Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2380b306b863401

Jump to content

Talk:Trunk prefix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Kbrose in topic Wrong or out-of data information ?

Reference for common wrong +61(0) practice

[edit]

It's difficult to provide a canonical reference regarding common practice. We genuinely do see it everywhere, and I'm looking up this article after seeing yet another example of it from someone who should know better. I've added a reference to http://www.revk.uk/2009/09/it-is-not-44-0207-123-4567.html which talks about seeing the incorrect form, and gives a few examples. And in the comments there, there's even a Google search which will show the insanely broken +1(0)... form being used: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=tel+%22%2B1+%280%29%22+usa


Wrong or out-of data information ?

[edit]

The article says: "Greece — the prefix 0 was replaced by 2 for landlines and 6 for mobile phone numbers, which are now part of the number"

But the referenced documentation states: Greece +30, Int. prefix 00, trunk prefix 0, Info: The '0' is used on all domestic calls, including in the same city, but is omitted when dialling from other countries. Which means that "0" is the trunk prefix that must be used even when called from within the same are, but omitted when calling from abroad - which es effectively the semantics of a trunk prefix.

Who's right - is there more up-to-date normative documentation?  Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauix (talkcontribs) 09:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well, you should look for more specific references, and compare with the dates the article was updated for that case. kbrose (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply