Talk:Vertical service code
|WikiProject Telecommunications||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
The long list of bullets is ugly and difficult to read. A conversion to tabular format would be better. If no one's going to do it, I'll eventually get around to it. -Shoecream 01:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I'll second that. This format is ok if you need a definition of a code, but if one is trying to figure out what code does "whatever" it is not the best format. At best, then, it is a laundry list of codes. I would suggest making it a "sortable table" with codes being one column, function (say "Cancel Call Waiting") being another and the detailed explanation in a "details & comments" column. Users could then sort based on either the first or second column depending on whether they are looking for a definition of a specific code or searching for a code to perform a specified function.Enquire (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Now that Lexlex merged in the other similar page containing a table, the next step is to combine the information instead of having it listed twice...
The codes listed for "Cellular One" need to be researched. Cellular One was a brand applied to a wide variety of mobile services, so those codes could have come from anywhere, and may not be in use any more. -- Justinbb (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Is the vertical service code actually a world-wide standard, or just limited to US Bells?
Thanks, --Abdull 13:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good question. I think, at least, it applies to Canada and the USA. In some locations the same codes also work with a # after the number instead of a * before. For example, some telcos have (for example) "70#" equivalent to *70".Enquire (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The VSCs are designed strictly for use within the North American Numbering Plan. In Europe, a separate set of "supplementary service" codes has been developed and is standardized by ETSI. See Supplementary service codes -- Justinbb (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are they called 'vertical'?
184.108.40.206 13:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems these two pages are very similar and could be combined easily into one. If nothing else, one should reference the other - but repeating the same information on both is problematic at best. Lexlex (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Which two? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/vsc_definitions.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
8 renamed to 5 claim not backed up by data
The links from the "Service" column of the table were mostly to pages which re-directed back to this one without any benefit (not even a section identifier). These have been removed. In cases where the link in the "Tone" column was useful, I made the Service column link to the same place, albeit directly without the *## re-direct. This leaves quite a few renamed links where the target page title and the "Service" listing used different terminology, but I am not a subject matter expert so I did not want to change the displayed text. Philhower (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)