Jump to content

Talk:Area codes 201 and 551

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

Misinformation regarding rotary dialing

[edit]

Hey folks! The stated rationale of assigning area codes based on population, so as to minimize total rotary dialing time is accurate AFAIK, but 201 is a substantially "longer" code than 212, the code for New York City. This is because on rotary phones, dialing a zero resulted in *ten* clicks. So, 201 is a 13-click number. 212 is actually the "shortest" possible area code, at five clicks. AlexCruise (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information was unsourced and just plain wrong. I have removed it. phreakydancin (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To set the historical record straight, area code assignments had nothing to do with click counts. It is not supported by any historical primary documents, and is just a retrospective, misinformed idea, albeit hard to eradicate. kbrose (talk)

Talk:Area code 201

[edit]

Keep it! Useful info! Maybe some people wouldn't find such an article interesting, but I think the ever-increasing number of area codes is pretty cool.172.162.112.139 00:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From VfD:

Barely a stub, and do we want an article about each of the hundreds of area codes? RickK 19:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC) Re-listed on vfd due to a deadlocked discussion Graham ☺ | Talk 23:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These articles have use value in tracking down the geographic location of incoming calls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.200.123 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but relocate it and the others to North American area code xxx. –Hajor
  • I live in the 760 area code. It's a spinoff of both the 714 and 619 area codes and is the largest in California, stretching along the eastern half of the state from just above San Diego to well past the Sierra Nevadas. Now...does anyone really care? Besides Anthony, that is. :^) Move to the list of area codes. - Lucky 6.9 21:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Great idea, move it and wait in anticipation for a few created by myself! And then I'll create an article for all the exchanges in my area code and list every phone number in each exchange. That'd sort of be like my threatened Syracuse to Washington, DC flights article! No, but seriously, area codes is a good idea. Just move it to the normed format. newkai 22:18, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I also support the idea of moving to North American Area Code XXX -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Graham, esp. since some area codes (e.g. 202, 212, etc.) are legitimately famous. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable, subject to change. Only a few area codes are notable, we don't need articles for the rest. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as this can be easily checked, and information in these is often hard to find in one unified source. Burgundavia 00:41, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivia that is subject to change and is easily available in other places where it is professionally maintained. (I personally downloaded a similar list as a Palm app.) Content is adequately covered in the main article List of North American area codes. Rossami 04:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why do we need articles on area codes with no particular significance? This seems to fall under my "that's why the rest of the internet exists" criterion. We don't need to mirror every bit of information in existance, especially if it's easilly available elsewhere, which area codes are. Isomorphic 07:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Quickly before it spawns Area codes that begin with "2" - Tεxτurε 17:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Isn't List of North American area codes enough? Unless there's enough for any particular area code to require more than a one-sentence writeup, why have one for each code? This is better suited to a simple list than anything else, and we already have that. This is just useless WikiGlut. --Fastfission 22:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) Okay, it's been rewritten, but I think maybe it should just be renamed "Area codes of the New Jersey area" or something like that, as it's about more than one, now. Or better yet, as an example in an Area codes article about how electronic communications have created new area code splits. So, I guess I change my vote to merge and move to a more appropriate article -- the article is not about "Area code 201," but that instead about how New Jersey has a billion area codes. --Fastfission 23:56, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. WikiGlut indeed. JFW | T@lk 00:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been substantially fleshed out, and is interesting. I don't know if most US area codes have a history like this, but this one justifies an article.--gadfium 00:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Jersey City and redirect. Things like that belong to a section within the main article for the geographical area. cesarb 23:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, reasons as for Graham. Aaron Hill 04:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)

Current tally at time of re-listing on Votes for deletion: 7 keep (under this or a different title), 7 delete, 4 merge (with a disagreement of where to merge to) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are some area code stubs from New York that are a bit informative, if not short. I think they're quite valid and need to be represented. Mike H 23:59, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • US-POV-centric. Needs renaming to NANP Area Code 201 (North American Numbering Plan). Other than that, keep - David Gerard 00:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why not, it's interesting and would be hard to find elsewhere. -- orthogonal 02:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename North American area code 201. Spectatrix 04:32, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
  • I think the topic might be better served as part of an article on New Jersey area codes more generally. Everyking 07:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It'll be a useful adjunct to the categories listing all articles in or related to a particular area code. Jamesday 09:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - --Buster 15:23, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep & move into not US-centric name. Przepla 15:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Area codes 201 and 551 → North American telephone area codes 201 and 551 — (Also applies to all the other articles listed at List of North American Numbering Plan area codes.) Simply entitling these articles e.g. Area codes 201 and 551 instead of North American telephone area codes 201 and 551 represents a US-centric view, which should be avoided. 86.155.123.221 (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also not in favour of USA-centrism and am interested accurate titling. However, as far as I can tell the codes are not normally called "North American telephone area codes". They are called simply "area codes". And, since you agree that there's no disambiguation, then there's no need for an original research title. — AjaxSmack 21:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only recently did the rest of the world start referring to there codes as "area codes". It's not our fault they can't use another phrase. North America originated the area code. --PhilthyBear (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any evidence to back that up? I'd be very surprised. You're stretching the definition of "recently" somewhat also; I certainly used the term in Europe more than 20 years ago, and it didn't seem like a new term then. I must get around to writing a page WP:INSULAR for everyone that hasn't travelled outside of North America... Aubergine (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Globalize template

[edit]

I removed the globalize template on the article. It was said that there are millions of people in China that use a 551 area code. However, a separate article should be written rather than changing this article to include information about the Chinese area code. They are separate things and the only common elements are that they are both area codes and they share the same number. As an example, when two or more cities share the same name, like Springfield, separate articles are written about each city, despite the fact that they share the same name. In addition, it is even more inconvenient to add information about the Chinese area code to this article because it covers the 201 area code, as well. It is unlikely that the Chinese have done the same area code split. If someone writes an article on the Chinese area code, then there should be a disambiguation page or at least a link to the Chinese article at the top of this article. -- Kjkolb (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Area codes 201 and 551. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area codes 201 and 551. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 February 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Area codes 201 and 551 → United States area codes 201 and 551United States area codes 201 and 551 – Area code redirects to a paragraph that talks about area codes all over the world. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 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.

first-assigned numbering plan area

[edit]

The text claims that 201 was "the first-assigned numbering plan area". This gives the impression that it was chronologically first. No evidence is provided to support this.

There are some versions of this claim stating that 201 was at the top of the list of area codes, since the list contained the entire 86 original area codes, but still makes the claim of being first. This claim of being "first" is thus confusing and misleading. See, for example List of New Jersey area codes (6 February 2025) and Original North American area codes (10 May 2025). Fabrickator (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we have no detailed account of the internal Bell Labs discussions of the actual work progress of assigning NPAs by the final methodology. But the pattern of placement of NPAs or states onto a tabular grid of NPA codes (filling the upper left half) highly suggests that 201 may indeed been the first one, even on a time-base, as it is almost unfathomable not to start with the very first cell (201) of the assignment table, and instead skip it. NJ was first in trials and implementations of a lot of Bell Labs technologies. NJ being on top of the list appears highly prejudiced by the overwhelming presence of Bell Labs facilities there. This appears true just the same for 202 (D.C.), currying favors with regulators there in the federal government. But in the end that table got published in its entirety in 1947, not in small increments. The statement of "first assigned" is fairly common in various writings about the area codes decades later, and we have no real argument or evidence to judge against it. I suppose the statements could be rewritten more generically, but, to me, it has never seemed urgent or opportune to change or challenge it. We have enough problems with the historical accounts of NPAs already. For example the claims of area code splits in the first few years are nothing but useless discoveries as area codes had no practical meaning until an area actually had a #4 XB installed. But this assessment is blurred by the lack of documentation about when NPAs were used in manual lookup tables of route operators within each toll center. kbrose (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lack of evidence that area code 201 was factually "implemented" (which would have meant that it was usable through "operator toll dialing") earlier than any of the 85 other area codes in the initial area code implementation. I will note that you have made certain speculative "claims" (e.g. such as the order in which someone completed an area code grid along a particular pattern that you seemingly claim to be an obvious approach). Anyway, in the absence of a reliable source, these speculations are irrelevant for our purposes. Fabrickator (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding your recent edit, the statement still gives the impression that area code 201 was (in some sense) "implemented first", rather than merely that it was at the top of the list of area codes (i.e. because it was the lowest-numbered area code). I would suggest that the claim of being the lowest-numbered area code is not worthy of mention.
Additionally, in the context of the subsequent statement about 201 being the first to provide DDD, this is misleading because the early availability of DDD was a demonstration that did not apply broadly throughout 201, but but that this was a demonstration restricted to a small set of exchanges. While it's historically notable that 201 was involved in the DDD demo, it's misleading to fail to note this limitation. Fabrickator (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Good history requires more than just facts, documented or not, but an understanding of context. While DDD in Englewood was indeed an experiment, it was so successful that it was never ended. The fact that it was locally restricted is of no concern. It was not a "demo", but a serious test and study of technology and customer response. It was an advance of the same numbering plan and switching plan of operator toll dialing, which was a prerequisite. All telephone networks advanced by local improvements, one central office or tandem at a time. DDD was almost a two-decade project. The switches in NJ were also the first ones that received the new transistorized translators in the No. 4A XB in 1953, in fact the first commercial use of transistors. NJ also was first in electronic switching (ESS), and then in TSPS. These advances happen because of historical progress and proximity to the engineering staff. The references and the article on the original area codes clearly show the reason and sequence of NPA assignments. There is little room for reading the intentions. kbrose (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell, you haven't addressed the first issue I raised, which was the lack of a basis for the claim that 201 was the "first" numbering plan area. A claim that 201 had a lower numeric value than all the other area codes would be accurate, though whether or not that's a noteworthy fact is perhaps debatable (and then we risk getting into other ways as to how the area codes could be ranked). Fabrickator (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't believe in technical or philosophical merits, it is surprising that you don't believe in the definition of "first" in, e.g., the Oxford Dictionary. kbrose (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it seems like you're trying to offend me, but it's really going over my head. Can you please be more explicit about the points you are trying to make? 08:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
The belief exists (and I agree) that 201 and 202 were assigned prejudicially to NJ and DC, before any other codes. I already changed the phrase "first assigned" to just "first" to accomodate your concern. By any dictionary, first can mean numerically first, chronologically first, among others. So the current characterization ("first") appears perfectly neutral, as 201 is indeed the first area code of all valid area codes. But that doesn't seem to satisfy you either. kbrose (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey was a toss-up as to whether it should have been a single-area or multi-area state, had they been going by population alone, as the population was a near-tie with multi-area-code Massachusetts. But notwithstanding the plausibility of a pro-Bell Labs bias, New Jersey's population made a good case for being assigned close to the top of the single-area code states, yet that would suggest a bias against Virginia's 703, with a similar population to New Jersey. However, after the top few single-area states, populations were all comparatively small (e.g. under 1 million). Perhaps the best case for a "bias" in selection would be Washington, D.C., inasmuch as the national capital, it could be expected to receive an above-average number of calls from across the country. In short, the population considerations among the single area code states are quite weak, which is understandable since they are stuck with the 10-pulse zero in the middle. Fabrickator (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are still arguing about nothing, because you don't grasp the essence of NPA decisions. Population size had little to do with it, as long as the numbering plan area could be served with 500 or so central offices. It turns out that NJ could exist just fine for another 15 years with office code protection, half of that time even after the 1956 split. Comparing to 703 makes no sense looking at population. With your logic you cannot explain why Kansas had two NPAs, just as one example. You are also still stuck in the dial pulse counting conspiracy thinking. kbrose (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get your point that population only indirectly affects the need for multiple area codes. However, as a single-area code state, New Jersey was able to get a more distinctive area code without conflicting with the priorities associated with assignment of area codes for multi-area code states.
The idea that each decision made must have a specific explanation (or a specific set of explanations) is not really a part of an appropriate methodology. Each decision about an area code could be based on particular reasoning. That said, you refer to certain decisions as "prejudicial". We have an hypothesis for Washington, DC, which relates (by at least one interpretation) to both a higher proportion of inbound calls (people from around the country contacting their representatives in Congress or maybe farmers calling the USDA, for instance.
But was that prejudicial? I suppose you could argue that Bell Labs was full of pro-big government liberals who wanted a government that was easier to contact. Or you could look at it based on the fact that each of those calls meant more revenue for AT&T. So this would be in the public interest and at the same time, financially advantageous to the company.
In any case, disparaging the 201 assignment by describing it as based on "prejudice" seems an inappropriate characterization. Having said that, none of this relates to the issue of whether 201 was chronologically first. The initial NPA assignments were released simultaneously, and as far as I am aware, none of the sources indicate a chronological order of when the various area codes became functional for Operator Toll Dialing. Fabrickator (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Had AT&T and Bell Labs been in, say, Oregon, or California, likely we would have seen that state with the first area code, and D.C. would have likely been much less on their mind than on the East Coast. That is what I meant with 'prejudicial'. kbrose (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the eastern states were highly interwoven by toll routes, especially NY and NJ, and these two states were always linked by their history of a single operating company. Interstate dialing between them was extensive. Many executive engineers worked at AT&T and NY/NJ so that a prejudice must have existed. kbrose (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it is highly suggestive that the first two area codes assignments were indeed 201 and 212, there are no obvious references for that in the public and so it is useless to discuss this here as the article no longer makes the assertion. kbrose (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Area_codes_201_and_551&oldid=1295937843"