Talk:61016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 61016 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Enforcement Low‑importance Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Trains: in UK Low‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance). UK Trams (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Trams, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Scotland: Transport in Scotland Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland.

61016 is currently a Transport good article nominee. Nominated by Wikiediter2029 (talk) at 21:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click here and then save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Note: Ipledge that I will be able to respond swiftly, however exluding times when I am busy such as homework or school in general and will do another GA Review. Short description: Non-emergency SMS service on British railways

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

61016 was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 3, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

On 10 October 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from 61016 (British Transport Police Number) to 61016. The result of [discussion] was moved.

Draft being removed

This is only because I believe it meets 3 of the core Wikipedia rules for articles, and seems to be well written, etc. — Wikiediter2029 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI Issues

Please remove the LLM content, repleced with humanized wording etc. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 October 2025

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 Wikiediter2029. (non-admin closure) Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 21:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

61016 (British Transport Police Number) → 61016 – Parentheses seem unnecessary as a disambiguator – am I missing something? Otherwise 61016 should be a disambig not a redirect. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 19:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even as the person who made the article, I would agree but don't put it in 61016 (keep the same article in same place, just a move, and possibly delete the old redirect. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get it changed, not much people are in this article. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2025 (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.

2016 or 2013

I got 2 sources, one that says it was 2016 (https://www.bclear.co.uk/see-it-say-it-might-have-been-infuriating-but-from-a-comms-point-of-view-it-was-sorted/#:~:text=%E2%80%9C'See%20it.,was%20out%20of%20the%20ordinary.) or 2013 (one cited already) Wikiediter2029 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a corporate blog, it is not a reliable source. I have removed it from the article. Such an error (the wrong date) is a great example of why self published sources WP:SPS should not be trusted. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomed in image

Please use the zoomed in image, this is because that you are able to see the text and the advertisement more closer, as this article is mainly about that train with the advertisments that do not need to be repeated again with the other cars (carriages) Wikiediter2029 (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point of using the image of the full length of the train is that it shows the extent/scale of the advertisement along every carriage. Seeing the text in a thumbnail even on the cropped version is difficult, but anyone who wanted to see the detail needs only click on the thumbnail to see it in its full glory - which is the point of thumbnails. I support the change made by @S5A-0043. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second image added was exactly the same as the full-train image already in the article - albeit a mirror. If you want to show another picture then show a poster/advert in a station or inside a train instead of on the outside a train. Check flickr - there might be something. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the reasons above said by @10mmsocket, there's two other reasons I reverted to the full image.

1. When the smaller image was added, no relevant information about its copyright status was added. The source only stated that it was from "Wikimedia Commons" and author was "Unknown". With such vague licensing attribution, had the original photo came from any other site it would immediately fail WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT, but since the source was Commons I decided it was better for me to investigate more and replace with the original file (which I did).

2. Cropping to focus on the portion with the advertisement most clearly shown may fail British copyright laws under c:COM:FOP UK and would not qualify as de minimis (the original most likely would qualify) since the whole purpose of the crop was the BTP ad and the text on it. I will add that normally I'm more flexible when applying the DM criteria (and have disagreed with others on the extent of application previously) but since the original was a better illustration anyways (10mmsocket already gave the reasons above) I just replaced it to save the debate. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 14:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Useful knowledge for the future, thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this report

I have found a report from British Transport Police Authority | (here). Could someone check this and any other links? I am focusing on a new stub (list) article. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The strategic plan to look at is this one for 2022–2027. Interestingly it makes zero mention of either the 61016 number or the phone app. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only (relevant) document I can find that mentions 61016 is the 2025 annual report which mentions a) the fact it is now free on the four major networks and b) the number of messages sent compared with the previous year. It doesn't establish any correlation between those two facts though. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

If we were to fix the issues the the article (lack of links and information needs updating), would this article be able to become GA? Wikiediter2029 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Move

I am proposing to move 61016 to 61016 (text service)Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 21:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 December 2025

It has been proposed in this section that 61016 be renamed and moved to 61016 (text service). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

61016 → 61016 (text service) – makes sense Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 22:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as there (currently) isn't any other Wikipedia article with that name. JuniperChill (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JuniperChill What about people using search engines like google and bing? Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 21:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It only brings up info about the BTP text service. Its very unlikely someone would be searching 61016 for anything else. Also, the request is a little malformed. JuniperChill (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does show on Google, just not top page yet. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:PRECISE. Tenshi! (Talk page) 22:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Theknoledgeableperson: Disambiguation tags are added when an article title is ambiguous. They are not used simply to add context. See WP:D2D. With that in mind, why do you believe 61016 is ambiguous? 162 etc. (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – parentheses are only added to disambiguate multiple pages. I think we should re-add the hatnote for people genetically searching the number though. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 23:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I changed it from 61016 (British Transport Police Number) to 61016 for a reason, and that is because there is no disambiguation. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the number notable? Otherwise there doesn't seem a reason to disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]