Talk:O2 (UK)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

No conensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Telefónica O2 U.K. → O2 U.K. — As per WP:COMMONNAME. Gnevin (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article should be renamed "O2 U.K." per MOS. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 16:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, WP:COMMONNAME is simply "O2". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, This articles name should remain as "Telefónica O2 U.K." as abbreviating the articles name would contradict the MOS "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations" section which states to "avoid abbreviations when they might confuse the reader, interrupt the flow, or appear informal or lazy." Renaming the article as "O2 U.K." would make the 'article appear informal and lazy', it would also 'interrupt the flow' as other subsidiary companies of Telefónica Europe are titled in the same manor, for example; "Telefónica O2 Ireland", "Telefónica O2 Germany", "Telefónica O2 Netherlands", "Telefónica O2 Czech Republic", and "Telefónica O2 Slovakia". "O2 U.K." is also the name used after it demerger from BT, so the renaming would also confuse readers. 86.129.198.91 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2010 (GMT)
 * Comment. I was trying to close this but it is not clear that there is consensus.  Also it is not clear that the proposed name is correct based on the arguments.  The support opinions seem to be saying that O2 is the common name.  If we accept that, then the article should be O2 (U.K.) or something similar since the common name is O2 and this needs to be disambiguated by country.  So with these concerns, I am not able to close the discussion.  Maybe additional comments will clarify what should happen here or maybe there really is no consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

 Telefónica O2 U.K. → O2 (United Kingdom) — As per WP:COMMONNAME. Gnevin (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, Given the worst close ever above please move this per WP:COMMONNAME to O2 U.K.. A simple Google search will show the usage of O2 U.K.. Gnevin (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, The website is o2.co.uk - not telefonicao2.co.uk. While it does acknowledge at the bottom of the page it is a telefonica company it is not the main brand name on the site - that is O2. noq (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Scott Bywater (talk); 19:00, 02 May 2010 (UTC)

O2 launch date: 02/02/2002
The launch of O2 was actually 2nd February 2002 (02/02/02). Initially it was called MMO2 as O2 was owned by Oprah Winfrey. An undisclosed amount of money changed hands for the purchase of the name. No explantion of the meaning of the MM prefix was ever disclosed though it was thought to be Multi Media. A senior manager had the car registration MMO2GSM on his company car. A CEO put the registration M1NET (my net) on his company car. BTs Chairman Valance apparently took a dim view of this and had it removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.0.211 (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Source? 86.129.254.98 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Split O2 (UK) from Telefonica (UK)
O2 is no longer Telefonica UK's only network now that giffgaff exists. Should the merge be undone? I came here to find out about Telefonica UK, not O2. Brightonjon (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

O2 runs its own network. Telefonica owns O2. GiffGaff is a reseller like Tesco etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.152.46 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

No. O2 is Telefonica UK. It's not Telefonica UK's only network because O2 is Telefonica UK. giffgaff is owned by Telefonica UK (they're a subsidiary) just like Tesco Mobile. Davwheat (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. SST flyer  14:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

O2 (United Kingdom) → O2 (UK) – Should use acronyms as disambiguators according to MOS:ABBR. 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:652A:F88B:22C7:5F60 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: as for consistency. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article reads like a PR job for O2
Seriously. Boscaswell  talk  10:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Cellnet formation and start date
Cellnet was the network name for TSCR Ltd. It was created in 1984. Cellnet went live on 10th January 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.152.46 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Big gap at the end of the 'Sale attempts' sub-heading
In my opinion, the big gap at the end of the 'Sale attempts' sub-heading in the article should be removed as it looks strange seeing such a big gap in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. --Wire723 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Per minute call charge
When Cellnet went live on 10th January 1985 it was 50p per minute, not the £1 per minute as in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.108.20 (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference for that? TBH (and this is proper original research) ISTR that my 1986 Cellnet phone was 25p/minute in most of the country, but 50p/minute inside the M25. I know they had the dual-charging, but I'm not so sure on the actual amounts. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD
I have changed an eight word piped blue link twice, now (one, two), both with appropriate edit summaries. The blue link, as-was, showed the words United Kingdom linked, which is contrary to WP:OLINK. The reverter is invited to explain the rationale (for highlighting United Kingdom in this way) here. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)