Talk:GPO telephones

712 Trimphone
This section is written in a chatty comedic style unsuitable for an encyclopaedia - was it cut and pasted from elsewhere? It contains unsubstantiated anecdotal material which isn't mentioned in the main Wikipedia page about the Trimphone. Should it be cut? Earldelawarr (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I agree, but I've asked the poster of the story about Trimphones being used in telephone kiosks to confirm the source. I'll give him two weeks. We could make this a much shorter piece as there is a main article about the trimphone. Retrowow (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reduced this article to a summary and removed unsubstantiated material. Retrowow (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is a dog. It's mostly uncited material which is written is a very unencyclopaedic style with loads of POV. 109.176.209.37 (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it sucks. Certainly needs refs too. I've restored the 756 section though, because the UK development (and lag behind the US) is significant. The 756, with the three keypad layouts and the legacy LD keypad, should be described though. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that much of this is marginal and presumably gleaned from 3rd party sources with no real understanding. For instance the regular references to CB (Central bettery) models not having the rotary dials is completly wrong. Central bettery and local battery refer to how the transmisster/receiver circuit is powered with either batteries at the customers end or with line fed power from the telephone exchange. A good reference for this can be seen at http://www.samhallas.co.uk/repository/po_docs/ep_draft_telephones_1_1.pdf with a copy of some original Post Office Telephones documents explaining both concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.119.85 (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Indiscriminate images???
How are they indiscriminate? They are all clearly labeled, and add considerably to the narrative.174.25.60.231 (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As a reader, I find the images interesting. They show the interesting progression of designs, and the gradual broadening of the range of available styles. Cranaghanstills (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the same tag was spammed across every section, even those with only a single image. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have taken it upon myself to remove all those warnings. None of the galleries are excessive nor are any of the images irrelevant to the article. It might be nicer to inline the images but they're all good. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is written in a friendly and accessible style, such that the reader might actually pay attention. As such it should be deleted and replaced with a dry and boring one, preferably watched like a hawk by some nerd desperate for a feeling of power and authority. 2A02:A442:581E:1:89B1:B2CF:F91F:AB0B (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Later models
This is a good article but it seems to run out of steam at the end. There is no mention of the 1980s models such as the Viscount which can be viewed here. Can such information be added to the article? --Viennese Waltz 11:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)