000 (emergency telephone number) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
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
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 Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers 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.NumbersWikipedia:WikiProject NumbersTemplate:WikiProject NumbersNumbers articles
Please clarify what acronyms mean when using them for the first time. "due to lengthy delays at the SECC level, being ESTA"--180.150.114.140 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be added that the non-emergency number for police (except in Victoria) is 131 444 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.190 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note in the 'Calling 000' section there is an abundant use of Telstra. I for one am not certain if this is the case anymore. I understand that 000 will connect you to an operator for the service. Pandawelch (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This information is based on an internal policy memo, which I can't cite. I've included the best external references I can find, but some better ones would be appreciated! Monobeg 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Monobeg 31/5/07[reply]
Well, if you can't cite it it can't go on Wikipedia. The fact is, most people colloquially refer to it as Triple O. ajdlinux 09:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I cited the best references I could, and as Wikipedia is a collective effort, if people know of better references they could be replaced. I could cite the memo, but it's inaccessible to most people so of limited value. I agree that your edits are an improvement though.Monobeg 16:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well I do know that emergency services websites do refer to it as Triple Zero now. so I'll assume there's some sort of official policy about it. ajdlinux 23:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting - the ESTA site that's also linked to says Triple 0, which isn't Triple O, but it certainly looks closer to Triple O than Triple Zero when looking at it. ajdlinux 07:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Brisbane, Queensland, I almost always hear Triple "Oh" in normal conversation, but the official stuff at ACMA reads "tripple zero"[1]Alexlaw65 (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to ESTA website: "We prefer the phrase "Triple Zero" over "Triple Oh" because of potential confusion when using alphanumeric keypads which could cause people to incorrectly dial "666" in an emergency, not Triple Zero (000)." This information is found in a "Did You Know?"-type panel on the left hand side of the page, which randomly presents one of a number of similar facts upon each refresh. This makes it difficult to cite directly, but it is nonetheless explicitly stated (and verifiable) on the ESTA website. 124.180.215.25 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calls from mobile phones are handled basically the same way as calls from landlines. I've made edits to correct statements implying a major difference. Monobeg 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Monogbeg 31/5/07[reply]
Right. From what I know, the Telstra operator will only ask for city and state when calling from a mobile, but the emergency dispatcher will always ask for an address, only relying on ANI if the caller doesn't respond. Is that correct? ajdlinux 09:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked for my city and state by Telstra when calling from a landline before, so they must treat them the same. Monobeg 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://emergencycalls.aca.gov.au/telstra.htm - Straight from ACMA... they must have asked you mistakenly. Also, it mentions that Telstra operators do not see the registered address of mobiles, only the number and state from which the call is being made. I'll update the page when I have some time. ajdlinux 23:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must be right. I'll correct the page.
As for the address being displayed, Telstra may not be able to see a mobile caller's address, but apparently the Emergency operators can, or have very easy access to look it up, at least in Victoria.Monobeg 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from what I know the ESO operators only use the ANI address as a last resort, however the Telstra operator only needs to know the town and state before handing it over to the ESO. So it doesn't surprise me that ESO operators ask for the caller's address - they need more detailed info than Telstra. ajdlinux 07:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure that the address information does appear on the screen on the other end or if the operator even looks at it. I called and gave my address slightly wrong by accident and the girl didn't correct me. Where does it say that your address and details comes up automatically anyway? I mean I sure hope it really does, if I only had time to call before dropping dead, would be nice to know they could still find me, but where exactly does it say that it comes up on their screen while you are talking to them> JayKeaton 18:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information's sake: The Caller Line Identification or CLI information is presented to Telstra and ESO calltakers, but is always verified with the caller, as the actual location of the emergency is not always the same as the billing address (obviously this is especially the case for calls from mobile phones). However the calltaker has to rely on the information given by the caller - the job relies on always avoiding second-guessing callers. In the end if the system accepts the address the caller gives (whether it's the accurate emergency location or not) the calltaker has no reason not to accept that information on face value. Either way, the calltaker always has the caller's phone number from CLI in case of a dropped connection etc, even if the billing address is established as not being the emergency location. Also: It's required that all CLI information is associated with a system event, so yes - the calltaker ALWAYS looks at the information (and it usually means the calltaker doesn't have to type the address as you say it - just confirm that it's accurate).124.180.215.25 (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How will the emergency call operator know where I am when I call?
If you are calling from a fixed network line i.e. a land line, your location details will automatically appear on the operator’s screen and will be passed on to the emergency service organisation you request. However, you may still be asked to confirm your location information to the operator (or the emergency service organisation).
If you call from a mobile phone or VoIP service your exact location is not available, so you will need to provide the state and town you are calling from. More information about about calling the Emergency Call Service (Triple Zero) from a mobile is available.
ajdlinux | utc 12:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the issue of keypad locked mobiles being able to ring 000 bypassing the keypad locking. Of course, this leads to mobile phones which are locked and bumped repeatedly (say in a backpack or bag) dialling 000 accidentally. I don't know how to build that into the article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.136.200 (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I grew up in Brisbane, Queensland in the 1960s and 70s and recall the number as being 999 (like the UK) then changing to 000, I think that happened about the same time as the introduction of Subscriber Trunk Dialing. I'm trying to find cites. Alexlaw65 (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
In000 Emergency on 2011-05-20 22:35:24, HTTP Error: BadStatusLine
In000 Emergency on 2011-05-31 15:19:39, HTTP Error: BadStatusLine
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
Acidental dialing from dialing out internationational calls[edit]
In addition to the other problems listed here, I distinctly remember reading a news article in the 90s saying that 000 had a problem not faced by other emergency numbers because of the use of "0" as a prefix for dialing out of internal business phone systems followed by dialing an international number with a "00" prefix, together making "000". Obviously not a problem when actually inside a business phone system, but the problem was business people pressing 0 as an automatic habit once at home (and then internationally from home). My guess is this article was in a major Sydney newspaper circa 1995 or 1996, could be of interest to this article, and possibly still a problem for the number? 121.44.96.34 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering whether they mean $400000 USD or $400000 AUD. Please make it more obvious.
UpsandDowns1234 (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's AU$ SPARKZY 16:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth would anyone confuse an article solely about an Australian subject and think that financial statement would be in US dollars? 78.32.143.113 (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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: movedto000 (emergency telephone number). The data for "which title is used more" is a statistical tie, and participants on both sides have given rational and reasonable arguments for supporting 000 or Triple Zero. However, there is almost 2:1 support for a rename to some variation on 000 (with or without disambiguator). Given the other "(emergency telephone number)" disambiguators for similar numbers, it is reasonable to also add the dab to this title. However, if there is a strong motivation to host the page at 000, there is NPASR for a new RM to that effect. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Triple Zero (000) → 000 (emergency telephone number) – This page has been moved multiple times over the last year with no discussion ever having occurred for any of the moves. In order to prevent this continued move war I thought it might be a good idea to get a consensus title. The need to move from the current title is clear: it clearly violates policy by giving the spelling of the spoken shorthand for this emergency telephone number before then placing the actual number in parenthesis afterwards. While the title could just be moved to '000' as there is no other term known as 000 which it needs to be disambiguated from, I believe that moving to '000 (emergency telephone number)' is most preferable as it would meet WP:CONSISTENCY with 108 (emergency telephone number), 112 (emergency telephone number), 119 (emergency telephone number), 999 (emergency telephone number) etc. That being said I have no inherent objection to 000 if that is what others prefer. Ebonelm (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.Primefac (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: nominator. Ebonelm (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:NATURALDAB and WP:COMMONNAME. Instead, support move to Triple Zero (without useless disambiguator). As an Australian, I always hear "Triple zero". I believe those other articles should be moved to the "9-1-1" form, so 1-0-8, etc. per WP:NATURALDAB. Laurdecltalk 11:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLaurdecl, {MSGJ, Taketa: I had originally opened an RM directly from the technical request page in response to this. Since another RM was already running and no comments had been made, I feel it is best to keep it at this location rather than launch a second. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am in support of '000'. There is no need for disambiguation. All the other examples given do have a need for disambiguation and as such they are not in the same situation. As for "triple zero", you can see from the image how it is writen. It is not 0-0-0. It is not triple zero. It is 000. This is consistent with all other emergency numbers on Wikipedia, as mentioned by the nominator. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recognisable: As per WP:COMMONNAME we should use names that are recognisable. Government pages never use "Triple zero", but they use "Triple zero (000)". They seem to suggest "Triple zero" is not enough to clarify. However look at the top of this government information page [1], and you see 000 used without any explanation. Here is what Australia is teaching its children [2].
Most frequently used: As per WP:COMMONNAME we should use names that are most frequently used. When you do a google search (and check the real numbers by going to the last page of a search), "called 000" is mentioned in 441 news items, whereas "called triple zero" is used in 387 news items. Same for "000 call" which has 44 result pages vs "triple zero call" which has 38 result pages. As such, 000 is used more. Though not significantly.
Consistent with similar names: As per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA preference is given to names consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. As can be seen in the examples given by Ebonelm at the opening of this discussion, commons usage tends towards 000.
Following these guidelines I conclude the article name should be 000. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You claim WP:COMMONNAME on 440 to 390 results, which is barely a lead and well within the expected margin of error for this kind of search. The examples given by Ebonelm were for adding "(emergency telephone number)" to the end of this article, which isn't going to happen. Laurdecltalk 12:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am giving the numbers. And yes, they are near equal. This is contrary to the claim made in the original move of this page that sources were clearly in favor of "triple zero". You are correct that Ebonelm was referring to the text between brackets, but his example show 000 is more similar to the other names. Also Category:Emergency telephone numbers shows that there are no written out numbers, but either a number is given or a name in other similar names.
I explained why imho the specific sources you gave were not convincing, and gave an Australian primary school book using 000 only. As such, imho you have no arguments/sources standing right now. You "heard" it called "triple zero". Which is not a convincing reason why it shouldn't be written "000". And you give sources that all use "000" as well. I have shown that in general the usage of 000 vs triple zero is about even, with a slight edge for 000. I really see no convincing argument why we should use "triple zero".
I think it is best we leave it to neutral third editors to decide, because I do not think we will agree on this point. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without fail the sources I showed use "Triple Zero". You cannot possibly dispute the fact that the government website is literally "triplezero.gov.au". Your results are inflated because most public safety websites write "Triple Zero (000)". They do this so people know the actual number, but they still call it triple zero! Laurdecltalk 11:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support either 000orTriple Zero per above arguments that disambiguation is unnecessary. I think I'm leaning towards 000 since that's the way it's used in the logo. --Tavix(talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nom makes a good case and I don't find the counter-arguments as convincing, although there's something to some of them. Just plain "000" is not a good title, the argument against it being "unnecessary disambiguation" by which is meant "unnecessary elucidation" which comes down to "we have to guard against giving the reader too much information" which is not a useful goal. It's a useful goal if the title becomes too long which isn't the case here. The goal of making article titles as short as humanly possible at all costs seems unworthwhile. A redirect from "000" is fine. Yes I understand that Triple-Zero is how it is said and sometimes written. Our article 9-1-1 is not named "Nine One One" notwithstanding that that's how it is said, though. "000 (emergency telephone number)" is consistent with similar articles, and consistency is one of the five virtues. Herostratus (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current title is unrecognisable, and also very confusing to anyone familiar with our standard disambiguation practices, with which it is not even remotely consistent. There may be better titles, but this move is an improvement at least. Andrewa (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: not moved. DrStrausstalk 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The move discussion explicitly said "However, if there is a strong motivation to host the page at 000, there is NPASR for a new RM to that effect." I strongly believe that titles should not have unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation, and thus started this requested move. Pppery 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is nice that you have defined beliefs, but why do you believe this one? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I missed this discussion, but 000 is a bad page title. Too many things could be all zeros. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Triple zero which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
