Talk:Speaking clock

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 06:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge POPCORN to here

It looks like the article on California's POPCORN speaking clock number has been tagged for merger into Speaking clock for about two months at this point. I'm a little reluctant to go ahead and do it, given that POPCORN has a couple of pop culture references that might not fit easily under this entry, but it shouldn't be too difficult to make it fit. Any discussion? --Morrand 02:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why not to merge it. We can just make a "speaking clock in popular culture" section and include those, neither of the references even seem to be specific to POPCORN. Night Gyr 16:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done the merge, but it require a little bit of proofreading and cleaning up. Cheers, Schutz 11:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

New UK speaking clock voice

First of all, it's a bit suspicious that it's won by a voiceover artist.

Question, though - is this gonna be a permanent thing, or just for a limited time as part of Children in Need? BillyH 00:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a permanent thing, so no need to amend.Zepfel (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What about NERVOUS in New York?

That was alluded to on one of Evan Doorbell's recordings. --  Denelson83  01:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

NERVOUS (notionally MEridian 7) worked in real-life Boston. And GRATIOT (name of a high street) in Detroit.

Popcorn Disconnected

Popcorn was actually disconnected on September 19, 2007. I'm new to Wikipedia so I wasn't sure how to edit the page or even if I should, but it may seem like it's kind of a useful bit of knowledge. Duckygotgrr (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Voice Announcement

The example given in the first paragraph: "At the third stroke, it will be [for example] twelve forty-six and ten seconds", is only a UK and some commonwealth countries format.

In many other countries the format is different. In some countries, for example, the voice simply says "the time is twelve" etc.

I feel this should be clearly indicated in the article. Josh Is Dead (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"For all area codes in Northern California, and on the West Coast generally, the reserved exchange was 767"

Where I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, you dialed 117. In my town, a female voice said, "United Telephone Company of the Northwest. Time 12 (pause) 57." Sd31263 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Poland

Article: "For many years the number was 926 but due to the EU regulations reserving all 3-digit numbers for emergency services only, it was changed in the early 2000s."

Never heard of this EU regulation on 3 figure numbers... here in the UK, the Speaking Clock is 123. 91.84.123.97 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The only 3-digit code specified by EU Directives that I'm aware of is 112 for emergency services. There are some other combinations of an initial three digits (with other digits to follow) also listed for specific services, such as 118xxx for directories and 116xxx for services of "harmonised social value." But there's certainly nothing to prevent other 3-digit codes to be used. 87.112.169.219 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

TellMe was going to be discontinued.

TellMe (1-800-555-TELL) just announced that their phone line, including the time service, is being discontinued as of June 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It is now June 12, 2012, and despite the above announcement, TellMe has not been discontinued and is still offering its time service. Does anyone know why they decided to discontinue the service but then changed their minds? It would be interesting to know what happened.

Cell phone died

If your cell phone has died how are you going to phone the speaking clock? Zepfel (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Fancruft

The details on dialing codes, dates of introduction and discontinuance, and much else, is fancruft. The article should focus on the need for the service, early efforts, development of technology over time, and ongoing "phaseout" (for lack of a better term). EEng (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Assmann and Ansmann?

Assmann? Seriously? Is this (a) a misspelling of Ansmann (b) someone being hilarious or (c) genuinely a separate device? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.54.3 (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably either misspelling, or someone trying to be funny.--Stainless Steel Stalinism (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No, Assmann is neither a typo nor a joke. Instead, it's just more of the unsourced pileup in this mess. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Exact wording of BT speaking clock in the United Kingdom

Hello, everyone.

When I lived in the U.K., in the 1990s, I would sometimes dial the speaking-clock, 123, and hear Brian Cobby. I'm trying to write a complete record of the options of the times that he spoke. Would you, please, tell me whether I have the following right, and specify what should go in the parts that I have put in bold type?

• At the third stroke, the time, sponsored by Accurist, will be
  • [Hours:] [“zero”? “twelve”? something else?] / one / two / three / four / five / six / seven / eight / nine / ten / eleven / [“twelve”? “midday”, with no “o’clock”? something else?] / thirteen / fourteen / fifteen / sixteen / seventeen / eighteen / nineteen / twenty / twenty-one / twenty-two / twenty-three
  • [Minutes:] o’clock / O one / O two / O three / O four / O five / O six / O seven / O eight / O nine / ten / eleven / twelve / thirteen / fourteen / fifteen / sixteen / seventeen / eighteen / nineteen / twenty / twenty-one / twenty-two / twenty-three / twenty-four / twenty-five / twenty-six / twenty-seven / twenty-eight / twenty-nine / thirty / thirty-one / thirty-two / thirty-three / thirty-four / thirty-five / thirty-six / thirty-seven / thirty-eight / thirty-nine / forty / forty-one / forty-two / forty-three / forty-four / forty-five / forty-six / forty-seven / forty-eight / forty-nine / fifty / fifty-one / fifty-two / fifty-three / fifty-four / fifty-five / fifty-six / fifty-seven / fifty-eight / fifty-nine
  • [Seconds:] precisely / and ten seconds / and twenty seconds / and thirty seconds / and forty seconds / and fifty seconds
• [beep, beep, beep]

Thanks. — President Lethe (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Speaking clock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012232303/http://www.hs.fi/kirjat/artikkeli/Sellainen+on+puhelin/HS20020503SI1KU03b9y to http://www.hs.fi/kirjat/artikkeli/Sellainen+on+puhelin/HS20020503SI1KU03b9y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nationalities of the voices

I had an edit reverted when I mentioned the only non-British voice to feature on the UK Speaking Clock. I think it is a good fact to include. What do other users think?Cexycy (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's synthesis. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

I removed it as unsourced. To restore it, you will need to provide a reliable source: "... any material whose verifiability has been challenged ... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." WP:V - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

They all have sources. Cexycy (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a fact to me. But the source currently given for Mae Whitman: [1] does not contain the claim you added. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that ALL voices of the UK Speaking Clock have links to articles of the said people. All of these articles confirm that the people featured are British, with the exception of Mae Whitman. So to be brutally honest, if what I have added is wrong, surely this would mean at least one of the linked articles would be wrong too as these are the only source used to support what I said in the first place! Cexycy (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

What you added was not wrong, as far as I can see. But was just not directly supported by a non-Wikipedia source. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

True, however if the other articles are okay as they stand, they should be able to support what I have added. Do you see my point? Uf what I have said is wrong, then the articles must be wrong too. Cexycy (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If all the other articles have sources supporting what they say, they are correct. What we are lacking is a source which says "Mae Whitman was the only no-Brit." Even though simple logic means we can all see that such a statement is true. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

All I am saying is, we do have this, just not as obvious. Cexycy (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Then yes, it seems that WP Policy requires it to be most obvious. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It IS obvious it just doesn't say it all in one place. Each link says the said void is British, with the exception of one. If this is wrong, then surely at least one of the other articles must be wrong as well. Cexycy (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not wrong. No one has said it's wrong. It may be obvious to you. It may be obvious to me. But current Wikipedia policy means it can't be used in the way you want. I'm really not sure how much more plainly I can say this. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy requires that it "say it all in one place". - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

In a slightly different topic, my edit to say that that Mae Whitman was the only non-UK voice used was removed because it was not sourced, however my edit to say Alan Steadman being the first non-English voice to be used on the permanent speaking clock was also removed DESPITE it being sourced. It's getting a bit of a joke now and certainly not a funny one. SummerPhDv2.0 has taken it upon him/herself to revert these with poor explanation and then threaten me when reverting it back. My edits are NOT disruptive nor are they vandalism. Get off my case! Cexycy (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You boldly added material. I reverted you. If you disagree with the revert, it is time to discuss the issue. That is WP:BRD, which is discussed on your talk page three separate times. Still, you decided to simply restore your edit without addressing the issue. That is disruptive editing.

"What issue?" Well, assuming you read and did not understand the edit summary on the first revert (here), that would have been a good time to ask. As your edit summary restoring your edit didn't argue the point, I assume you missed it. So I tried again in the second edit summary (here). (When I warned you for disruptive editing, I tried to explain WP:BRD again. If you missed that, I'd ask that you take a look.)

So what is the issue? For the third time, the source you cited is a self-published source. I have been asking for a reliable source for your addition because A) it is synthesis, as discussed above and B) it is trivial. Yes, someone who runs a blog on the talking clock has plenty of mind-numbing, minor trivia. Blogs are not reliable sources.

(To that point, you'll notice that the UK section of this article is one of the longest. Much of the content is currently from that same blog. The U.S. section is littered with unsourced trivia and a directory of local talking clocks. Both should be cleaned out.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting the nature of the article is to discuss the Speaking Clock. The UK Speaking Clock has had quite a history as has many other countries versions. The USA has several time zones. As a result many different Speaking Clock services exist. Therefore there would be quite a lot to discuss in the article, hence the list. Maybe it could be broken down into other articles specialising in Speaking Clock in the UK, etc? Where do you draw the line where trivia is concerned? If it is a fact, it should be included surely? I think it's unfair to dismiss certain things as trivia as that would be your opinion. Cexycy (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of things that are true that are not in Wikipedia. We don't discuss the species of trees at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, which companies ran ads during Friends or the gaffers for Citizen Kane. All of these facts are omitted as trivia. I offer as a first cut for trivia whether or not a fact is discussed in independent reliable sources. If it is discussed in such sources, it might belong in the article. If it is not discussed, it is not verifiable and should be removed. Even material that is discussed in reliable sources (unlike this trivia) might not belong here: In a televised interview, an actress mentions bladder control issues after giving birth? Trivia, we omit it. The National Park Service repaves an access road at Monticello (with published reports discussing who did the work, how much it cost and where the rubble was dumped)? Trivial, we omit it. In this case, someone who is very interested in every possible detail of the Talking Clock has set up a blog. Great for him. If you want to read that blog, knock yourself out. Wikipedia is not a random collection of trivia.

Consider the information challenged. If you would like to include it, you will -- at a minimum -- need to provide a reliable source which directly supports it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Clean out

Please see WP:NOT for more on this.

Wikipedia is not a directory. At present, this article attempts to (?) list every phone number to call anywhere in the world to find out the time. This is neither reasonable, nor encyclopaedic. What we actually have is an indiscriminate collection of some numbers that worked as of the date that some random person entered them, augmented by some random factoids about various systems that were used and some numbers that various editors remember using in the past. Most of this is people's recollections, [[WP:OR}original research]] and similar cruft.

Normally, I'd mention all of this, wait a few days for responses, then proceed. This, however, is clearly a backwater article, so I see little reason to wait. I'm going to boldly make some of the needed changes and see how it goes. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have mentioned before that as references are there as confirmation that something should be in an article, so are telephone numbers as they are sources which can be verified. If they can be verified that is confirmation that the said statements not original research and are correct and should remain.Cexycy (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. That something is verifiable is not an indication that it is encyclopedic.

We could start an article John Smith (common name) and include every verifiable mention of anyone with that name. It would include several car dealerships, multiple plumbing companies and such, hundreds of thousands of phone numbers for various people with that name, hundreds of characters in non-notable books, TV shows, movies, plays, operas, etc. and a whole lot of other stuff. None of it would be encyclopedic information on the common name. Much of it would be directory information.

Were we to continue adding every time phone number we could find, we would eventually have several hundred pages of phone numbers that have existed in various areas throughout history, down to the x5511 extension operated on campus when I was an undergrad. No one, I repeat NO ONE, would read the entire article, ever. No one would bother to verify most of the entries. Vandals would include I. C. Weiner's number and the service operated by Heywood Jablowme. That is not an encyclopedia, it is a random collection of information and/or a directory. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: While I understand the concern about these phone numbers for time (speaking clocks) turning Wikipedia into a directory, I believe it falls under the “historically significant” exemption. Speaking clocks are historical in nature, and the remaining ones are rare. So it’s not really a “directory” in the traditional sense, but rather just a list of something that is fading quickly into history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxweljc (talk • contribs) 03:24, September 21, 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for a general audience, intended to provide a summary of what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject.

Someone in Beulah, Montana or Bangalore may be interested in the history of talking clocks, where they started, the technology used and such. They are very unlikely to wonder what number to dial in Stockholm to reach a talking clock. The only person who would be interested in that would be someone in Stockholm today trying to reach a talking clock. That is a directory function.

So far, my removal of material has been of the "In (location) during the (decade)s, the talking clock could be reached by dialing (phone number)." That is not encyclopedic information. We might as well be listing the locations of McDonalds in the 1970s or locations of random drive-in movie theaters. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Confession...

It was always my ambition to be the speaking clock, not recorded but live, all the time. Even my wife refers to me as the 'speaking clock' when we have an appointment somewhere. Just had to get this off my chest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.163.101.38 (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)