911 (emergency telephone number) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the
good article criteria at the time. There may be 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.
This article is within the
scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please
Join,
Create, and
Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
I live in Egypt, and calling 911 would do the emergency call as well as 112
Soviera0 (
talk) 12:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Is this on a mobile phone? GSM and successor (UMTS, LTE, etc.) mobile networks are set up to accept 112 or 911 anywhere in the world. See section 7.1 of
ITU recommendation E.161.1.
Justinbb (
talk) 17:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
911
This is not a close run thing. The use of 911 is so prominent that we really should just move the page to 911, WP:NATURALDAB be damned because this is not at all the WP:COMMONWP:ENGLISH name and we're giving it WP:UNDUE importance pretending it is. Similarly, it is by far the most common meaning of "911" among most native English speakers and most Wikipedians. The disambig page shouldn't be parked at the main real estate.
If we keep it here at 9-1-1 only for the natural dab, we should make that clear within the article and still use 911 consistently in the running text outside of the intro sentence and Name section. —
LlywelynII 20:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Others have repeatedly made the same point in the archives above, apparently. —
LlywelynII 22:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
UK emergency number
In the UK the emergency number map is 999, not 112. The map needs to be corrected.
163.120.111.178 (
talk) 22:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
112 works quite well in the UK. —
kashmīrīTALK 12:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It might work, but it's not the number that is popularly used. That has been 999 since 1937, and the fact that 112 has be added "on top" doesn't change that.
Nick Cooper (
talk) 21:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Requested move 21 January 2024
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. By numbers this is 5-34-4 in support of the move. Most opposers cite
WP:NATURAL; however, I note that NATURAL says Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. (emphasis mine) Why exactly natural disambiguation should be preferred for this article is not discussed, which weakens the "oppose" opinions. (
closed by non-admin page mover)
feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (
talk) 15:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Edit: Awesome Aasim should be "oppose" regarding the proposed new title, so numerically this should be 4-4. However, the difference in the strength of arguments still stands; the "oppose" arguments are generally weaker than the "support" arguments. I therefore still find
consensus to move based on reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense.
feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (
talk) 02:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
9-1-1 →
911 (emergency telephone number) – The current spelling "9-1-1" is hardly ever used
[1] and is therefore a suboptimal search term / page title for Wikipedia. I'm proposing to rename the article to
911 (emergency telephone number) that would also bring about consistency with nearly all other articles about emergency numbers:
Please note that the present article is not about the US number alone – vide its lead section. Even though much information focuses on the US, ultimately the article should include the entire NANP zone and other countries where 911 is used, similar to
112 (emergency telephone number). In such a case, the Philippine article might be proposed to be merged here.
But for now, let's try to get the name correct. —
kashmīrīTALK 18:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The Philippine merger proposal already happened, and the consensus was not to merge.
[2]
As far as this requested move, oppose.
162 etc. (
talk) 18:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Any reasons for opposing? —
kashmīrīTALK 19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This seems like a textbook case of
WP:NATURAL, where an alternative, even if not as common, serves as the better title. I'll note that "9-1-1" is hardly ever used", as claimed in the nomination, is an exaggeration; a look at the article's sources shows a mix of "911" and "9-1-1", with Canadian sources almost always using the latter.
162 etc. (
talk) 19:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support "911" or "9-1-1". Oppose having the disambiguation in the title. 911 is so prominent and associated with emergencies in the United States and the world that I think this would be the primary title for this number. The second title that "911" is probably associated with would be
9/11 (maybe). But
911 the year is not the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
AwesomeAasim 20:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
and the world? To me,
911 (number), a universally recognised subject, would be the primary topic in the world. Most of the world has never heard of nor will possibly ever hear of that number's use in NANP countries. —
kashmīrīTALK 20:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I can say a few of the other numbers listed (999, 112, 000, maybe 119) are just as much of a primary topic as 911. Especially
000 because it is unlikely someone is typing that looking for information on (0, 0, 0) or even chess castling (castling is denoted as o-o or o-o-o, not 0-0 or 0-0-0). 999 was popularized by British television, 112 because 112 is used as a GSM standard.
AwesomeAasim 14:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose We prefer natural disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation, especially partial parenthetical disambiguation.
* Pppery *it has begun... 19:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. How on earth is putting hyphens between the digits any form of natural disambiguation? How does anyone look at that and think, oh right, that's an emergency number, as opposed to 911? --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
A N.A. telephone number could be formatted as XXX-XXX-XXXX so it wouldn't be all that strange to see 9-1-1 written in the same format.
cookie monster755 01:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe, but dashes between individual digits are not normal. It's no disambiguation at all. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 09:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Could be made more concise, e.g. "911 (emergency)" would probably be sufficient.
Walrasiad (
talk) 12:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, for CONSISTENCY of the set. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 10:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If consistency is what we're looking for, then this proposed title isn't it. See
Category:N11 codes.
162 etc. (
talk) 05:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Besides, all the other articles on N11 codes use a hyphenated spelling that's not attested by nearly any source listed there. That spelling seems like a poor attempt to disambiguate, in violation e.g. of COMMONNAME. In my view, they should all be moved to "XXX (telephone number)". —
kashmīrīTALK 15:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply