Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Area codes

Concluded. Radiant_* 09:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping

• Although I would agree that most area codes are not notable, and should be merged, I would argue that the 212 area code deserves its own article - after all, a TV show has been named for it. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 06:50, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

• I also agree that most area codes aren't notable, but here in Southern California at least there are a couple area codes that are used in everyday speech to signify subregions. For example, the 909 is part of the Inland Empire and an unglamourous place to live. In fact, most area codes in the greater LA area carry cachet or signify status in some way. --Plainsong 06:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So why not a merge and redirect to the appropriate area? --InShaneee 02:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair Question. My answer is that, at least in my experience with area codes (limited mostly to SoCal), there is no appropriate area to direct to. For example, the 909 area code encompasses two counties and several notable cities. As a geographic indicator, it is just as useful as a county or city, but its limits are not coextensive with either. You can't just redirect to San Bernadino, because that doesn't include Riverside. You can't redirect to the Inland Empire, because there are a couple other area codes in tat region. People in the LA area are sometimes judged by their area codes, so (out here at least), they mean something. Perhaps there should be some standard for an area code page. It should be notable, and there should be no appropriate redirect, if it is to have its own page. For example, 10 years ago Orange County, California and the 714 area code had the same boundaries (today, the county has two area codes). In such a case, the area code should (if notable) redirect to the county. I think information like that contained on the Area code 213 article should be retained somewhere, if not on the area code's own article. What territory an area code used to cover and what area codes were split off from it could be helpful to researchers. --Plainsong 06:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The 909 area code split, only covering half of the Inland Empire, mainly covering the San Bernadino county, with some minor parts of the Riverside county. The city of Riverside is now mainly covered by the 951 area code. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with Plainsong and with the other arguments for keeping area code articles. I'll also add that the same reasoning applies to many L.A. area codes like the 310, which covers a wide area that does not exactly follow neighborhood or city lines. --Coolcaesar 18:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Boston has the same, 617 = Metro Boston, 508 = Boring Ring Suburbs.
• A small number of area codes may be notable as such. 212 is the best candidate because of its association with the cachet of manhattan within the NYC region. The first numbers to be designated based on new numbering schemes (1st expansion, overlays, etc) could also be highlighted in the list. With the possible exception of 212, just about all of this could be handled on the List of North American area codes as parenthetical or footnotes. Dystopos 00:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Some other arguments for keeping have appeared on the Talk:List of North American area codes page. First it is argued that people may want to link to area codes from other articles and it is better to have a stub description of Area code 251 than a bad link to the year 251. Second, the cultural significance of area codes is growing as seen in the overlay of Manhattan and the cachet attached to 212. Area code indentity also plays a large part in hiphop culture (representin' the 314, or Ruben Studdard's 205 jerseys on American Idol. It could be argued that such "virtual" boundaries are gaining in importance relative to purely geographic boundaries. Dystopos 00:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• List of North American area codes is a one line per code summary. North America has stayed in a straight-jacket of xxx-xxx-xxxx numbers for many years and this has resulted in a complex history of splitting and overlaying of area codes. The individual articles can go into these details. Similar treatment for other countries is not needed. -- RHaworth 22:46, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Area codes become notable when they're used in street culture, for example area code 213 that covers Compton, and Long Beach ecb29
• Keep Every single area code has a unique history and geographic area associated with it. Both are notable. Klonimus 07:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep: there are uses to knowing the disposition and history of dialling codes around the world. --Vamp:Willow 12:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! 416 and 905, for even more examples, have been extremely important terms in Canadian culture and social and political discourse for years. I can't tell you how many times it's been said by experts, in the media, around the water cooler, that votes in "the 905" are the key to forming a government in Canada or Ontario. And it's basically true! And now I won't be able to get Maestro's corny but entertaining 2000 hit "416/905 (TO Party Anthem)" out of my head all night. :p Samaritan 00:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for merging

• I feel that all the area codes should be merged into a single article for the country or region, such as Area codes in North America, discussing the region's area code system. The specifics on what area codes cover what areas should be in the form of a map, as that's the clearest representation of the information. No redirects should be created. --Carnildo 00:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Area codes should be merged into lists or tables similiar to List of North American area codes. This is basically the same problem as postal zones presented: too many to keep up with and naming overlaps between different countries. I see no problem however with seperate articles containing one list sorted by area code number and a second article sorted by geographical location when article size becomes an issue. --Allen3 ^talk 22:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Would we want to merge everything? How much is notable? Do we want a page with several hundred snippets like this? --InShaneee 20:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The first two sentences of that article are useful; the rest is trivia and can be removed during the merge. --Carnildo 22:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all notable information into above page. Plainsong makes a good argument, but the problem could come with POV issues. Should we really be writing about what people think of an area? Besides that, aside from a few area codes with possible historical significance to the system as a whole, is there really that much that could be written about an area code? Even in cases like 212 (mentioned elsewhere here), I think a merge with the tv show might be more appropriate. --InShaneee 02:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion

• We already have a List of North American area codes. And we have other similar articles for other countries. There is no point in having separate articles on each individual area code. Delete, no merge necessary. Dave the Red 07:15, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• We should apply the same policy as the postal codes: "It is not practical (or even desirable) to do an article on each of them. Instead, articles should focus on a city, district or area." Zzyzx11 02:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • With area codes, very few cities have more than one. Larger districts such as states or large fractions thereof usually are the minimum area to get a single code. The minimum meaningful level for discussing groups of area codes is the national level. --Carnildo 03:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Kill 'em all. If a TV show is named after one, create an article on the TV show, not the area code. —Wahoofive | Talk 17:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that 212, for instance, has an interesting reason for its choice, and might also be notable because of the uproar when Manhattan was split into 2 area codes (212 has traditionally indicated NYC, the business center, and people were very upset that they might get the new 646 code, which would be less prestigious). There are probably other instances of area codes with interesting and significant histories. On the other hand, the vast majority of area codes have nothing to say about them except for what region they represent. I think area code articles should be discouraged, information about them kept on the list pages, and possibly exceptions made only if and when a description begins to outgrow the list format. Avocado 02:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Since the area code is no longer an indication of where you are located, there is less meaning behind an area code. Yes, there is some cachè behind some codes, but in general are they encyclopedic? For cell phones, the area code is based on where the store you purchased it is located, not on where you live or where you are calling from. For VoIP it can be from anywhere the provider has a presence. At one time, I was up to three numbers coming in on one phone line, so what did any of the three area codes mean? Vegaswikian 07:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other comments

• I don't particulary care whether the individual articles are kept or not. However, article titles such as Area code 251 imply that Wikipedia has a North American perspective that need not even be spelt out. If kept, it should be moved to North American area code 251, just as an article about the London area code should be at UK area code 020, not at Area code 020, and so on. Alarm 22:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Heartily endorse. It is arrogance to call these "Area code ???" they must all be moved to "North American area code ???". -- RHaworth 22:46, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Very simple solution 212 (U.S Area Code) vs 553 (UK Area Code) vs 43 (Israel Area Code) Klonimus 07:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• There are some considerations which need to be made for high density areas, and area codes which have been in use for a long major time in certain areas. Locally in Southern California, the 213 area code was well know because of it's coverage. Several of these area codes do hold some history, and that should also be considered. We could actually cover area codes through redirects to the principle areas first established in the US, then follow the splits on the same page of the original area code. For example, 213 was split off to 310 and some other area codes. Then it was split further. We can track the area that it use to cover then track it's splits as subsections of the area. Then include wikilinks at the top of the article to "jump" to the specific sections of the area code, which will have wikilinks to several articles of the cities that the area code primarily covers. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If a user does not know the name of a region an area code is designated for, that user may want to just enter the area code and see what comes up. Instead of having a page for the area code listed, why not just have a redirect to the page detailing the location the area code designates? A list page is also useful, if you know the location but not the area code. So, I vote to delete individual pages for specific area codes, to install redirects forwarding the user to a page describing the location the area code is designated for, and a list page showing different area codes, with one list per country code. Wandering Star 15:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions (straw poll)

What is more useful: "Area code ###" or "### area code" or "### (area code)"

### (area code)

1. Permits the pipe trick. Shimmin 01:47, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. if kept. Per Shimmin. But this is not a vote to keep individual articles. —msh210 17:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. but only if used as ### (USA area code) or #### (UK area code) etc. --Vamp:Willow 12:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Agree, but there is no such thing as a USA area code, so it would have to be ### (North American area code). RussBlau 13:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
5. Agree. A big improvement over how most articles are now titled (Area code ###). Plainsong 04:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

CC-### area code

(Where CC=country code)

1. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

None of the above

1. I don't feel that we should have articles on individual area codes. --Carnildo 05:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • Area code 564 may change your mind. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A Policy Proposal

I propose the following:

• There are a few rather hefty articles that contain substantial amounts of useful information about the area code. These should be kept, but moved to North American area code ### (or another format that makes it clear that it's North American -- e.g. ### (North American area code)). Example: Area code 201.
• Articles that are essentially substubs and contain very little information -- such as just their geographic region -- should be merged into the list and then deleted or redirected to the list (possibly the old article deleted and the North-American-specific title redirected). Example: Area code 251.
• If and when enough additional information is added that an area code's description no longer fits easily into a list format, the information should be moved into a separate article for the area code.
• For a few borderline cases, we might have to have a per-article vote. (Example: Area code 312).
• On the list, links should be stripped from area codes without articles.

Any comments? Feel free to shoot this proposal down. -- Avocado 22:44, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

• Support. Sounds like a solid plan to me. --InShaneee 19:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds good. --Carnildo 20:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• support. That sounds reasonable. I also think the whole list could be put into a table on the North American Numbering Plan page (in lieu of a separate List of North American area codes article.). Ultimately it would be sweet if that table were replaced by a zoomable/clickable map view. Dystopos 21:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. Radiant_* 09:32, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like a good compromise. Plainsong 13:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although I'm against links should be stripped from area codes without articles--you never know when links might come in handy, or lead to something great. I love redlinks--they have so much potential. :) jengod 00:30, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Opppose, as it subverts the honest decisions made already at Talk:North American Numbering Plan. I had absolutely no idea that another group was making an overriding decision in a subpage of WP:DP. Furthermore, XXX (North American area code) commits the sin of unnecessarily long parentheticals. I don't understand the motivation behind having parenthetical text that is 8 times longer than the topic name. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

North American area codes

Your examples show that there is in fact no standard, so I don't see how one could justify applying one of them to NANP area codes. Rather, the examples show that the article names to date have been named based on local industry naming conventions. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)