Talk:BT Group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BT's complicity in clandestine GCHQ operations[edit]

Among the many documents released during the Edward Snowden revelations of 2013 it was revealed that BT and other telecommunication companies had been cooperating with GCHQ by deploying clandestine monitoring outposts in Oman and Yemen, among other things. Shouldn't these be included under the controversies heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark63424 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Change[edit]

BT Group is rebranding according to their website. The logo for BT Group appears to have changed, but the BT brand logo remains the same. https://www.bt.com/about/bt/our-brands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6388:2B01:9598:CEC8:6686:2267 (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership[edit]

well i have also been looking for which shareholder has majority control and come up on a blank, how ever i can tell you that BT is a PLC. Can anybody see any share ownership data on the website? I can't see anything.--Jerry seinfeld 22:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As in, ownership of shares in BT plc? Data on the number of holdings of various sizes and their total weight in the company as a whole? It's on p.143 (or p.144 as the PDF counts it) of the last Annual Report.--rbrwr± 22:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

"It has been suggested that BT's Northern Ireland operations may be merged into BT Ireland at some point in the future." - I can't find any source for this, and would find it highly unlikely given the different market and regulatory factors at play - never mind the political sensitivities it would impact upon Col mc 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Customer service[edit]

I've added a point about customer services. At present the comment is pretty general, as I don't want to use the article to promote individual customer complaints, but if references are required I'll set up a few specific references to illustrate points raised.

Do you think it would be worth mentioning the problematic waiting times that some people have had whlie trying to use BT's helpline. If you're not sure about what I mean, check out this link. The story stems from The Times.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070818/tuk-britain-offbeat-telecom-company-bt-a7ad41d_1.html

The inclusion of this article seem a bit like a slagging-off ground for BT, rather than an informative and impartial encyclopedia article, in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.212.216 (talk) 10:22:45, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

BT are the only operator that are required by their licence to provide connections when requested -- other operators are free to 'cherry pick' their customers. In fact other operators often require the customer to already have a working BT line (the customer pays only line rental to BT). This gives BT a rather monopoly-like position, and with little practical competition it seems that customer service is not a priority for BT: Weeks or even months to connect a line or fix a fault are not uncommon. Indeed, it is easy to find blog entries etc. of angry BT customers and the frequency with which BT enrage their customers is indicative of genuine incompetence.

unregistered user: although i do agree that BT has problems with customer service i dont this edit really has a place on this article. i cant see what it brings to the article, if anyone wants to clarify this then fine. but i see no objective comparisons to other providers such as 'talk talk' or AOL who in most peoples opinions have worse reputations. just a smaller customer base. would someone like to clarify this please? or give relevant references as this section seems to me entirely opinion based, do sweeping statements like 'bt are renowned for.....' have a place on an encyclopedia?. thanks. i'll give until 23/11/07 for a reply or i will remove the section in the hope that if it is resurrected that it is more objective and verifiable

OK. I've deleted the section. It's not proper to an Encyclopedia, it's poorly written and it's not NPOV. It may well be justified, but not here. If someone wants to add a section presenting the issues properly (e.g. surrounding the fact that if BT doesn't provide a physical connection, no service is possible), that would be fine. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to note that BT has a large reputation for having utterly useless and often controversial customer support workers. I myself have experienced their customer support too many times, and it goes beyond being rubbish support.

About Customer Service: A friend of mine who is pretty high up in BT billing here in the UK says that the Indian Call centers over the next few years WILL be closing down. The operations will consequently be moving back to the UK. I will try to get more details about it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.29.19 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like most people I've suffered at the hands of BT's wretched customer service, and quite astonishing incompetence, *but* that is original research, and thus does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, thus citations from neutral authoraties need to be cited. The regulators for instance have been quite critical and the press has any number of pieces.

NPOV is a different, trickier issue. Some things are objectively bad, such as BT technicians not turning up for appointments, but neutrality requires that one researches whether they are worse than competitors, and certainly try and find the frequency of this. BT has tens of millions of customers, so to describe their support as somewhere between incompetent and actually malicious it is necessary to show that the list of horror stories is bigger than is reasonable given that they must handle millions of customer interactions per day. DominicConnor (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit[edit]

Why was the latest edit reverted? What was wrong with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.173.144 (talk • contribs) 21:29, November 28, 2006 (UTC)

The fact that its bullshit would be a starter for one. --Kiand 08:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little vague. What, exactly, was "Bullshit" about it? A305w 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sources. The fact that theres nothing but makers logos etched on chips inside the Home Hub - believe me, I've seen them cracked open; total lack of sourses, and mainly the fact that its complete shite. --Kiand 11:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've seen them, have you? Sounds like original research to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.143.8 (talk • contribs) 23:39, December 2, 2006 (UTC)

Revert war[edit]

Due to the recent revert war I have requested that the page is semi-protected. I have also reminded the main participants of the 3RR. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts[edit]

Someone has posted an advert at the bottom. Not sure on the rules for this, but I'm guessing it's against them. Anyone who knows for sure want to comment/remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deeem119 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BTLogo91.png[edit]

Image:BTLogo91.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzby?[edit]

Does anyone know when Buzby was used as the BT logo? I seem to recall it being used somewhere in the early 80s. Was it before the T, at the same time as the T, or was it used for another part of the BT organisation?81.107.205.91 13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzby - the multi-coloured talking cartoon bird, was launched c. 1977 and was around well into the 1980s. This puts it around the time of the GPO up to the T, but not sure if Buzby was still around during the T.

Darkieboy236 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS see Buzby!! Darkieboy236 16:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first Buzby ads were in May 1976, which was during the time of Post Office Telecommunications (not the GPO era as such, since Post Office Telephones had became a separate entity distinct from the GPO at the beginning of the decade). For the TV commercials, Buzby was voiced by well-known actor and singer Bernard Cribbins. Post Office Telecoms became British Telecom in 1980, and the last BT ads featuring Buzby were circa 1985, just after privatization. So yes, part of the Buzby period was during the British Telecom "T" era. 146.90.61.45 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I think that the external links section, especially the links to BT, is way too big. I do not think that every BT company and service needs to be linked to. I suggest simply linking to the BT home page (bt.com) and the BT Group home page (btplc.com). If people want to go to the other websites, they can search for them on Google or go to the BT or BT group websites. I do not think that the BT Suck link is appropriate either. The site is currently offline and may not be coming back, as it has been offline for months. However, I checked it out using the Internet Archive. It is just a message board for people to complain about BT and sometimes ask for help. Self-help links are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Share Price at Floatation[edit]

We have the initial share price for mmO2, but not for original BT shares. Anybody recall what they were, around 230p /share I think? A Taxed Mind (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

130p. Blaise (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GPO badge.png[edit]

Image:GPO badge.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Rationale added. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largest communications operator in Europe claim[edit]

BT is not the largest communications operator in Europe. For one, [[1]] France Telecom is larger by revenue, operating income, net income, and by number of employees. Deutsche Telekom is also considerably larger. There is no citation for the claim in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.133.54 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree and have deleted the claim. Please feel free to edit the article yourself where it is incorrect. --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phorm | secret advert trials | alleged "spying"[edit]

Shouldn't involvement in Phorm trials be included into this article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.46.165 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to add something. These sources seem reliable.
* BBC - BT advert trials were 'illegal'
* Guardian - BT admits tracking 18,000 users with Phorm systems in 2006
* Daily Mail - We spied on 36,000 customers using the internet, admits BT
* Channel 4 - BT condemned on internet 'spying' and BT 'spies' on customers
* Telegraph - Web ads: Targeted to your every taste.
* PC Pro - BT defends secret trials as backlash builds
* New statesman - Digital spying. Ha! (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Employees[edit]

The article states BT has 104,399 (2005-06) employees. Does anyone have the breakdown of which are contracted staff and which are agency staff? Does anyone have any breakdown on which department within BT these people work for? Darkieboy236 (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will almost certainly be full time employees - agency staff would be on top of this figure and are bot counted as employees. --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a possibility, but never found any official info on it. Darkieboy236 (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was making the point that it's more than a possibility - I don't have the figures in front of me, but as an ex-BT employee, I'm pretty sure the 104,000 figure is people employed by BT. I have a BT Group slide showing that in 07/08 there were 112,000 people employed by BT, with a further 26,000 "globally sourced" (BT code for contract employees). --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Darkieboy236 (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref in intro[edit]

I replaced Dormskirk's deletion of ref in intro - most featured articles I have read contain refs in the intro, wp:style and Introductory_material do not mention this, and the claim of "operating in 170 countries" was previously challenged. Pontificalibus (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angry BT caller[edit]

I've seen several youtube videos about the angry caller that got mad at BT for calling him around 2006. Maybe there can be a reference to that somewhere in this article. The youtube videos can be a good source for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.138.214 (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language in the article[edit]

I see that the word 'leading' is used quite often, which is not a very neutral word, and anyway repeated words aren't good style. I would suggest 'major', 'large' etc which are more neutral and certainly true. Leading implies good, which in some cases is disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed uncited information[edit]

I've removed the below, as it's uncited, and uses leading phrases such as "dismal" and "forced"

There is, however, increasing disquiet among analysts that the annual growth of the Global Services business has been unimpressive, and that BT has been using prior year adjustments to achieve favourable growth figures.
Take the quarter ended 30 September 2005, for example. At the time, BT said the external revenues of its Global Services division were £1,740m. However, a year later, BT revised this figure downwards to £1,703m. This enabled BT to claim growth of 3.5%, instead of the dismal 1.3% it would have been forced to announce if it hadn't adjusted the prior year's figures.
BT has made a habit of adjusting the previous year's revenue figure every quarter. Only once in the past year has BT adjusted the figure upwards rather than downwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.215.185 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?[edit]

The history of BT here is whitewashed. The text is very pro-BT. There is no criticism section. All we know is that privatization in 1984 was just great! and has been ever since! I'm sure there are plenty of opposing views there. - 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to describe any business' activities neutrally without somebody thinking it's marketing-speak; and "criticism" sections are not obligatory. The article already tries to strike a balanced tone; is there any specific criticism missing from it? bobrayner (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks pretty fair and balanced to me, if anything with too much emphasis on negative issues.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BT's alliance with Israel's Bezeq[edit]

Jeff Song deleted the information I added about this alliance, with the argument that it is all based on a letter to the press. It is not. It is also based on an article in the Jewish Chronicle, and they must have found the information sufficiently interesting to publish it. I feel that when a company is accused of unethical behaviour, it should be mentioned on the relevant page, albeit in a neutral way. It's for readers to make up their mind. Nescio vos (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is one of weight. This is a company with 150 years of history, doing business in 170 countries worldwide and is one of the world's largest telecommunication companies. Of course it is going to be involved in many controversial issues over its lifetime, making some people unhappy about this policy or that action - but dedicating a full section to this trivial issue - a letter to the editor that got no coverage in any mainstream source beyond a single article in the Jewish Chronicle is beyond ridiculous. A "real" controversy would be something like BT's patent lawsuit against Google - that gets over 1.2 million ghits (https://www.google.com/search?q=bt+google+lawsuit&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), and coverage in sources such as the BBC, Washington Post , the Guardian etc... Even something like a lawsuit by former consultants hired by BT gets over a quarter of a million ghits (https://www.google.com/search?q=bt+magenta+netlogic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), with lengthy articles in Reuters, the Times, CIO magazine etc.. Neither one of these events is mentioned in the article, and rightly so. That goes double for your non-event.
As a side note, I am beginning to see a somewhat disturbing pattern in your edits (here, on Veolia Environnement and Veolia Transdev) where you take material from fringe groups advocating for boycott of Israel, often from non-reliable self-published advocacy sites, and playing them up as a major element of the article. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not creation another political forum. Perhaps your time will be better spent on some blog. Jeff Song (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. Such advocacy is not appropriate. bobrayner (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1966 name at the time[edit]

When I joined BT as an apprentice engineer in 1966, it was called General Post Office (Telecommunications). This should be included as it showed that Telecoms at the time was seen as a division of the Post Office. A lot different to today. Molbrum2 (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is referred to indirectly in both the lead and the history section but could be clearer. What would be useful is more precise information on all of the various name changes together with exact dates, which could then be put in a 'Name' section. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Rating[edit]

Possibly re-hashing Section 3. Customer Service here, but I've created a new section since this is a number of years later. Anyway, surely that section is related to the Customer service of BT Retail, and not the wider BT Group that this article relates to? BT Group do not deal with end users, but with CPs and partners. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 03:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no response almost a week later, I'm removing that section. Please reply here on on my talk page if you wish to raise anything. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 13:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Content Issues[edit]

I have added an advert template to the top of the article for the following reasons:

  • The 'history' section has sections that read like like promotional content (WP:PROMO). For example: a new trading name, BT, a new corporate identity and a new organisational structure. This structure focused on specific market sectors, reflecting the needs of different customers—the individual, the small business or the multinational corporation. - in my mind a discussion of the company's 'mission' or 'motives' is non essential.
  • The lead section has too many statements like the following:
It is one of the largest telecommunications services companies in the world'
it is a major supplier of telecoms services to corporate and government customers worldwide.
Its BT Retail division one of the largest suppliers of telephony, broadband and subscription television services in GB, with over 18 million customers.
the first company in the world to develop a nationwide communications network

A few of these statements need to be changed or removed as potential WP:PUFFERY.

  • The same problem as above except this time statements are dotted around the article for example BT has the largest defined benefit pension plan of any UK public company.
  • Adverts section - Is this really nessesary to refer to non notable promotional compaigns?
  • The controversy section includes non WP:NOTABLE material. Has BT group had any more recent controversies?

Thoughts? I think the issue has to be raised. Thanks. KingHiggins (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I think I have toned down all the items you have rightly mentioned above. If you feel that I have missed any please feel free to tone down further. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks, much appreciated. KingHiggins (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BT Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1912, the General Post Office... became the monopoly telecoms supplier in the United Kingdom"[edit]

"In 1912, the General Post Office, a government department, became the monopoly telecoms supplier in the United Kingdom." This is just not true. A few local authorities, most notably Kingston-upon-Hull retained control of their telephone systems after 1912, and had local monopolies. They were eventually merged with the Post Office with the exception of Hull. Perhaps someone with better knowlege of the history of the telecomms industry in the UK could edit this article to reflect this. http://www.britishtelephones.com/histuk.htm claims that Hull, Portsmouth and Guernsey were licenced to provide telephone services, with Portsmouth being absorbed by the Post office in 1913. Also see http://home.bt.com/news/bt-life/history-of-bt/a-short-history-of-telecommunications-in-the-uk-11363870786446 86.139.43.209 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BT Group. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BT Group. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BT Group. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BT Group. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BT Group. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caption[edit]

The caption states the obvious; a very similar example is used on WP:ASTONISHME. The readers do not need to be told that that is BT's logo since it is completely obvious. IWI (chat) 23:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Near identical example, taken directly from WP:ASTONISHME:
In the article CNN International:
CNN International
CNN International logo
CountryUnited States
Ownership
OwnerTurner Broadcasting System
History
LaunchedSeptember 1, 1985 (1985-09-01)
 Comment: No shit, Sherlock. (Turns out this is the logo for all CNN brands, not just CNN International – an example of the impulse to add the obvious leading, instead, to addition of the inaccurate.)

IWI (chat) 00:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The readers may want to know that the logo was introduced in 2003. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a vibe of page ownership from you, which has lead to this article not being neutral. IWI (chat) 10:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: You are aware that I have never edited the article? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rolled back several edits made by IWI. The reason for this is firstly that I can't find non-neutral point of view in the article, and secondly the caption for the logo is useful, imparting real information to the readers. I would suggest that there needs to be a consensus to change this. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have mistaken you for the person who originally undid my edit. IWI (chat) 14:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might be the situation. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delayed response, I was offline. What Frayae said is what I would have said too. Also and again if it didn't say the latter, then yeah, but I don't see anything wrong with the caption as it stands and has been there on the article for years. Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Frayae:@Steven (Editor):Explain to me the point of having "for BT" in the caption, all it does is lengthens the caption. It's not like people don't know what the logo is for. Article ownership, which Steven (Editor) seems to heavily posses (more or less reverting any edit anyone does unless it's grammar) is not the way we edit. This doesn't need consensus, but because this is Steven's article, it looks like I'm going to need it. IWI (chat) 16:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes of course people know what the logo is. 2. I don't see anything wrong with "The current logo for BT, introduced in 2003." that has been on this article for years. 3. I don't own this article. I've made significant contributions, I don't "more or less reverting any edit anyone does unless it's grammar". I've also reverted vandalism and here's an example of something that you failed to see, an editor made a modification to the intro text which they said flows better, I ended up reverting that but restored it with a minor tweak as I like to ensure there is consistency between articles on Wikipedia. Please take some time to look at the edits I made on this article again, including reading its description and looking to see exactly what I did. 4. I've noticed you've been removing captions for many articles, some of which have been reverted. 5. Because there is a disagreement, that's why consensus is required. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have been removing many captions that were unnecessary, nearly none have been reverted. Yours is one of only a few that have been reverted, and the only that remains reverted. (Except for a genuine mistake that I made) You say you want consistency but most company's articles don't have a caption to tell people "this is the logo for this company" since it is not needed. I you agree that people already know what the logo is then why not "The current logo, introduced in 2003" or better, no caption? The whole point of a caption (as listed in WP:CAP) is:
"A good caption clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious; is succinct; establishes the picture's relevance to the article; provides context for the picture; draws the reader into the article."

I wouldn't personally consider including the year of introduction of the logo as providing context or providing relevance to the article at all and I'm sure any sane person would agree that "The current logo for BT" is stating the obvious. This is in the manual of style, so why are you in disagreement; not every picture needs a caption. IWI (chat) 20:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a public utility, BT's old logo will still be emblazoned on many thousands of equipment that were installed prior to 2003. It's very relevant to explain that this is the correct BT logo since 2003. BT has many subsidiaries with their own logos, so it is relevant to specify that it is the primary BT logo. I think the wording should stay as it is. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my main point: the section "for BT" should be omitted as it is obvious; when I did this you approved. IWI (chat) 20:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't think your wording is better. I will propose some options.
  1. The current logo for BT, introduced in 2003.
  2. The current logo, introduced in 2003.
  3. BT Group logo since 2003.
As you can see, option #3 is shorter again and more specific. It is my prefered wording right now. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't need to tell the reader that this is the BT logo, because no shit. The only useful information is "introduced in 2003". IWI (chat) 21:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then in situations where the logo doesn't appear like when printing the page in b/w, it will be confusing. It would also be odd if using a screenreader to have a random part of a sentence. The caption should be a complete sentence. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. BT Group logo since 2003.
  2. Logo introduced in 2003.
These could be options. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 is the option. Per MOS:CAP and WP:ASTONISHME. IWI (chat) 21:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Frayae said is absolutely right. I think its best to leave the wording as it is which it has been for the last few years and end this dilemma. IWI, the 'G' is capitalised in BT Group. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that’s not what he said. IWI (chat) 22:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there. Stick to the matter.IWI (chat) 22:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • (a) Contrary to what's said above, captions need not, and rarely are, complete sentences.
  • (b) To state that this is the logo "for BT" is to state the absurdly obvious.
  • (c) We don't "leave the wording as it is which it has been for the last few years and end this dilemma"; discussion continues until consensus is reached.
  • (d) I don't think the reader's understanding is enhanced by learning when in particular the latest logo was introduced, especially since it was 15 years ago -- if there'd been a recent change then supplying the year might prevent confusion -- but if people insist then "Logo introduced 2003" would be OK IMHO.

EEng 22:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) (Kind of invited to the discussion through EEng's talk page) I am of the view that the caption should be something along the lines of:

Current logo; introduced 2003

Steven's point that the current version has been there for years doesn't isn't deal-breaking, lots of Wikipedia articles stay stagnant for years, and then bam, they're AfDed (terrible analogy, I know). Also, I would like to remind ImprovedWikiImprovment that WP:ASTONISH is just an essay, albeit a very popular one at that, an essay, still.
P. S. — Please ping if and when you reply to me; don't have this page on my watchlist.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SshibumXZ, EEng, and Steven (Editor): I agree. IWI (chat) 22:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's something wrong with EEng's talk page. I am happy with 'Current logo; introduced 2003' and hopefully we can all agree on this. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s going to upset the page’s “owner” but this does seem like consensus. IWI (chat) 22:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There you are again referring to me as the "owner" which I've clearly responded to you above regarding this. There is no article ownership on Wikipedia! Anyway, the logo is known as BT's 'connected world' logo. So the entire caption could be changed to: "BT's 'connected world' logo, introduced in 2003 to reflect its range of services and international reach." or simply "BT's 'connected world' logo, introduced in 2003." See 1. Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven (Editor), Frayae, SshibumXZ, and EEng:Yes I know there’s no article ownership, that’s the point. You’ve complicated it further and once again added the phrase “BT”, which we’ve already established is pointless. I think we should agree on consensus as said above because you are contradicting yourself; one minute you say “the caption is fine” the next “it needs “connected world””. Just because you’re a significant contributor to the page (which I respect), doesn’t give you ruling power to control the page (like ownership). Anyone can see it in the page history, a long list of unjustified reverts. Yes some are obviously justified but that’s distracting from the point. Do we have consensus? How many times do I have to show you policies, guidelines and examples before you understand?? IWI (chat) 23:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also in relation to what @SshibumXZ: said, the idea of not putting obvious things in captions is outlined in WP:CAP also. IWI (chat) 23:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, I did say "could be changed to", heck I should have included "'Connected world' logo, introduced in 2003" to alleviate your 'BT' fuss. As you can see, I've introduced another idea for the caption. No, I'm not the owner of the article, there is no ownership or "ruling power" - did I say I have ruling power? (waiting for you to say this again on your next response)! What "unjustified reverts" (already said above, scroll up and read my response)? You like saying these things repeatedly don't you? Well, you've given me a link to your favourite WP:ASTONISHME and a quote from WP:CAP. IWI, you feeling alright? Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: thanks! It is all fine and dandy, but, I'd advise you to cite both WP:ASTONISHME and WP:CAP henceforth. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but
Current logo; introduced 2003
is just awful. The reader doesn't need to be told it's current; he will assume that unless told otherwise. And the semicolon is overprecious. :Just plain
Logo introduced 2003
is short and sweet. Or as mentioned before, no caption. EEng 00:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC) P.S. I'm the primary author of ASTONISHME.[reply]
What are your thoughts on 'Connected world' logo, introduced in 2003" per above? Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: sorry, but, did you just assume the readers' gender? I am okay with both your suggestion of having a simpler caption and Steven (Editor)'s suggestion of adding 'connected' to caption. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops repinging:— EEng. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Steven (Editor). Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I made no gender assumption. The connected concept should stay out of it. The purpose of the logo is to orient the reader, reassure him he's arrived at the right page, maybe add a bit of visual interest. It's heavyhanded and clunky, right there in the precious real estate the reader first lays eyes on, to thrust some hokey corporate branding concept like "connected world". It's cringeworthy.
I fear we are not well past the point of WP:BIKESHEDDING. EEng 02:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: don't worry I wasn't accusing you of being a mysogynist (which you're), apparently [bad] sarcastic messages don't travel far through keyboards. Also, I am afraid the Interpretation Act 1978 passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom for primarily the Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has superseded the Interpretation Act 1850, although the both of them make almost the same point regarding gender assumptions. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 05:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC); edited 15:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I would never dream that you were accusing me of being a mysogynist. I'll just add that mysogynist can beat up yoursogynist. EEng 05:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now on to things that are of importance to this article, yes I agree with you in that:

Logo introduced 2003

is the best caption possible for the article's infobox. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 05:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, though I'll just mention in passing for the third time that no caption is better than the best caption. EEng 05:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SshibumXZ, EEng, and Frayae:Fine with me also; no caption would be better. Also let’s stop making personal comments, I have made my opinion clear on you Steven (Editor), we should stick to the discussion. IWI (chat) 07:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IWI, scroll up and read again. Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There doesn't have to be a caption. If there was a caption then BT Group logo since 2003 would be my preference. That said, the bikeshed essay is entirely appropriate and I think I will just let this rest however it ends up. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No caption is fine by me, too. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 15:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go with the latter.
  • As we all have different opinions on what the caption should be with not having a caption being the other option, makes sense to go with the latter 🙂 Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; consensus reached so discussion closed. IWI (chat) 18:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well that was a lot of discussion "for nothing", so to speak. EEng 19:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: BT Group[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as BT Group, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20100527143141/http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/History.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:BT Group saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Banana19208 (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this was the edit that introduced the offending copy. Fob.schools (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a COI, as an employee, so can't do it myself - but it would be fab if someone could restore the article - minus the identified copyrighted text - rather than leaving this rather embarrassing state of affairs. I'm sure this page gets quite a few views. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thank you so much for taking the time to work through this! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BT_Group&oldid=1206464120"