Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications/Area codes RfC

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RFC: Notability of individual area codes[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this RfC, editors discussed the notability of area codes.

Arguments for Option 1 assert that the general notability guideline (GNG) should be the controlling standard for determining area code notability, that area codes lack inherent notability, and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. On the other hand, Option 2 supporters argue that these articles are helpful to readers, that area codes are significant geographically and tend to have sourcing, and that they like these articles. In short, the strength of arguments are in favor of Option 1 from a policy/guideline perspective. Arguments for Option 1 are grounded in GNG[a] and NOTDB, a notability guideline and policy, respectively. Option 2's arguments are more arbitrarily based; inherent notability is a phenomena on Wikipedia, but from a closers perspective these arguments like "geographical significance" are quite subjective—I can say the "I like it-style" comments are incompatible with policy. Any theoretical successful arguments for inherent notability I imagine would be quite obvious and supported by the community, and this is not present in this discussion. To the contrary, the vast majority of participants support Option 1 and Option 2 has very limited support. Therefore, considering the strength of arguments and the community survey, there is a consensus for option 1: individual area codes are not inherently notable.[b] Notability should be determined through GNG.

There is no consensus for options 3, 4, 5, or "doing nothing"[c]. Options 3-5 were plagued with a lack of clear or substantive support, concerns of geographical bias, and a hesitancy for arbitrarily selecting certain regions as notable. However, many editors, including many who support Option 1, did say that there are several area codes in different (or specific) areas of the world that are likely notable. Instead of singling out certain areas as being intrinsically notable, the community seems to be favoring a not-so-rigid approach through GNG, as represented by option 1. So there are no hard exceptions to Option 1 per se established through consensus in this RfC.

With that said, these positions should not be completely ignored. The consensus is not that area codes aren't notable at all or even that they are not generally notable; rather, it's merely that area codes aren't inherently notable—that's about all this discussion managed to settle. Please keep that distinction in mind, and understand that this discussion should not be perceived a decree to mass delete, merge, or redirect all individual area code pages or any specific ones. Tread with a certain degree of caution when performing such actions, as the community has not reached a consensus on what the next step is or what area codes should stay, go, or whatever; instead, this RfC serves as an important reference point and sets a standard for future notability disputes regarding area codes.

(non-admin closure) Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 17:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes
  1. ^ Some argued that subjects can't be inherently notable because of GNG. They referenced this line: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists
  2. ^ A consensus for option 1 means an inherent consensus against option 2.
  3. ^ This note is addressing the "do nothing" stance.
    Essentially, this camp was hallmarked by being skeptical of the process, seeing the RfC as unnecessary, and considering this a non-issue. Some characterized this camp as de facto 4A, which is also perceived by some to be the status quo.


Are individual area codes inherently notable? Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background (area codes RFC)[edit]

English Wikipedia currently has articles about every area code in the North American Numbering Plan area (US, Canada, Guam and some Caribbean countries and territories), see List of North American Numbering Plan area codes. Examples include Area code 412 and Area codes 514, 438, and 263 (the latter cover the same geographical area). Consensus in a 2007 AfD was that "All North American area codes are notable.", in 2015 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area code 707, intended as a test case, was withdrawn following 3 keep !votes and two favourable comments. I have not found any more recent discussions.

Articles about area codes in other parts of the world are much less common - the only ones found in the Category:Telephone numbers category tree are:

In the last two months, there have been three AfDs about UK dialling codes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01207 (2nd nomination) closed as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0114 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01633 concluded with no consensus. I have not found any discussions about area codes in other parts of the world.

Further background and prior discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications#Dialling codes in the United Kingdom,

Important notes:

  • This discussion is exclusively regarding articles about (groups of) individual area codes, not lists of area codes (e.g. List of dialling codes in Germany) nor individual phone numbers (e.g. 9-1-1).
  • In all cases, any area codes that are not individually notable but which are part of a set of which some are notable should, by default, redirect to one of the following:

Options (area codes RFC)[edit]

  • Option 1: Individual area codes are not inherently notable (but some may meet WP:GNG).
  • Option 2: All area codes are inherently notable.
  • Option 3: Area codes are considered inherently notable if they mainly cover a settlement with city status.
  • Option 4: Only area codes in the following countries/numbering plan region(s) are inherently notable:
    • A: All of the North American Numbering Plan area
    • B: Some (but not all) of the American Numbering Plan area codes (please specify)
    • C: United Kingdom
    • D: Mexico
    • E: Nigeria
    • X: Other (please specify)
    Note that options A and B are mutually exclusive but all other combinations are valid
  • Option 5: Some other set of area codes are inherently notable (please specify).

If choosing an option other than all or none, editors are encouraged to explain what they feel differentiates notable from non-notable area codes.

Survey (area codes RFC)[edit]

  • Option 1, follow WP:GNG - if there is significant coverage of the area code then we can write an article, otherwise the information is better included in a list like List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom. I would add that the other options would likely result in the mass creation of thousands or tens of thousands of articles on area codes that lack any coverage in reliable sources beyond inclusion in lists; allowing this to happen would be a very bad idea. BilledMammal (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 Nothing is inherently wp:notable. But I think that substantial informative area code articles (such as the given examples, and which means that they have the sources to build such from) should generally be kept. Follow a not-overly-strict application of wp:GNG. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. Please don't tell me we also have an article on every zip code. RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: No, but we do have one about every postcode area in the UK. I hope no one uses that as precedent to create ZIP code articles, in the reverse of what led to this RfC. The mere fact that two countries put something in the same part of an address or phone number shouldn't necessarily mean the individual values are equally notable across both countries. Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4a is the least sucky of the options presented. Probably some other city codes may be notable out side of the North American Numbering Plan as well, but I'm not qualified to comment. Given it's an international plan, area codes in the North American Numbering plan are in some cases equivalent to country codes elsewhere. So you can't really compare an area code in the North American plan to say a city code in a numbering plan that only covers one country. I have found these area code articles to be quite useful from time to time. I have used area code articles on several occasions to determine if a questionable call is a scam or legitimate and I would hate to see them go.Dave (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 (all except B) Option 2. This type of article is what makes Wikipedia great. Does the average reader even care that the sourcing doesn't meet the strict sourcing requirements of the same three people who all seem to be involved in these discussions yet don't contribute to the article space? No. This is the type of article that decides who wins a drunken bet at 3am. Keep all of them and rebuke the deletionists. –Fredddie™ 19:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realized after I posed that Option 4 minus B is essentially Option 2. Changed to reflect that. –Fredddie™ 19:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the spirit of your rationale but it's more important than winning a bar bet. The fact that Wikipedia has been the "one stop shop" for both the "core articles" you'd find in any respectable encyclopedia as well as the articles that are useful, but not found in most encyclopedias is the reason for its success. It's why Wikipedia is still here and a hundred other formerly respectable encyclopedias are long forgotten, or forgotten outside of one little market niche. It amazes me the people who want Wikipedia to change models from one that is successful beyond its critics worst nightmares to one that has failed a hundred times are given credibility. Dave (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. No reason to use anything other than WP:GNG here. Wikipedia isn't the place for routine information like where an area code if per WP:NOTDB. That information belongs on an official website. If there are enough sources to have an encyclopedic article about a given area code, that's WP:GNG. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the above The way this RFC was developed is inherently flawed and barely attempts to address international (non-US) area codes. I am sure that some are inherently notable and some are not, and some countries do not even have area codes. That leads me to think that the preferred outcome of the drafters is to enforce GNG. Thus, this is a flawed RFC that has a predetermined outcome. --Rschen7754 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will ask you to explain your point in the discussion below, because we need to make sure that we are not missing something. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rschen7754 I can't speak for @JML1148, but as one of the two drafters, my goal here is simply clarity and a consistent standard against which articles can be fairly judged. That could be the GNG, it could be inherent notability, it could be something else. You will note that I have not (yet) expressed a preference for any option. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rschen7754: This was also my intentions. I had seen that North American area codes were apparently inherently notable, but there was no standard for other codes. As a co-drafter, I won't express my opinion. I will be clear however, that there was no predetermined outcome behind the draft, and that in my opinion, international area codes are considered under Option 4. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but my point still stands that the RFC is pointing in a certain direction, whether it was intended to be that way or not. --Rschen7754 01:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @Rschen7754: This is a flawed RFC question. Specifically, it offers as "Option 2" a position that directly conflicts with WP:N's long-standing statement that "No subject is automatically or inherently notable". We might as well have an RFC on whether Wikipedia is a type of encyclopedia, or whether experienced editors Truly Believe In™ that value of citing sources. It would be just as informative.
    I am concerned that the votes for Option 1 will be twisted into "See? The RFC says I should try to get rid of all of these articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC question is fine. It is essentially asking whether the community believes area codes should receive a special SNG carveout of presuming that GNG coverage exists (or bypassing GNG entirely), and with nearly 6x as many !votes as the next-highest group, "No" has the overwhelming plurality (and majority). And that's not even counting the "do nothing" !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. This isn't to some area codes aren't notable, but rather than no area code is inherently notable. As for the change over of codes at least for the last UK one this is covered by its own article (PhONEday), a better solution than covering the minutiae repeatedly in separate articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. It seems to me that you need sources and not only primary sources otherwise there is nothing to say that is not original research. In fact, if the rule has been for many years that all area codes are notable, I suggest that someone looks at these articles, including Area codes 514, 438, and 263, and make sure they are not based on primary sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. I am a major contributor to one of those articles (about one of the original U.S. area codes), but, other than a history of splits and overlays, there is nothing of substance to the article. The history can be covered in a higher level article. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Albury (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donald Albury: I think part of the difficulty is that so many of the NANP area codes don't have an obvious higher-level article as supposed by the RfC's drafters. The RfC gives an example of area code 316, which conveniently hugs the Wichita metropolitan area, but that's atypical in the NANP. I don't look forward to the debates about which city's article area codes 330 and 234 should be folded into; even under option 3, it would serve too many cities with city status. One might suppose that a series of "Telephone numbers in [state]" articles would neatly consolidate the split histories and geographic descriptions, since the general NANP rule is that area codes don't cross state lines. However, that approach would scale far better for some states like Kansas than for others like California (with a lot of area codes) or Oregon (for which the area code articles detail prefixes). Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. Per obviously? JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. It seem to be the only rational choice here. Option 2 would just result in a giant database of numerous new articles, and considering how many problematic pages and discussions with too little participation there are, I don't think our community can handle the maintenance of that much more extra pages; Option 3 sounds practical, but it comes with all the other hassles the term "city" can bring up, like how countries might define cities differently, or towns in some countries are more populous than cities of other countries. Option 4 and 5 would arbitrarily favor certain regions over others. Let's just stick with notability as a qualification for now. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 - Area codes are important geographic aspects in the telephone industry and are often covered in sources, especially regarding the history and changes that have occurred over time. Dough4872 23:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5—All area codes in Area Codes (song), plus any area codes in overlay with the referenced area codes, are inherently notable. We should not hesitate to favor regions that are properly referenced. All other regions can have their area codes in a list article. VC 01:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 5 - The other options in this RfC may sound great on paper, but they fail to consider inherent real-world differences in how countries have organized their numbering plans. Any notability RfC that relates to geography must consider real-world conditions or risk imposing an unjustifiable geographical bias on the project.

    For example, I believe we should have a full complement of articles on NANP area codes (merging any overlays together). Many area codes cover a market without "mainly" covering a city per se. Only seven correspond straightforwardly to administrative areas, but these cover entire states, making them in a way more prominent than the rest. Only three others have retained their original 1947 boundaries; the rest have been subject to all the studies and commotion that you'd expect from changing hundreds of thousands of numbers en masse or introducing ten-digit dialing. The U.S. and Canadian regulatory environment ensures that number exhaustion is studied on a regular basis, allowing us to presume that there can be adequate sourcing about even the most stable of area codes, even if these articles were largely written at a time when such sources were not regularly called upon.

    On the other hand, I have never considered the possibility of articles on individual area codes in Vietnam – not because of a grudge against the Ministry of Information and Communications, but rather because half of Vietnam's area codes follow provincial boundaries and the other half are reserved for a specific telecommunications company. In other words, these area codes have no specific geography of their own to write about. The country also has a form of government in which decisions about these area codes are made internally without consulting industry or the public.

    The presumption should be that a given region's area codes are inherently notable, but I do not have a rigid test to offer as to which regions satisfy the principle that there is enough to write about with adequate sourcing. Rather than repeal the one region that should be a slam dunk, effort should be made to identify more regions, if any, that can be treated similarly.

     – Minh Nguyễn 💬 02:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 4a is fine. Should be expanded to cover all the anglosphere (+ probably India). No reason to discriminate against Britons etc, and covering just the anglosphere is reasonable, which is why I am not voting for Option 2 -- cos I think (guess) that it would be a maintenance burden not worth it. Malay speakers etc are very welcome here, but must understand that de facto we're not going to offer quite the same level of details for some subjects outside the anglosphere. But Option 2, is my second choice, it's fine. Herostratus (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing. Notability guidelines arose on Wikipedia to provide an actionable response to articles about garage bands, fly-by-night companies, and the objects of teenage crushes. The fact that GNG can apparently be abused to justify the attempted deletion of mundane subjects like Olympic athletes and area codes says to me that it's GNG that needs to be re-examined, not the articles' existence. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4a if we had to choose. In North America, area codes are used as a local label of sorts, and this is well documented in print media (the most holy of all sources). SounderBruce 04:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing I can find arguments for options 1 and 2. Can't say for option 4 as only really know UK and a little of US telecommunications history. Don't think it is worth chewing over arbitrary criteria. If you can find sources then write the articles. If you can't, don't. MRSC (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1(Summoned by bot) I must admit I came to this RfC somewhat jadedly wondering how ANY area code could be notable. In fact in most cases of the articles we have, the codes themselves aren't. The 020 article for example isn't actually about the area code, it's a fascinating historical/technical article covering the history of phones, phone exchanges and phone number systems in London. The 020 is merely the current number prefix, which that history has led to and the article could happily justify itself under another name. Similarly some other articles are about broader technical or historical topics. Some others seem fairly indiscriminate info, unlikely to be accessed by readers or updated by editors and outside our remit - possibly incorporatable into lists or into the articles about the regions served. Option 1 is the only one leaving open the possibility of notability, while not assuming it. Pincrete (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 or option 2 I do not see why we should be making an exception to GNG for individual area numbering codes. If there's not enough material out there to write a proper encyclopedic article you would probably be better off spending your time elsewhere, though I am sympathetic to the argument by Fredddie for option 2 above. I personally think this kind of information would be more appropriate in, say, a "list of area codes" article or included in the infoboxes of the articles about the areas that those codes belong to. That being said, I don't see the logic in only including western area codes in any automatic notability guideline. That just seems like writing a discriminatory policy to me. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Western isn't the really right word. Argentina, Brazil and Mexico are in the west but not part of NAMP. What makes the North American Numbering Plan unique is that while dominated by the USA, in truth it spans a dozen or so countries. I guess the closest analogy for Europe is NAMP is the American continent's telephone equivalent of the Schengen Area. There are area codes in NAMP that function more like country codes elsewhere. However, officially all of NAMP has a country code of 1. In fact, there are scammers that exploit this relatively unknown fact, so IMHO there is encyclopedic value to "inform the public" how NAMP works. That's the difference between an area code in NAMP verses an area code in a country not part of NAMP. Dave (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. I don't think this will have a huge effect, since non-trivial coverage in sources independent of the subject can probably be found for most of the area codes we have articles about (and if not, no big loss; they'll still be covered in lists). I really don't buy any of the arguments for treating area codes (anywhere) as inherently notable. These things change all the time and are pretty arbitrary. They are not like, say, the elements of the periodic table, or even the countries/nation-states of earth.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 I think, in general, the community is moving away from inherent notability for most subjects. That said, it is probably likely that there is GNG-passing coverage for most (if not all) area codes in the US, so I doubt many articles would be deleted, much less nominated for deletion. --Enos733 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 is my preference. Individual articles are a very inefficient way to give an overview of area codes, the vast majority of which have only very routine coverage and can be summarised much better in a list article. Reserve full articles for those area codes on which something non run-of-the-mill has been written in secondary sources. Elemimele (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 because if you can't find at least two independent RS (GNG) which cover a three-letter code used for telecommunications' administrative purposes, why would you write an article about it? And if you were to write a standalone article, what could you say without that bare minimum of sourcing? "123 is an area code for the Gotham City metro area. It was instituted in 1985"? The idea that all area codes are presumed/"inherently" notable because...they exist?...is not an argument I follow. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 the notable points seem to be easily summarized in the table at List of North American Numbering Plan area codes. I do have great sympathy for the effort that was put into making all those pages, but they should have individual notability to have a dedicated page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing I don't see enough of a problem with the status quo here (which is 1 in theory and 4a in practice) that we need to make a policy. I think that it's good that we have articles on all the North American area codes, and I worry that Option 1 opens the door to a lot of bold redirects that would be detrimental to readers. That being said, I also don't think we need a specific notability policy to codify any of this, especially when we've been moving away from subject-specific notability guidelines on the whole. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 16:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: I haven't seen a great argument for why area codes would be an exception to notability guidelines.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, but tread with caution - the example linked above, area code 412, has no sources, and they are hard to find in a simple internet search. However area codes do get press, typically when they are changed or modified, or when plans are proposed, that would be in a newspaper search. Whether this makes them notable I'm not sure, but lots of cities in the USA/Canada are identified by specific area codes, and at worst we should probably up-merge to an "Area codes in Pennsylvania" style article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to default to supporting Option 1 but I'd start by pointing out that this RFC is trying to take on far to much by trying to get consensus on the notability of the entire world's telephone dialing codes. The issue seemed to arise following some AfD discussions for UK dialling codes, which were thwarted by OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. I'm open to be convinced that all telephone area dialing codes are notable - there would presumably will have been some press publicity, often pre-internet, when these codes were introduced or changed. But I'm yet to see a single article about area dialing codes that clearly demonstrates that. The 2007 AfD on US dialling codes resulted in a 'keep' based on a myriad of comments about how the information is "useful" and "interesting", but none of these arguments would be considered acceptable today.
Maybe US dialling codes are different, covering much larger areas and being a stronger part of American culture. As for UK dialling codes, I can imagine some of them are far more notable than others. But they have often changed so many times over recent decades (and people use mobile phone numbers far more often) that their identity is lost. For example, my own city Cardiff had a very distinct dialling code 0222. Because of it's three 2s it was easiy recognisable, sometimes used in business names and at least one music album name. Then the code changed to 01222 in 1995, then 029 five years later. It was amended again in 2013 though as the Wales Online article suggets, there was already quite bit of confusion by that time. Option 3 would apply to a city like Cardiff, but here the explanation of the Cardiff dialing code(s) is easily incorporated into the Cardiff Wikipedia article under "Telecommunications", rather than requiring a standalone aricle filled with UNDUE technical data and info from random fan websites. Sionk (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: Your response affirms my impression that UK dialing codes are something between NANP's area codes and exchange codes (which don't have articles) in terms of scale and importance. The degree of instability you describe would be rare, partly because geographic overlays and other strategies allow most people to keep their numbers. Most area codes resemble a sort of gerrymandering; they do not neatly correspond to one city. In fact, area code 902 serves two provinces (previously four), and we have an article about the era when area code 809 served 20 different countries and dependencies. I won't bore you with an OVERCITE of news articles establishing the cultural or political relevance [1] of individual area codes, but the point has also been made more generally about the whole system of area codes. It's a shame that the old AfDs never considered the merits of these articles as thoughtfully as we now expect. Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing, or failing that, option 4a / option 5 as the probably least harmful. I would agree with the comments above that this RfC is taking on a bit too much, and I'm not convinced there is actually a problem to be solved here. That said -- option 4a because I would be very surprised if there is a US area code that hasn't been the subject of nontrivial press coverage when was created or its boundaries were changed, and given that, even if there are a handful that haven't received such coverage it serves the project better to cover the full set. And option 5 because of course the same should apply to any other countries where area codes have independent geographies that tend to attract nontrivial attention / become loci of local identity. -- Visviva (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 per Indy beetle. Ajpolino (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 Obviously. Most US area codes should be merged into respective state articles per Sportingflyer. Reywas92Talk 14:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 represents the status quo, which is the WP:GNG. Usually the general guideline would be enough. But given someone raised the issue at an RFC, a clarification is always a good idea. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: GNG baybeeeee. I don't think that a lot of area codes will end up being deleted. Brought to AfD, sure, but I predict that the deletion discussions would find sources to justify inclusions. SWinxy (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. There either is or is not a sufficient amount of reliable and independent reference material about a subject to support an article on it. That's true whether we're talking about an area code, a plant, an asteroid, or a person. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. Area codes aren't some special exemption from other articles; they should be able to demonstrate why they are notable topics. Following the general notability guideline is the best strategy for determining that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. I can't see any reason why area codes need to be an exception to the GNG. There are plenty of easily searchable online databases of area codes for those who need to look up "where's that number from?" and the information doesn't need to be replicated on Wikipedia. If an individual area code meets GNG through the usual means, then of course it warrants an article. I'd argue, additionally, that several of the area code articles aren't actually about that area code but are more general histories and could be moved. For instance, 020 is a well-researched history of telephone numbers and infrastructure in London, and could be more usefully titled Telephone numbers in London. Articles that consist of OR and say little more than "0123 is the area code for Anytown" can go. WP:NOTDB. Flip Format (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Nothing - Nothing needs done and I don't think there's a problem here.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4A - I don't see a problem here either and this is the status quo as far as I'm aware. ~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, like the majority to-date. While it's always helpful to have handy lists of dialling codes, mobile telephony prefixes, country dialling codes, postal codes, and so on, it's just wrong to have each code as a standalone article, only because it's a telephony code. This of course should not preclude from having disambiguation articles about various 2, 3 or 4-digit numbers that could also mention their use as telephone dialling codes in different countries. — kashmīrī TALK 19:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (area codes RFC)[edit]

The following people/pages will be notified:

Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also notified WT:N. BilledMammal (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm not sure why I didn't think of that page! Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this even relevant anymore? What is the intent? And why does this require repeated inquiries, when consensus was reached long ago. Is this subject to seasonal whims somehow? With area codes it is all or none. North American area codes are certainly notable. Many are deeply intertwined with popular culture, regional identity, even national identity, and technology history. I don't think this is the case in other countries, but authors from other regions ought to decide for themselves, as have the editors in the English Wikipedia for well over a decade. kbrose (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kbrose if you read the background section you will see there was recent disagreement with the status of that consensus on one part and lack of clarity on the other, along with a desire to see what the community consensus currently is (which may or may not have changed in the past decade or so). Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently only by uninvolved people that have nothing contributed to the extensive documentation system of NANP area code in WP, which is unparalleled anywhere else, and is built from a plethora of newspaper articles, administration articles, authoritative technical Planning Letters, etc. and thoughtful organization of the information by a large group of tireless editors who keep these articles current. Outside sources such as Google Assistant use every one of these articles in their information system to read to users. Please don't waste bandwidth here. Those editors have better things to do than deal with a decided issue. kbrose (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've contributed to and helped maintain Area codes 305 and 786 for more than 17 years, and I think it is time for it to go. Donald Albury 21:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the proposers do realize that there will be multitudes of newspaper articles whenever an area code changed, simply to notify the public that this is going to happen. --Rschen7754 19:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, there's been many lawsuits through they years by business that have been forced to abandon their long advertised phone number because of an area code change. It's arguably why nowadays "area code overlays" are the norm and "area code splits", once common, are now rare. Dave (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A Tale of Two Springfields" comes to mind. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, I'm not sure that article meets GNG. If these area codes (that millions of people use every day) are in danger of deletion, that article should be in danger too. Rschen7754 21:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How could option 2 possibly comply with NOTINDISCRIMINATE (or much of the rest of NOT)? The exact same info is far more accessible as it exists in lists of area codes in [state] and/or [country] and in the articles on the polities the numbers cover. Why should we exempt a set of topics containing tens of thousands of entries, 99% of which are guaranteed to be permamicrostubs or coatracks, from needing to meet GNG and from complying with numerous aspects of NOT? And it's not like having a standalone article on an area code-equivalent in some country in the global south is somehow addressing systemic bias -- either it will have significant and culturally relevant encyclopedic coverage that would allow it to meet GNG anyway, or it will be uselessly redundant with info in a much more visible and better-maintained parent page; what does having a standalone in the latter case contribute to anything? It's not like it achieves any kind of "parity" when it's drowned out by the thousands more stubs on Western area codes. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lot of passion for something that simply does not matter to our readers. They couldn't care less if Area code 712 was a permamicrostub or not. –Fredddie™ 05:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the general notability guidelines (GNG) in this case[edit]

@Rschen7754: can you explain what can be wrong in implementing the GNG in this case. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a reference work, the articles can explain what communities are included in each area code. Not to mention that GNG is frequently applied to discriminate against non-English speaking countries, leading to further systematic bias. For North America, we're only talking about ~300 articles which is not that many. --Rschen7754 20:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can. The GNG is a guideline. It's an important point and a good place to start considering whether or not to keep an article. It's not anything to be bound by. Basically what we want to know is whether the article is a net benefit to the project and the readers. I checked a random 100 articles, and apparently most don't meet the GNG. We have articles about every species, which for most the source is a couple lines in a book and the entire content is "Drosophila Munugdus is a plaktiotropic fungus found the highlands of Borneo". Similarly, populated places. Every major league baseball player. Every railroad station and metro stop. And so on. Is "Area codes" a set like those? Why not? An SNG (Special Notability Guideline) could be proposed. At any rate I would think we should either keep the set or dump them all, otherwise members of the set will be deleted at random, which is a sloppy way to run an encylopedia.
So along with GNG, I like to start with "The experience of a person searching on this term would be enhanced if she gets a 404 instead of this article, because ___________?" What goes in the blank? Things can go in the blank -- too lousy to bother fixing, ephemeral, incontrovertibly trivial, BEFORE finds no references at all, POV or BLP violation or misleading the reader and not easily fixable, is a speedy that got thru, and so on. But, quite often there's nothing to put in the blank, which is strong indication (not proof) that we might want to start leaning to keep.
But, even so, another good argument is "Will be a net negative for the project because _______". That's about us. It's reasonable to delete marginal articles that aren't worth maintaining. So in the blank we might have too many changeable values and/or too fast-changing, other upkeep nightmare, marginal bio that's going to attract partisan trolls, maintenance hassle for other reasons, embarassing to the project, subject doesn't want the article, whatever.
The info in area codes articles -- how much material changes, and how often? That's what I want to know.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 03:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: Geographical changes in the NANP region have been stabilizing since the early 2000s. However, many articles also cover changes within the area code, such as changes to national special prefixes that uniquely affect the area code. NANPA produces monthly reports semiannual reports about number exhaustion, but our area code articles have generally relied on news articles about decisions made by telcos or public utilities commissions in response to notable projection changes. There is a finite number of possible area code articles in a given region. New NANP area codes are introduced very deliberately, about one or two a year. Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mxn, Alright. Then possibly some rapidly-changing material within the articles should be avoided, I don't know. I did recently run across an article that gave some data "as of 2013". You do see that from time to time. I gather there are active editors keeping these articles up to date, but will there be in 20 years? 50? Something to take into consideration I think. If the articles are mostly made up of this changing data, that's a good argument for not having the articles, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does the chicken or the egg come first? Should one of the stricter options be the one to pass, I can pretty much guarantee you they won't be around in 50 years. --Rschen7754 04:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the NANP area code articles are dominated by geography and history. A well-written one could conceivably include current data on the number of subscribers and projected date of exhaustion, but I don't think this would be any more of a maintenance burden than keeping an administrative area's population figure up-to-date. Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. And there's nothing wrong with having "as of such and so date". It's a useful fact. Thhe data might still be usefull to some readers even if it's old. The reader can say "well that's useless to me", and ignore or discount the data. Or the reader can say "enh, it's old, but gives me a good enough ballpark figure". Or maybe the reader will say "hey I'll update this" and once they've broken the ice maybe a few will become editors, who knows. (There is also the {{asof}} template but I don't think that's usually called for.
The exact same argument can be made to justify a standalone article on literally anything verifiable. If you want to abolish NOT, that's a different VPP (or a reason to join a fandom wiki). JoelleJay (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can! But that's what we have brains for. To figure out these things, decide what works best. If we keep these articles it doesn't mean we have to keep articles on truly trivial stuff, and we won't. Sure, one person's trivial is another person's non-trivial. There's no way around that, anywhere, choices like this. But if several people are saying it's not too trivial, then it's arguable, and let's come down on the side of keeping info. I mean we are supposed to publish material that would be found in a specialized encyclopedia. The Encyclopedia of World Area Codes seems like a specialized encyclopedia that could reasonably exist.
Remember, we're not talking about "is it worth the time and effort for us to make these articles". Somebody already has. I get that you think that was a silly waste of time. But it's not your time. I'd let it go. Herostratus (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NOT is agnostic to whether an article already exists or not. If it's indiscriminate, it's indiscriminate, even if some people LIKEIT. No information is lost from the world by removing these standalone pages; the info isn't even lost from Wikipedia since most of it is already covered in parent articles. JoelleJay (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe NOT should get some churchin' then. I'll start the sermon: This is the Wikipedia, Not the DMV. NOT, you were made for us, not us for you. NOT, come up and accept the Spirit, the Spirit of Wikipedia, as your guide. Serve the reader.
"Well they can get the info somewhere else" is a poor argument, applies to lots of stuff. And it's bad now to like... sorry, LIKE stuff now? I like a lot of stuff here. Is that wrong? But most everything I like, somebody else doesn't LIKE. So? I don't go messing with stuff I personally don't like. I leave it alone, assuming it's OK. These articles look to be OK. As to the info being in two places, how is that bad? A good user interface guy knows to give people more than one way to get where they want. Press the hotkey, or click the icon, or type the command. People learn and research different ways. Herostratus (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposing what you are saying, but there is an aspect that you do not discuss. In all projects, people need to share a common view of the goal. The details are not important, but there must be something shared in terms of goal. This goal is expressed in the core principles. I am not talking about GNG here, but about the core principles. These say that the content of an article should not be original research, but based on notable sources. What will be the content of the article, if there is no notable source? I don't care about the GNG, but we do not want to make an exception to the spirit of the core principles. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have to be reliable, not notable. Thryduulf (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could write a set of articles about my aunts, based on reliable sources, and I'd only be wasting my own time, but that's still not what Wikipedia is for. We are an encyclopaedia, not an uncurated heap of facts justified merely because they're correct, and somewhere amongst the 8 billion people of the world, someone finds them interesting. Encyclopaedias summarise stuff, condensing multiple secondary sources into a concise tertiary source. In writing individual articles on each area code, at least for the UK, we're doing the reverse: expanding a single, reasonably concise primary source[2] to create a huge number of near-identical boiler-plate articles instead of an overview.

GNG is actually a good guideline, because by requiring secondary sources, it steers us towards creating articles on those area codes about which there is something interesting to say: the area codes whose exchange apparatus was ground-breaking and played a role in the history of the telephone system, those area codes whose exchanges are now part of a museum, or which led to controversies and historically interesting stories.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have the information, I'm just saying that a list/table is a more efficient way to present it to our readers. The choice that a handful of people made in an AfD relating to US area codes, quite a long while ago, shouldn't be allowed to over-rule a discussion now, with a greater number of participants. Nor should those of us who are fascinated by telephones expect that our own interest overrules the general aims of Wikipedia. If we want a fan-site, we should set one up. Elemimele (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The choice that a handful of people made in an AfD relating to US area codes, quite a long while ago, shouldn't be allowed to over-rule a discussion now, with a greater number of participants. The point of this RFC is to assess whether the consensus arrived at then (which was not the result of a single AfD in isolation) has or has not changed, without presupposing that it has or has not. The consensus of this discussion (assuming there is one) will be the controlling consensus going forward until such future time as it is challenged in an appropriately-scaled discussion. It is possible that the consensus arrived at here will be the same as the preceding consensus, but that doesn't mean the old consensus has overruled this one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele @Thryduulf: I can't help but see a slippery slope argument in some of this discussion that I find overstated. The full set of NANP area code articles doesn't have to mean every UK dialing code gets an article, if the community assesses that a typical UK dialing code would make poor a subject of an article. Are we sure the distinction between North America and elsewhere up to now has been completely arbitrary? By the same token, we could question the admissibility of UK postcode areas, most of which are only one or two paragraphs long, on the basis that approximately no one thinks U.S. ZIP code prefixes merit their own articles. Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The full set of NANP area code articles doesn't have to mean every UK dialing code gets an article indeed, and that is why option 4 exists. However if all of one set of codes is automatically notable (e.g. NANP) and another set (e.g. all others) are not then there must logically be something that differentiates the two sets, and my personal view is that unless and until that something is expressed there is no justification for treating the two sets differently. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that nobody bothered to sit down and either 1) figure out what countries' area codes are notable inherently and which ones are not, or 2) figure out what objective criteria should be used (other than GNG) to make such a determination. That is the flaw with option 4. Rschen7754 16:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answering those questions is the point of this RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: For my part, I have already expressed above what I view as a starting point for deciding which countries' telephone systems merit full coverage of area codes. Key for me is the fact that the NANP area codes are one of the principal ways in which people in many of these countries understand geography, a fact that definitely does not apply to every other country.

I did not choose option 4 (nor options 1 through 3), because I felt it would've been arrogant of me to impose my narrow perspective of only 21 countries (NANP plus Vietnam) to the whole world. But clearly others in this discussion have invested more effort into understanding the state of telephony worldwide. I would welcome their wider perspective as to which other regions, if any, assign stable, nontrivial geographies to area codes and use them for non-technical purposes as routinely as in the NANP region.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see those perspectives too, but almost nobody with any useful knowledge has shared it in any of the discussions leading up to this RFC. If you know of people who have that knowledge please encourage them to contribute. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they? GNG is winning so it would be doing a bunch of research to spit into the wind. Rschen7754 20:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not determined counting noses but by the strength of arguments, and people can change their opinion when presented with new information. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because English Wikipedia policy discussions are the place for nuanced discussion. </sarcasm> Rschen7754 19:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: To be clear, I perceive the available options in this RfC to be an unnecessary escalation of the discussions linked from the "Background" section above. Did you expect a detailed defense of North American area codes as, for instance, a cultural touchstone of identity [3] in the middle of a discussion on UK dialing codes, a topic that is surely more interesting to UK-focused editors? Yet now that we've jumped to an RfC affecting the whole project, how much sway can this line of reasoning realistically have on a discussion shaped by such polarizing options as "all", "nothing", or "explicitly favor one set of countries over others"?

As a practical matter, consistency within a given country matters much more than consistency across countries when it comes to systems that developed independently in each country. Finding a global expert on this topic is far too high a bar, because probably no such person exists. But there's currently not a lot of space to have a well-reasoned debate that acknowledges global diversity. I realize this was not your intent, so take this as nothing more than a lament of the circumstances.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the core principles, notability is central. I know that we added the notion of reliability on top of it, but fundamentally, sources are required to be notable. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, article subjects need to be notable, most commonly defined as coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (although there are exceptions, such as populated places, where verifiability of existence is sufficient). The sources do not need to be notable. For example, a peer reviewed academic paper is a reliable source even if the study, author and publisher are not themselves notable. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are not talking about the core principles. The core principles say nothing directly about the admissibility of subjects. So, they do not say that a subject has to be notable. They are only about the content of individual articles. Every wiki is free to define its own admissibility guidelines. The French Wikipedia, for example, has different admissibility guidelines than the English Wikipedia. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion and rationale was under the observation/framework at Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works An article with substantial prose material on this type of topic like the linked examples is highly encyclopedic. GNG is dominant, but due to the first factor weighing in a bit, an article that meets a slightly less rigorous application of GNG is good enough. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link with Precedent in usage in SSE[edit]

What does this RfC mean for this bullet point on WP:SSE? In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. For example, there have been AfD discussions for articles on individual area codes listed in the List of North American Numbering Plan area codes. Currently all links to area codes in use are blue links, which serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference. Note that some links are redirects to merged pages of related groupings such as overlay plans, so normal rules of editing still apply. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay, so it can more or less say whatever the people who write it want it to. It has no actual effect as far as policy goes or the like, though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Doing Nothing[edit]

I see that a few voted for doing nothing. If "doing nothing" means continuing to be vigilant that there is no original research and that the articles are based on secondary sources, not assuming that it is already the case, then yes, that kind of "doing nothing" seems fine. Otherwise, why should every one do nothing ? In other words, there are two kinds of "status quo". The first kind is to continue to remove OR, etc. without assuming that the articles are currently fine. The second kind is to assume the articles can stay as they are, because someone says they are fine. Only the first kind of status quo seems acceptable to me. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it that way at all. I see it as Wikipedia is an amazing triumph of open source, crowd source and volunteer labor that is gradually being chocked to death by ever expanding bureaucracy, cures that are worse than the disease, well intentioned committees that have becomes as bad or worse than the stereotypical HOA, and insistence on policy purity. I see it more like this, some of us know how Wikipedia trounced Encarta, Citizendium, Veropedia, and a dozen other long forgotten online encyclopedias. It frustrates us to see its slow demise by people who insist on making Wikipedia follow the very policy and models used by the very sites it defeated. I see a vote of "do nothing" as, "let's get off this path of every article flaw found means we need yet more and stricter policies. Let's just accept there will be some articles that are useful, even if Encarta or Britannica wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole, and get back to making the best source of information on the planet."Dave (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia core policy of neutrality is what defines it and the very reason why it was successful. There cannot be any other reason why it was successful. Otherwise, it would have been just like any other wiki. This being said, the GNG is not a part of this core policy. This is why I never refer to the GNG when I speak of the foundation of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's neutrality principle is more than only giving due weight to every view point—this is an important but more superficial aspect of neutrality. In addition and above all neutrality requires that Wikipedia (or equivalently Wikipedia's editors) can attribute the content of the article to sources instead of presenting its (or the editors) own view. In that sense, Wikipedia remains neutral and only presents the views found in sources, not its own view or the view of its editors. If there are no secondary sources to analyse the raw data, i.e., the primary sources, what would the article be about? If we stop following this core policy that defines Wikipedia, it will lose its value. Note that lists do not violate this core policy, because it's a presentation of raw data without developing a view by analysing the data. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, what separated Wikipedia's coverage of area codes (etc.) verses Encarta's wasn't that Encarta's was biased and Wikipedia's wasn't. It's that Wikipedia HAD coverage of area codes and Encarta DIDN'T. Wikipedia was a one stop shop for anything you wanted to learn, be it a core article you'd find in any encyclopedia, or that esoteric stuff found in few, if any, encyclopedias. Your point is valid, yes, Wikipedia will always trounce those niche market encyclopedias that exist to preach to the choir and validate them, but it's a different point. All of the former encyclopedias I listed that Wikipedia beat had a goal of neutrality. In fact, some claimed to be better at neutrality than Wikipedia (Citizendium). However, until a few years ago, Wikipedia could produce at least a tolerable article about any subject in a day. Those other guys would take months to produce a new article, with all their approvals and bureaucracy. That's where Wikipedia had the edge, and it's knowingly throwing it away, IMHO, with AFC, NPP and Draftication of everything the policy purists don't like.Dave (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably one of the strictest curationists, and I don't think anyone wants to implement pre-approval processes or other bureaucracy. I, and others like me, want to require that there is sufficient sourcing to create an article on without relying on WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. In other words, we want to require that significant coverage of the topic exists in independent, secondary, and reliable sources; if such coverage exists then we encourage editors to write the article. BilledMammal (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that always going back to the basic core principles might seem annoying, but it kind of makes the whole thing robust when you see the foundation of the more superficial rules. At the beginning of Wikipedia, there was only the neutrality principle and every thing else, including verifiability and NOR, derived from it. They exist implicitly in neutrality. The GNG might go further than what is required for neutrality, but in my view, it would be simpler to always refer to neutrality (the need to attribute points of view, etc.). By adding layers on top layers on top of the basic core principles, we just made things more complicated in my view. The goal of these extra layers was perhaps to make the basic core principles easier to apply, but it did not work. In fact, these extra layers create opportunities to deviate from the core principles. It also makes the editors and the population in general less aware of these foundational principles and that is not a good thing. We should be proud of these core principles and even the general population should know them. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moabdave: Ok, sure the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is what made it more efficient, but if it were not for its neutrality core principle it would not have been Wikipedia and would have failed and it is still a non negotiable pillar of Wikipedia today, as it has always been. Your suggestion that this core principle is a nuisance to the efficiency of Wikipedia is a misinformed view. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see "do nothing" as equivalent to Option A, because Option A is the status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the votes for option 5 are effectively also votes for 4A, pending more information about NANP-like area code usage in other regions. Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under option 4A NANP codes are considered inherently notable and articles about other codes are not. Doing nothing would mean no change, so NANP codes would continue to be inherent notability based on a series of very old AfDs, and the notability of other codes would remain undefined with nothing to explain why they either are or are not different to NANP articles leading to exactly the same inconclusive discussions about them that resulted in this RfC. I thus see doing nothing as actively unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is unclear what the status quo is. I think that most respondents took it to mean "don't do anything special for AC's" and you are noting that in reality it might mean the opposite. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, most of the participants in this RfC have taken the time to express their views beyond a number. To wit, of the five "do nothing" votes: one questions the legitimacy of GNG (the basis of option 1), one means option 4A in practice, one falls back to option 4A if "do nothing" is not an option, and two are indecisive or ambiguous. Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:26, 4 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Telecommunications/Area_codes_RfC&oldid=1167601460"