Talk:International direct dialing

Requested move

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 06:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

International Direct Dialing → International direct dialing –

We have in the article international telephone call, subscriber trunk dialing, and country calling code. There seems no reason to upcase international direct dialing.

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony  (talk)  13:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as uncontroversial. --Pnm (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as uncontroversial. --Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with the nom that this should be downcased – not a proper noun. Jenks24 (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2011 (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.

Example
I have checked, and 3456 7890 is currently not connected in Sydney, Australia (where I live). We don't want another 867-5309/Jenny debacle.

And considering it's an obvious example, hopefully it won't ever be assigned. But stranger things have happened. When I was learning computer programming, the standard end of file (EOF) used to be to set all fields to 9s and Zs, so envelopes printed in error at the end of a run in the USA all went to ZIP code 99999. And of course, that's Alaska. We all wondered just how much the US postal service lost in unrecoverable costs when they tried to deliver this nonsense mail to one of their most expensive destinations.

All because several people didn't use a little imagination. 99999 should never have been assigned as a ZIP code. And once it was, it should never have been used as an EOF marker. Or perhaps it's easy to be wise after the fact.

I personally claim a world record for taking a system... A big IBM system, no names. My ISPF profile was not set up correctly on an international system to which I'd been granted access. So when I first tried to log on, I got a message asking me for the update or control or master password to a VSAM file I recognised as the master catalog, in order for my ISPF profile to be created there. They were all asleep in the country in which the system was running, so I typed in MASTER, that being the example master password given in all of IBM's VSAM courses of the time. Bingo. I now had unlimited access to the unattended system, on the second line of my first session. It's hard to imagine how such a record can be broken.

It's so easy to be wise after the fact... unfortunately for some, the reason for my having a signon was to do a security audit... (->

Back on topic... technically, we should probably use an official fictitious telephone number such as +61 2 5550 1234, but I think the article reads a lot better as is. Andrewa (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging International call prefix into International direct dialing. I think the content in International call prefix can easily be explained in the context of International direct dialing, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in International direct dialing.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My reason for proposing the merge in this direction is that prefix is just one aspect of IDD. Right now, we don't have any material on how the handshaking between administrative domains actually works but perhaps someone will be tempted. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

✅ as the proposal was uncontested at either page. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)