Category talk:NANP area codes

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

NAND[edit]

Is there any such thing as a NAND area code? I mean, anywhere in the world outside of Wikimedia Commons? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I’m sure you have a point. -- Tuválkin 02:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
What does NAND stand for in this context? Neither wikipedia nor Google searches have been much help in answering that question. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I get the point now: Well, it is a misspelling for NANP. My apologies, will rename. -- Tuválkin 15:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
✓  Done . -- Tuválkin 15:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

1 (number)[edit]

@Tuvalkin: Did you add parent Category:1 (number) because of the country code? Because NANP area codes don't necessarily contain 1. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, by now I know what’s in NANP area codes quite well: The rule about having only 1 or 0 as the middle digit was abandoned like 25 years ago. No, the NANP countries have the UPU ITU country code +1, just like Russia has +7 and the Netherlands has +31 and Portugal has +351. Maybe we’ll have some day Category:+1 under Category:1 (number); till then, this is good enough. -- Tuválkin 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • But it still doesn't make sense. +1 has nothing to do with NANP area codes. Country codes are an entirely different system. In fact, I'd wager that the majority of people with an NANP area code have no idea what +1 means. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe (just like any, say, Russian is not aware of what +7 is?), but still it makes sense. When you are abroad and want to call, say, Angola, you dial +244 and then the local number(s), and when you want to call, say, Bolivia, you dial +591 and then the local number(s), and when you want to call, say, Canada, you dial +1 and then the local number(s) — which, in the latter case, include a NANP area code and then the subscriber’s number. (In all these cases "+" stands for the local international dialing preffix: Usually these days it is 00, but it is 011 in NANP countries, 810 in Russia etc.)
For anyone standing outside, and for the ITU, the NANP area (U.S. + Canada + all the other locations) is like one single country. (Just like Italy+Vatican, in practice, or, before 1996, France+Monaco.) That’s why it makes sense to put Category:NANP area codes under Category:+1, just like it makes sense to put Category:Telephone numbers in Japan under Category:+81 (redlink, for now) etc. See also en:List of country calling codes.
-- Tuválkin 14:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought it was obvious that I didn't need an explanation of your logic, since I figured out on my own why you added the 1 to begin with. I understand why you did it, I just think your logic of applying it here is flawed. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I’m sorry I gave an explanation, then. Will you explain why is it illogic in your opinion, or will you go on mincing words as elsewhere on this page? -- Tuválkin 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean about mincing words elsewhere on this page. I don't like the +1 category for several reasons. NANP codes are used both with or without +1 or (even 1) so they are not inherently connected. I realize that, in Europe, you are used to using +X when dialing numbers, and consider it part of the phone number, but it's not exactly. The +1 is established by the ITU-T as a country code, whereas the north American system is administered by NANPA. The + is just a signifyer for an actual exit code, and the exit code itself is a separate function, not part of the phone number or the NANP as a whole.
Moreover, it seems rather unlikely route to me. You're essentially using a category for the effect of "Numbers starting with +1" which, to me, is as useful as putting Category:12 (number) in Category:1 (number). If you had Category:1 (Country calling code) that would at least be logical, but of course, it would be impossible to fill with enough files to justify it. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
-- Tuválkin 14:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, what makes you think I knew it was a typo? I don't think I had ever heard of NANP before. I came to the discussion a month after you responded and no one had yet explained what the acronym was about. I didn't add the category description link to North American Numbering Plan until after you moved the category. You note that the intial question was not from me, right? It's possible that Jim Henderson was being snide, but I'd rather assume good faith. From the looks of it, it seems I also assumed good faith when you responded with "I assume you have a point" and tried to restate Jim's question for the sake of clarity. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't imagine why you'd imply that Europeans dial internationally less than North Americans. It's obviously a far more intergrated transborder economy, and international calls between european states require an exit code, even within the same country code. (e.g. from Spain to France). International calls between the United States and Canada, however, do not require the exit code.
As for the rest of your points about commons categorization, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)