Talk:9-1-1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 9-1-1 was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 3, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
May 16, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
March 21, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

911 in the UK and Ireland[edit]

I've heard that this works in the UK and Ireland, due to the large number of kids who thought 911 was the emergancy number, not 999. Does anyone know this? I don't want to try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.148.1.142 (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


--No 911 will NOT work in the UK. 999 will work as will EuroZone emergency 112. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamorgan (talkcontribs) 00:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 911 does work in the UK. I just tried it, and got put through to the emergency services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.95.94 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

--As a general rule, 911 does NOT work in the U.K. It is certainly not programmed into any BT switches, and in fact in at least a couple of places now there can be regular local numbers which start 911. It's possible that a PBX has been programmed to translate 911 into 999/112 on an outside line, and it's just possible that one or more of the cable carriers might translate as well. But overall, 911 will NOT work.

PBC1966 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

--Many worldwide systems are supporting 112, 911, 111, etc. and translating to the local emergency code, if the former numbers do not directly conflict with the numbering plan in use. Hcberkowitz 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dialing 911 on GSM mobile phones in Australia also puts you through to emergency services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohmohgoh (talkcontribs) 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have experience with this, but I would guess any telephone that can dial complete numbers could easily convert a number of common emergency numbers to the correct emergency number for the region. On an old-style landline, each button is communicated immediately to a nearby switching station, so you wouldn't want 9-1-1-*pause while looking at notes*-3-1-2 (a potentially valid local number in the UK) to end up dialing 999 by accident (although it's possible certain areas do this anyways). On something like a cell phone call though, the user explicitly presses the send button, so it's unlikely 9-1-1-*send* was anything but an emergency call. Phones sold in a particular region could easily be programmed to dial 999 when instructed to dial 911, 000, 111, etc., to aid foreigners who may have panicked in an emergency and forgotten the local number. Phones could also be programmed to dial a different emergency number by detecting what region they're in. But you're probably better off remembering the local number than relying on non-official gimmicks to work. 162.252.201.32 (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

History[edit]

Is all guy the verbiage describing the early 9/11 years of the phone people suck d***and borders mexican people how people made calls really gay necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.139.9.38 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the misleading claim that dial service was not widespread until the 1950's. Certainly many areas still had manual service at that time, but as that section read it was suggesting that dial service was not at all common either, which is simply not true. PBC1966 (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Reasons I learned that the digits "9-1-1" were chosen was not only because it was easy to remember and worked well with the system at the time, but for other reasons too. Indeed, "1-1-1" and "1-2-3" are also easy and would have worked well too with the telephone system, but these numbers would have caused many false alarms. So, the reasons might have had to do also with (1) time-to-dial and (2) avoiding accidental or inadvertent false-alarms. A793b4 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

With rotary dial phones, it took a short time to dial "1", but a long time to dial "9". Remember, we had to wait for the mechanism to return back to the resting position before we could get the next digit. The length of time-to-dial increased from "1" to "9", with "0" being the longest. [With digital phones, which became popular in the 1980s, it took the same about of time for any digit.] With rotary phones, for the emergency number, it may have been desired to have [some] short-time numbers so the mechanism would return more quickly and less time elapsed while dialling (remember, there is an emergency); and to have [at most] one long-time number (like "9") so that inadvertent or accidental dialling (by children, for example) would be more rare. A793b4 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, "1-1-1" and "1-2-3" are both very easy to remember and have a relatively short-time to dial, but would have caused many false alarms. (How many of us as children dialled 1-2-3 while playing, for example.) A793b4 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Zero (a long-time-digit) might not have been chosen as a digit, since it would have been confused with the normal operator, was associated with initiating long-distance-numbers, and it was at the end of the dial mechanism, so a child might pick that position for the next digit. [The reason you want some short time digits is to reduce the overall time to dial in an emergency. The reason for a long time digit is to avoid false-alarms.] A793b4 (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps these "reasons" were developed after "9-1-1" was chosen and established. I don't know and have no access to references. But it seems quite plausible that the technical people who chose the digits put more effort than was suggested by the article. A793b4 (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 9-1-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

source(s)[edit]

Why the hyphens?[edit]

9-1-1 is not a number. 911 is. Can someone please explain if the hyphens get dialled (and how), and if not why is the code 9-1-1 indicated rather than the number 911? Compare with Wikipedia on the 999 emergency number. P0mbal (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 9-1-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

911 or 9-1-1[edit]

Is there a hyphen button on American telephones? Please explain the difference between 911 and 9-1-1. If there is no difference, let's keep it simple, use 911. Why are the hyphens there? In the UK the emergency number is given as 999 not 9-9-9. I think Wikipedia readers need an explanation here. P0mbal (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

–ID Phone X4293KM "Condor C1+/+213790969428/DJEZZY.OTA/love Amricans Call 9-1-1"open Call 00+1911Emergencies,APA Problams Neuroscience Psychologists ClinicalTrials Tuosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.45.99.216 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2017[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Although consistency is an important goal, both titles here are permissible under out titling policies, and there is a clear absence of consensus for a change to the status quo. bd2412 T 03:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

9-1-1911 (emergency telephone number) – per WP:CONSISTENCY with 108 (emergency telephone number), 112 (emergency telephone number), 119 (emergency telephone number), 999 (emergency telephone number) etc. Looking at Wikimedia commons [which by the way also uses the form '911 (emergency telephone number)' format] it is clear that usage on signage is mixed between the form 911 and 9-1-1 however if there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME then it seems more logical to be consistent across Wikipedia than have this one article as the exception. Furthermore, as has been noted many times on comments on this talk page, nobody types the hyphens in "9-1-1" on their phones when they make a call, they just type "911". Ebonelm (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane talk 03:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure I guess Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The number is typically written 911, not 9-1-1. PizzaLuvver (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The page already conforms to WP:CONSISTENCY with 2-1-1, 3-1-1, 4-1-1, 5-1-1, 6-1-1, 7-1-1, and 8-1-1 - the North American N11 code numbers. The existing redirect 911 (emergency telephone number) should suffice for consistency with articles about other emergency telephone numbers.--Rob Kelk 23:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Consistency in jargon is the worst form of jargon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The number is almost always written as "911" not "9-1-1". It also makes sense to conform with the usual format used for other emergency telephone numbers. AusLondonder (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support 9-1-1 personally looks strange to me. 911 is how I typically see the number written. Voortle (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
An example of 9-1-1
  • Oppose per beth Rob Kelk and WP:NATURALDAB, which says to avoid disambiguation in titles by using alternative names. Also, the FCC refers to this number as 9-1-1 and most sources apparently do. Other numbers should be moved to this style. Laurdecl talk 11:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rob Kelk. Georgia guy (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL. In the NANPA, numbers are written as #-#-# (three digits) or ###-###-#### (ten digits), and not as ### or ##########. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, and support further reversing to Emergency telephone number (911), Emergency telephone number (108), Emergency telephone number (112), etc. 911 (which is common), and 9-1-1, is particularly North American centric and not familiar to the most or the world. Audibly, 911 and 9-1-1 are confused with 9/11. The number is not really the topic of the article, the topic is the "emergency telephone number", and that belongs in the title, upfront. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Now, I've watched a few American movies, and I've never heard anyone say: "Quick, called the emergency telephone number open bracket nine hundred and eleven close bracket", but I do hear them say "Quick, call nine-one-one". Also, 9/11 is pronounced "nine eleven", not "nine-one-one". The title you propose fails both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL. Laurdecl talk 23:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Really? How do you handle this article's parent article Emergency_telephone_number. 911 is a local spinout article. I'll give you the point on nine-eleven. That's a written confusion, not verbal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Should 2-1-1 be moved to Telephone number (2-1-1)? Laurdecl talk 03:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • "Should 2-1-1 be moved to Telephone number (2-1-1)? Laurdecl talk 03:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)"
    • Possibly, or something like that. It feels like it needs and extra word (abbreviated, or special, or information), and I think comma over parentheses would be preferred. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I am struggling to understand you. By your logic, Albert Einstein should be moved to Theoretical physicist (Albert Einstein). Laurdecl talk 23:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The problem with 2-1-1 is that it is over abbreviated, it doesn't even contain words. Should it go to Two-one-one? This title really doesn't describe the topic. The topic is not really the number sequence, the article doesn't even contain discussion of the choice of the numbers. The same is not true Albert Einstein, which describes the topic of the person called "Albert Einstein". Identifying the 2-1-1 topic as a telephone number would be a big improvement, although the central nature of the topic is that it is a type of telephone number, and this is why "telephone number" belongs in the title-proper. Looking at https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/dial-211-essential-community-services for guidance (one should look at more before making a final decision), I might suggest Community services telephone number, 2-1-1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
          • I admire your audacity, but that move would never succeed. Laurdecl talk 06:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
            • The very early conventions for titling were overly-concerned about ease of wikilinking, at the expense of useful titles for the readers. For a long time, the conventions were unchallenged, and still many support old practices essentially because they are old. Recently the tide as turned, with quality of the product winning out over ease of wikilinking. "British White" -> "British White cattle" is a prime example. The old shorter title did not tell anyone what the content of the article is about, which is cows. "9-1-1" doesn't tell the reader of a list of titles that the article is about a telephone number. Audacious in opinion, but it is not nearly important enough for me to do bold moves or even RM nominations, but when the question arises this is what I say. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
              • A certain amount of knowledge of the subject area is required to recognise a title. Someone would only know that Albert Einstein is a biography of a physicist if they had heard of him before. Most people realise that 9-1-1 is about a telephone number. Those who work in the cattle industry would not need the title to have "cattle" in it to recognise the subject. There is a limit to how much we can dumb it down. Laurdecl talk 08:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
                • Indeed, but we are a long way short of that limit, and skirting on the edge of recognizability by the familiar and misrecognition by others. 9-1-1 is probably the world's most recognized numbers, 2-1-1, not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)