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 to 000 (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]

File:000 Emergency Logo 01.jpg Written as 000

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]

--Relisting. TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:10, 12 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. Laurdecl ^talk 11:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Laurdecl, {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]
• Neutral between Triple Zero, and 000. Strong oppose 000 (emergency telephone number) as unnecessary disambiguation. Pppery 00:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Here are some sources that support Triple Zero over 000 per WP:COMMONNAME: http://www.triplezero.gov.au, the official website; https://www.police.qld.gov.au/triplezero.htm, the QLD police site; and the NSW police site, which also uses "Triple Zero". "Triple Zero" is the correct title per WP:COMMONNAME. Laurdecl ^talk 02:25, 6 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. Laurdecl ^talk 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! Laurdecl ^talk 11:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support either 000 or Triple 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]
• Suppport Triple Zero] per Tavix. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the proposed jargon disambiguated by a reasonable title. A better title is Australian emergency service numbers from http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Telco/Carriers-and-service-providers/Emergency-call-service/the-acma-emergency-call-services-emergency-call-service-i-acma 106 (emergency telephone number) should be merged into this article. These two articles cover different applications of the same thing, demonstrating that titling services by their access number is silly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 17 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. DrStrauss talk 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

000 (emergency telephone number) → 000000 – Unnecessary disambiguator Pppery 19:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: per WP:CONSISTENCY with 108 (emergency telephone number), 112 (emergency telephone number), 119 (emergency telephone number), 999 (emergency telephone number) etc. We literally just had a move discussion about this which was meant to stop the constant moving of this page title! Ebonelm (talk) 21:33, 22 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]
• Oppose. Wrong direction. This is a spinout subtopic of emergency telephone number. Emergency telephone number (000) is the better title. The title should be in English, not code. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: per WP:CONSISTENCY with 108 (emergency telephone number), 112 (emergency telephone number), 119 (emergency telephone number), 999 (emergency telephone number) etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:09, 23 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.