect[edit]

The Phone redirect has pointed to this page since it was created in 2012 as Phones (by User:W. Frank). User:Alice moved it to the singular, leaving both titles as redirects. User:Inas later switched the target of Phones to Telephone service for travel (now just Telephone service), which seems appropriate. I would suggest we retarget Phone to the same target, rather than this page, as cross-namespace redirects can be confusing. Would anyone object? Powers ^(talk) 17:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full support from me - cross-namespace redirects are almost always a bad idea, particularly in this case where a user is far more likely to be looking for the travel topic instead of a policy page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extensions[edit]

How do we format telephone number extensions, i.e., where a business or government uses a central phone number, then directs calls internally using an extension number? In Canada, we often format them as +1819-364-7177 ext 300. Will this work? Ground Zero (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. ☏ +1 819-364-7177 ext 300. The extension part is not included in the dialed number though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this format above really correct? Having just fixed 70+ phone number format errors, it seems that the only way to prevent the extension from causing an error is to put the extension inside a set of parenthesis. The correct format that actually works seems to be: ☏ +1 819-364-7177 (ext 300). Every extension left outside of as set of parenthesis I found caused errors. This use of parenthesis for extensions is not currently documented on the Project Page.

Zcarstvnz (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zcarstvnz: I've seen the extension included without parentheses many times where the formatting error doesn't appear. Can you show me a few pages where you saw the error? It might have been something else causing it. Gizza^(roam) 04:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "ext NNN" format is used in the examples in Module:LinkPhone/doc, and the module has a code section explained to be for handling them, also the same format. Seems this is the official way to do it. –LPfi (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaGizza:I'm sorry but I did not track which pages had the extension errors. Once I put the extension within parenthesis the errors immediately went away, so I don't believe there was any other issue.

Zcarstvnz (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LPfi: I was unaware that Module:LinkPhone/doc existed. Perhaps it should be added in the "See also" section at the bottom of the page to help others? Thanks for the link!

Zcarstvnz (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it should. However, there should be a note on that the module usually isn't used directly. I'll add something. –LPfi (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australian format[edit]

@TravelAroundOz: I don't understand why so many formats have to be listed.

Since +61 2 XXXX XXXX (and similar) lack a hyphen, that implies that you can dial just the last 4 digits locally. That doesn't seem to be the case according to w:Telephone numbers in Australia. If it's true, that needs to be explained somewhere. If it isn't, then there's a hyphen missing, and it should be +61 2 XXXX-XXXX... in which case, how is this different from +61 X XXXX-XXXX that's listed as the general format? --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, it's meant to be +61-2 XXXX but it can be dialed either way. However, if you forget to add the 2/3/4/7/8, it can go to anywhere. I have had an experience of this before where I dialed XXXX XXXX and it went to a number in Albany, which traumatised me so badly that I do not want anyone else going through this, hence my addition SHB2000 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? One of us is very confused, and no offense but I think it's probably you.

Here's my understanding based on Australia#Telephone and w:Telephone numbers in Australia: The only format we need to mention for landlines is +61 Y XXXX-XXXX. As our country article and WP and other websites explain, from anywhere inside the country you can always dial the full number as 0Y XXXX XXXX. If you're in the same area code, you may dial just the local part of the number as XXXX XXXX. Since WV prefers our own format, in which hyphens indicate which parts of the number always have to be dialed and which parts are optional, this means +61 Y XXXX-XXXX would be valid for the whole country, as it indicates that you always have to dial XXXX-XXXX, and that Y is optional depending on where you're calling from.

If anything I just described is wrong, please explain. It certainly doesn't seem like you can dial just four digits the way you can in small towns in the UK or Japan (see our formats for those numbers, those countries' articles, and w:Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom and w:Telephone numbers in Japan).

Surely +61-2 XXXX as you just suggested is a mistake, because WP is quite clear that Australian phone numbers are 8 digits plus an area code. There's no way I could dial that from abroad and connect to a valid number.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience one time, but it sounds like maybe you just misdialed the number. That's not enough reason for us to make an overly verbose description or include Captain Obvious advice like "Be careful to dial numbers correctly". --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confused. Unlike in the US, on mobile, if you forget the prefix, it can go to a different state. There are also mentions of this in Anh Do's The Happiest Refuge, which I'll try and find the pages soon. TravelAroundOz (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TravelAroundOz: Dialing from a mobile phone often needs different instructions. Hence why in USA#By phone we explain that when calling from a mobile phone, you should always dial the full number including area code. We probably need similar advice in Australia#Telephone. Surely that would solve the problem, and we don't need to list multiple redundant formats here? --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And plus, the list isn't even that long anyway. SHB2000 (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK 6-digit numbers[edit]

An anonmyous user added the format +44 YYYY XXX XXX for the UK. This is identical to +44 YYYY XXXXXX which we already had, but separates the local part of the number into 3+3.

+44 YYYY XXX XXX is not a valid WV format, as we would always use +44 YYYY XXX-XXX to indicate that when dialing locally, all 6 digits of the local number must be dialed.

What's the common or preferred format for these numbers in the UK? Per w:Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom#Four-digit area codes, these are fairly common, so it shouldn't be hard for one of our UK editors to come up with some examples. --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With or without the space, but never with a dash.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like more or less everywhere except Wikivoyage? Does the grouping XXX-XXX or XXX XXX instead of XXXXXX mean something semantically (in the British numbers), or is the space or hyphen there only to ease reading? If the latter, we should use the Wikivoyage format. –LPfi (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The space is just for ease of reading. So you pronounce each block as a group, e.g. 01234 567 890 ("oh-one-two-three-four [breath] five-six-seven [breath] eight-nine-oh"). The hyphen / dash is never used, so I don't really see why we'd need to use it on WV, unless there were a programming reason. I'm not saying we shouldn't use it, just that I don't want any specific format mandated, and particularly not one that visitors to the UK will encounter.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ThunderingTyphoons!: The question at hand is whether to separate the digits or not. Should we pick one format (if so, which one?) or should we allow both formats?

Unfortunately, the issue of using a dash is a longstanding WV policy.

Our formatting method may differ from that seen most in the country concerned. We prefer to use hyphens to only indicate the (con-joined) abbreviated part of the whole telephone number that can be utilised for local dialling.

This has long been the case and was documented in 2012. The UK is not the only country affected that usually uses a space locally but specifies a dash on WV. That said, I just glanced at some city articles under UK and France, and all the phone numbers are using spaces (and quite a few numbers in French cities aren't even using the Y XX XX XX XX format). Now, I don't object to changing this policy, but I think that should be discussed separately. For now, the question is just whether to use XXXXXX or XXX-XXX for these UK numbers. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated already, either can be used, if we're saying the dash is surrogate for a space. So if it's possible to allow both without specifying one or the other, then do that.

I get what you're saying about the preexisting policy, but think the intended logic behind it would be entirely missed on anybody who doesn't live in a country where the dash is used for that purpose; until five minutes ago, I just assumed they were purposeless decoration ("What? You mean you haven't read the Phone numbers policy cover-to-cover? What sort of terrible admin are you?!").--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for +44 YYYY ZZZ XXX I think visitors only need +44 YYYY XXXXXX. If you are local, then you may know the meaning of different values of ZZZ - they may be different villages. 30-40 years ago if you were in the same village then you could just dial XXX and there were special short codes to dial neighbouring villages and only pay local call rates - all this is history and vistors are unlikely to dial from a landline. AlasdairW (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The YYYY XXX-XXX is still meaningful, I suppose, especially if the full number does not work from landlines (as here in Finland). It is easier to read than YYYY XXXXXX. I would like changing the format to something actually (widely) used outside Wikivoyage, but until then, not using our standard would make a transition more complicated. Also for mobile phone users distinctions between different types of numbers are significant: in Finland landline, mobile and special numbers have different costs, and separating the "area code" makes it easier to see what kind of number you are dialling (010 are special numbers, 050 and 044 mobile, 02 landline, and so on, unfortunately the logic is obscure). –LPfi (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is slightly losing me, but the full number does work from landlines in the UK. You can leave out the area code if you're dialling locally, but you don't have to.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so for UK there is less of a difference. Separating the area code makes sense for those using landlines, and for having a consistent format with other countries. So the +44 YYYY XXX-XXX, YYY XXX-XXXX etc. formats are probably the ones to use. Do I understand correctly, that the area codes vary in length by region? –LPfi (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. Most of the country has five-digit area codes, though many larger cities have three- or four-digit codes (all including the initial 0, which we omit on WV). Presumably this is because a metropolitan area code will have more individual numbers, so the only way to avoid the whole number being longer is to shorten the area code.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ OK, I dug a little deeper and looked at some WV articles for some of the locations that would be affected by this. The short answer is, grouping of these 6-digit numbers isn't consistent: most numbers are YYYY XXXXXX, but some are YYYY XXX XXX or even YYYY XX XX XX (such as for a business whose number is 1224 35 35 35). (For instance, see Aberdeen.)

Funnily enough, I just noticed that w:Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom#Structure claims that the Ofcom-approved format is YYYY XX XXXX, which nobody is using! (But also, I wasn't able to verify that from the citation.)

From what I understand, this is generally the case throughout the UK: regardless of the "official" way to do it, in common usage people and businesses don't necessarily follow a particular standard for how to group the local digits of a phone number. Local numbers that are 7 digits are essentially always grouped as XXX XXXX, but 6 digits or 5 digits may be grouped in multiple ways.

I'm fine with making that the policy. Our main concern ought to be that numbers are always formatted in international format so they can be dialed from abroad, and never in local formats (e.g. 020 ... for a London number) or in confusing nonstandard formats (like +44 (0)20). Grouping the digits is purely for readability, so how about we just say "YYYY XXXXXX or YYYY XXX-XXX", and not make a fuss about exceptions that group them differently so long as the area code is separated from the local part of the number. --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigpeteb, ThunderingTyphoons!: That person was me. Feel free to remove it. 82.3.185.12 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revise use of dashes in phone numbers[edit]

The current policy states that:

Our formatting method may differ from that seen most in the country concerned. We prefer to use hyphens to only indicate the (con-joined) abbreviated part of the whole telephone number that can be utilised for local dialling. We do not use italics or parentheses within the phone number.

This was added in 2012 and hasn't changed since.

As written, this policy is not very clear. I had always read it to mean that the local part of a phone number must be separated with dashes. I recently realized it could mean that you may use dashes for that (but can still use spaces), the important point being that you don't use dashes between other parts of the number (e.g. separating the area code when the area code is optional).

Given that many of our articles already follow local convention and use spaces in countries where that's common, I think we should alter the policy to match. This might combine and rearrange several bullet points into something like this:

Most countries have a commonly-used way of grouping digits (official or otherwise). We generally group digits according to each country's preferred format, as it's useful in most places to separate the area code from the local number. Grouping the digits of the local number is just so it's easier to read, which we're less picky about.
Digits are grouped using spaces or dashes. Spaces can be used anywhere, but use dashes only for the parts of a number that must be dialed for a local (not long-distance) call and use spaces to separate the parts that may or may not be required. (For example, if you can dial a call as XXXXXXX when you're calling from the same area code, we would format it +1 YYY XXX-XXXX. But if you always have to dial YYYXXXXXXX using both the area code and the local number, even when calling from the same area code, we would format it +1 YYY-XXX-XXXX.)

We might also add something to the table of formats indicating whether the country prefers spaces or dashes (or a combination); there's not much sense fussing over dashes in a country that always uses spaces and/or where you always have to dial the full number. For that matter, info on how to format phone numbers might be worth copying/moving to the infobox we now have on each country's talk page, alongside time and currency formats. --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think following local conventions is not a priority. We should explain how to interpret them (such as to remove the leading zero before adding country prefix or to take parenthesis as a marker of area code) in country articles, but in listings we should use our standard format, whatever that is. However, our standard format may be country dependent for some aspects irrelevant for dialling (such as whether to group the local parts in groups of two or three) to ease keeping conformity in individual articles and ease comparing numbers between listings and local information.

Our standard should make dialling easy. It should work as such in mobile phones, it should make it easy to deduce the number to dial from landlines (local or not) and it should allow easily recognizing any prefix relevant for costs of the call (some prefixes may mean free or high cost calls). Usually the relevant parts are the country code, the area code and similar prefixes and the local part. What we should discuss is how to separate the area code and other prefixes from the local part in a way that feels natural and does not interfere with linking or typing the number.

The problem now is that we use the hyphen where it is never (?) used locally, which confuses editors and readers alike. What standards are there for separating area codes and similar prefixes?

Now, when looking around, I found that our format may actually be based on the international standard. The WP-article says that the prefix should be separated by spaces, while hyphens are explicitly allowed if needed (at least in national notation) to separate groups of numbers.

–LPfi (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting boxes on country talk pages[edit]

At the top of each country's talk page, there is a formatting conventions box that notes what conventions we have adopted for formatting time (12-hr or 24-hr clock), currency, and spelling (Anerican, British, or local). This would be a good place to keep track of telephone number formatting, too. I have done this at Talk:Chile, in part as a reminder to myself as I edit Chile articles. Ground Zero (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a great idea. Might even want to add it to states and provinces as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In provinces only if there are essential differences, and in that case it should that noted on the country page.

The information directed at travellers should be in Connect of the country article (and at lower levels as needed). We should not unnecessarily repeat it on the talk pages. I suppose the Chile case is simple enough that the information now present suffices – although I'd like a clarification of the "Chilean phone numbering scheme is simple." in Connect. No area codes? No expensive numbers?

I don't know how to present the formatting guideline for Finland. I think the important thing would be to separate the prefix, which tells what kind of number we are dealing with, but prefixes differ in length and I haven't found a source for comprehensive intelligible information.

Wikivoyage has a convention for telling the local part of landlines (+358 2 123-456), but I don't know how to separate +358 400-123-456 and +358 45-123-4567 (mobile phones) from e.g. +358 20-123-456 (non-regional landline equivalent), +358 700-123-456 (entertainment service), +358 600-123-456 (non-entertainment service). I do recognise most of the prefixes, but a traveller adding a listing has a hard time telling what category 016 789123, 0210041 or 040 0123 456 belongs to – the local number presentation is not consistent.

–LPfi (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. phone number format[edit]

Swept in from the pub

From today, April 24, 2021, 82 additional U.S. area codes will begin using 10-digit dialing (full details from NANPA). Per Wikivoyage:Phone numbers, numbers in these area codes need a hyphen between the area code and the exchange. The format is +1 YYY-XXX-XXXX. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And about this page:

I don't think we should discuss the reform in the lead of this page. The US numbers were there as an example, not to explain US numbers. That's the task of the country By phone section. We should of course update the section on USA in the table, but if the US numbers are too convoluted to serve as a good example, let's pick some more typical country. –LPfi (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK phone numbers[edit]

This policy states that UK phone numbers should have hyphens in them, however people in the UK don't write phone numbers with hyphens, and no UK articles that I can find (not even Star articles) use hyphens. Should this be changed? 82.3.185.12 14:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the history seems to show that this was first added in 2014 https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Phone_numbers&diff=2536609 Nelson Ricardo (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While in principle, the idea of using hyphens to indicate the numbers that have to be dialled for a local call makes sense, if our policy is not in line with how numbers are formatted in our articles, in practice it doesn't make sense. It seems unlikely that anyone is going to come along a correct the formatting errors, so I think it is easier to change the manual of style. Ground Zero (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digging deeper, I found that hyphens in UK numbers were added to the policy before the page even had a table, in 2009 in the Before Times (the WT days): https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Phone_numbers&diff=1788979. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens are used in articles about major cities, eg Edinburgh/New Town, Newcastle upon Tyne and Birmingham (England). AlasdairW (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning that. I recently fixed all London district listings with missing coordinates. In the process, I saw that most phones numbers already had hyphens, and I added them when missing. I also learned that too many businesses think that 0207 and 0208 are London area codes rather than just 020 (first 0 dropped in international format). Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If hyphens aren't used in the UK, we shouldn't use them for UK numbers, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the way we wish to go, I see two bullet points in the policy that need to be deleted or amended:

The number group(s) that can be (optionally) dialled locally are con-joined with hyphens.
Our formatting method may differ from that seen most in the country concerned. We prefer to use hyphens to only indicate the (con-joined) abbreviated part of the whole telephone number that can be utilised for local dialling. We do not use italics or parentheses within the phone number.

And we'll have to update the table, not only for the UK, but for any other countries similarly affected. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the confusion about UK numbers, I think it would be important to either have the hyphens – in teh right place – or add area codes to the Connect of most UK articles. Perhaps, in the talk page box, we should emphasise that the area codes need to be checked before adding hyphens. Generally, I see it important to show the prefixes, to allow travellers to distinguish between local numbers and different other numbers. I suppose that is easier than the work somebody did on adding parenthesis explicitly telling what kind of number it is (which would be good at least in some cases). –LPfi (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources to guide our deliberations:

w:Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom
The National Telephone Numbering Plan by w:Ofcom (UK's Office of Communications)

-- Nelson Ricardo (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens are not written in the UK, and I don't think that they would appear if a UK number was dialled from a different country. 82.3.185.12 15:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens are explicitly allowed in writing, and explicitly required to be removed by any software making the call – the latter is why they are safe. –LPfi (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LPfi: Hyphens are not written or used in UK phone numbers. 82.3.185.12 17:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the policy as written, but I've always thought that phone numbers should be written as usually in found in each country (but without parentheses around area codes in my own U.S., as these seem like a holdover from simpler times). While we, the editors, know what hyphens are supposed to mean, I doubt that most readers will figure out that +1 123 456-7890 means that you can leave off the area code when calling within the 123 area while +1 123-456-7890 means that you must include it and that +1-123-456-7890 means that you must include a 1 before the area code. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always assume those 3 notations meant exactly the same thing. Editors are not so precise as to routinely distinguish between such subtle differences, and I'd never heard that those 3 notations were meant to express different things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you have over 100,000 edits, I would not be surprised if many other editors are likewise mystified. I think step 1 should be to get consensus on simplifying the policy. Step 2: rewrite the page intro to be less confusing; it gets convoluted quickly now. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Ikan Kekek, Nelson Ricardo 2500: I think it would be good to remove the hyphens as

A) Hyphens are never written in phone numbers anywhere in the UK

B) I can't find any articles other than Eastleigh that use hyphens in phone numbers, not even Star articles

C) I think people would get confused if Wikivoyage used hyphens, but no signs in the UK did

D) If you type a UK number in a phone either in the UK or internationally, the phone number would not be written with hyphens 82.3.185.12 16:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question just about UK, as our guideline says how to write phone numbers globally.

A) How numbers are written in the country is irrelevant by our guideline- It makes sense that travellers can use a telephone in any country using our destination article, without knowing local conventions.

B) I checked a random (sort of) article in USA, Finland and Brazil, and all used hyphens.

C) I suppose many travellers get confused when they see a number like +358 (0) 2 123 456. I don't get confused when phone numbers in UK are written the same way as in the rest of Wikivoyage.

D) Hyphens are not present on keypads of phones, neither are parentheses or blanks. You just have to know those are left out when dialling.

Then, if seasoned wikivoyagers do not know what the hyphens stand for in Wikivoyage, then we cannot expect our readers to, and we might want to revamp our policy. That discussion should be had elsewhere.

–LPfi (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LPfi: Hyphens will be automatically inserted on a smartphone if a phone number in a country that uses hyphens is keyed in. No UK article that I can find other than Eastleigh uses hyphens. I also think that it will be confusing if hyphens are used on Wikivoyage but nowhere else. 82.3.185.12 16:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If people are confused by seeing phone numbers shown as they are shown in the country they plan on visiting, they'd better get used to it fast! I think this can be addressed by briefly explaining the country's standard phone number format in "Name of Country/Connect". Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add a guideline saying "avoid letters in phone numbers"?[edit]

For a good chunk of toll free numbers, you could ideally also write a number in letters as well. I haven't seen this being used in most of our articles, I came across 1800 NSW RFS on Friday morning and it took me a while to search up that something that converted 1800 NSW RFS into 1800 679 737. I suppose if this is used on any articles, a reader will also find it difficult to convert the letters into numbers and so to avoid using letters in phone numbers, so seeking consensus before adding it in. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with such a guideline. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have letters on my phone's number pad, and I don't know the practices around those letter numbers, so people like me have difficulties dialling a letter number. Thus we should avoid that form of numbers. Are the lettering systems consistent across all countries where they are used? (There are at least two systems of number pads, counting upward or downward.) We should explain the letter system(s) in Phone service and link the section from any country where letter codes sometimes are used instead of numbers. –LPfi (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Letters are present on my phone number pad, but it's time consuming. Agree that it should be explained on Phone service, but also avoid it in our articles completely. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thibk that we should only allow letters to be in brackets after the number - 1800 679 737 (1800 NSW RFS). Until the 1970s, the UK used letters for telephone exchanges (area codes), and this used different letter/number pairings from the US format, so any very old UK landline phones have the "wrong" letters marked. The letters are easier to remember, but harder to use when you have the number in front of you - they are ideal for things like radio adverts. AlasdairW (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(side note: these are called w:en:phonewords. They are meant to be easier to recall than numbers, but indeed make it more difficult to type in a keypad unless labelled. w:en:OpenStreetMap records them -- as 'phone:mnemonic' but requires the full-numeric version to also be recorded.) Arlo Barnes (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage talk:Phone numbers

Untitled[edit]

Country Code One?[edit]

Newer phones[edit]

Counterpoint...[edit]

North American Phone Numbers[edit]

More on machine readable numbers[edit]

Local numbers vs international[edit]

RFC 3966[edit]

So what do we agree on?[edit]

Toll-free Numbers in Country Code 1[edit]

Country code 1[edit]

My brain hurts.[edit]

Malaysian mobile numbers[edit]

US number format[edit]

This is looking like a programming problem[edit]

December 2006 discussions[edit]

Telephone number template[edit]

Update now that we're using templates?[edit]

Big list of number formatting?[edit]

do away with italics... for now?[edit]

Lettered numbers[edit]

UK numbers[edit]

Country-specifics[edit]

Don't use "International format" ?![edit]

Proposed replacement[edit]

Local emergency numbers[edit]

Format change proposal[edit]

What's the final verdict on phone numbers?[edit]

Mexican toll-free numbers[edit]

Please help fix the NOCC[edit]

NOCC on domestic-only freephone numbers[edit]

What to do for listings with two phone numbers in different countries?[edit]

0845 numbers[edit]

Phone and Phones redirect[edit]

Extensions[edit]

Australian format[edit]

UK 6-digit numbers[edit]

Revise use of dashes in phone numbers[edit]

Formatting boxes on country talk pages[edit]

U.S. phone number format[edit]

UK phone numbers[edit]

Add a guideline saying "avoid letters in phone numbers"?[edit]

Navigation menu

Search