Talk:List of country calling codes

The change made by Omnipaedista on 26 April 2022 should be reversed to the original text. The original text was an alphabetical listing of the calling codes for Jamaica. All other countries with multiple codes are listed alphabetically. See Dominican Republic as an example.

Change this:

• • +1 876 / 658 –   Jamaica

To this:

• • +1 658 / 876 –   Jamaica Zerorelative (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Done — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Gilgit-Baltistan.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The tabular (tree) list is notoriously confusing and I don't really see much in terms of its informational value. In its current shape, it rather looks like a creation of a telecommunication fan than a part of an encyclopaedia. Given that all the information it contains is duplicated in a much more legible form in the "Ordered by code" section underneath, I propose to get rid of the table altogether. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

As an engineer who once worked in telecomms, I find that table interesting and believe others would too. Hence - to avoid losing it altogether on the "live" page - why not just move it down the page to below the "Ordered by code" section? Anameisbutaname^Talk 09:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

If a user finds something confusing, and therefor finds no informational value does not mean it should be deleted for others. DON'T LOOK AT IT! After all, this is a list article and we cannot expect everyone to like all presentations. Such list format is pretty common, and conveys structure. How many users does it take to complain when something is notorious? However, what **is** confusing and WRONG in this page is the indiscriminate use of the plus sign. The sign is not part of the country code, it is was created to remind people to dial the access code first when displaying a full international telephone number. When listing country codes there is no such need. kbrose (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

"If you don't like it, don't look at it." Really? This is Wikipedia, and the motto here is: if you don't like it, be bold and improve it.

Also, the plus sign is not any "reminder for people" but a standardised international access code originally part of the GSM standard. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

As was discussed above, I have moved the "Tabular List" towards the end of the article so that it remains available for those who find it as interesting as I do. Anameisbutaname^Talk 14:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

No problem - now we're both happy! Anameisbutaname^Talk 17:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Kbrose undid my move of the Tabular List, giving this reason: Undid revision 1143562510 by Anameisbutaname (talk) "Tabular list ought to be first because it provides a concise overview and more information, and can be scrolled over very quickly, in opposition to the long list." I'm sorry to see that because I thought we had reached a friendly compromise. I hope Kbrose will reconsider what he has done and have asked him about that on his own Talk page. Anameisbutaname^Talk 17:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to repeat my considered edit comment here or anywhere, because it has already been considered. Any user of the long list has to scroll miles anyways, to find what they want or they can use a search field, but the concise table provides it all on almost one page without scrolling. It is clearly the better table and provide more information as well.kbrose (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The plus sign is not part of the code, and E.164 and E.123 have not changed their mind either. kbrose (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am also in favor of moving the complex table down. Most readers would use the long one, specialists could scroll down to the complex table. Dajasj (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I really do not understand why the tabular list has been moved down. It was very useful and gave an immediate overview of the country codes. I do not understand where the confusion was or how someone could get confused by it. What is annoying now, is that we need to scroll down almost to the end to find this very useful table. Instead, we have a long list of countries with codes. I propose to move the table back to the front where it was before. If you want to keep it down (where it is now) at any price, please introduce a table of content at the beginning of the contribution, so that the table would be accessible through one click.

Nicolas Hermann FR (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The section headline "Russia and neighboring countries" is inaccurate. Besides Russia, it only lists one neighbouring country (Kazakhstan), but also four occupied territories that are either unilaterally annexed by Russia, or form pseudo-republics that are recognized by almost no other state. A better headline is needed. -- Frau Holle (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find any external sources describing the regions in a quick look. Uncommon if it exists, so perhaps best to just have the zone numbers. CMD (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the new phraseology is an improvement. kbrose (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, it wasn't an improvement. These puppet "states" aren't even recognised by Russia any more, it claims that they are now part of Russia. Wikipedia is not in the business of conferring any legitimacy on Putin's claims. De facto, Russia operates what telephony services as exist in the ruins but de jure (ITU and well as UN), they are part of Georgia and Ukraine. So I have corrected it so that it now reads Telephony services in Russian-occupied territories of Georgia and Ukraine are operated by Russian entities and use the 7 prefix.

I have also corrected the section title to "Russia and Kazakhstan" --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Russia does not claim the Georgian areas are part of Russia. I also doubt Russia has changed the service in most of the Ukrainian territory. At any rate, the removal of specific information does not help readers. CMD (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, it does not make that claim but de facto its occupation forces prevent the Government of Georgia from excercising control over its sovereign territory. The CCC for Georgia is 995, as allocated by the ITU. Not 7. Wikipedia should give the ITU allocations, not give any recognition to Putin's Greater Russia fantasies. Yes, we should report the facts on the ground but we must do so in a way that identifies them as force majeure, not treat them in the same way as the rest of table so as to give any suggestion of normality.

And Russia does claim that southeast Ukraine is part of Russia, having abandoned the pretence that the Donbas oblasts are "independent". The question is moot given that so much of the infrastructure has been destroyed. No-one is going to make a call to Mariupol using 380 or 7 anytime soon but a call to Luhansk might get through via 7 but the Russians will reject a call via 380.

It does help readers to know which assertions are legitimate and which are not. In the final analysis, see WP:NOTGUIDE: whatever practical mechanism someone uses to make a call is of no concern to us (and anyway they probably use Telegram or Signal . --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

And the stunningly unreliable sources given are gov.ru and tass.ru, which are deprecated. So let's look at the authoritive source, the ITU's LIST OF RECOMMENDATION ITU-T E.164 ASSIGNED COUNTRY CODES. It says "7 Russia" and "7 Kazakhstan". That's it. No fantasy "countries". I have marked the section as disputed but I'm calling it out as WP:Original research. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been mostly out of Georgian control since long before Putin, and those areas have likely never used 995. Noting this is not a recognition of a particular fantasy. At any rate, opinions on such fantasies are also a poor basis on which to edit the article. There are quite a few territories that for one reason or another lie outside the expected country code noted throughout the article, it doesn't make sense to treat this section any differently. CMD (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a big difference between practical convenience and gross breach of international law. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've removed flag templates for the DPR and LPR, since there're currently no statehood claims (technically, both regions are disputed territories and two competing dialling schemes seem to be in parallel use). I'm keeping the flags of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which claim statehood. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well neither Russian nor Ukraine recognise these "states". In international law, they are provinces of Ukraine. In Russian law, they are provinces of Russia.^[1] And in any case, 948 and 949 are area codes, not country codes. Just like Moscow (495); Saint Petersburg (727); Novosibirsk (383). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC) ... and we have no evidence that there are any dialling schemes in practical use, let alone "two competing dialling schemes". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Of course there are. People located in Kiev can call, say, a Luhansk number by dialling either 072xxxxxxx or +7959xxxxxxx, with a price difference.

By the way, international public law does not concern itself with statehood recognition. Recognition (or not) of a territory as an independent state is always a sovereign decision of each and every state. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Where is your evidence that either route from Kyiv exists? "Don't you know there's a war on?"

That doesn't change the fact that these polities are now no longer recognised as states by anyone anywhere: they are now either part of Ukraine, part of Russia, or both.

(072) is a Ukraine area code; (959) is a Russia area code. I see no country code here. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The discussion here and the article should not concern themselves too much with the current exact routing of calls, especially not on political theory or speculation. Also, these tables are not directories, or recipes for dialing, avoid WP:HOWTO. And avoid political propaganda sources, as have crept into this article now. kbrose (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@John Maynard Friedman I don't care about who recognises who. I care that people can call a Luhansk phone number (yes, phone numbers in Luhansk operate quite well) using either of the two dialling schemes. I don't care how Ukrainian or Russian operators route these calls, since this is transparent to the caller. As you might have noticed, this is an article about international calling codes; not about call routing, territorial claims, statehood recognition, etc. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Precisely. It is a list of country calling codes. No more and no less. It is not a "how to call abc from xyz". Nor is it an article about international call routing mechanisms. Nor about who recognises who or who has jurisdiction over what. But neither is it a vehicle to identify a particular calling plan and assert that, since someone in country A can use that number from that plan to call someone in country B, that makes it a country calling code. It does not. To claim otherwise is WP: original research and simply faulty logic.

The ITU takes the decision out of our hands: it is the sole registry of CCCs. If is not in the ITU list, it is not a CCC. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, tell it to Kazakhstan, whose +997 country code is not on that list.

Once again: as you can certainly see, this is a list of codes used for dialling a country, along with information about situations where that code is used to dial another polity. Nothing OR about it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I believe this to be a fair summary of the debate at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard:

1. This article is a "list of Country calling codes". It is not a guide advising visitors how to make an international call.
2. The only reliable source for Country Calling Codes is the International Telecommunications Union LIST OF RECOMMENDATION ITU-T E.164 ASSIGNED COUNTRY CODES. This is sui generis data and wp:PRIMARY does not apply.
3. If a country (however defined, it doesn't matter) does not have an entry in the ITU registry, then by definition it does not have a Country Calling Code, period. It is a wp:no original research violation to assert that it does, because such an assertion is certain to fail WP:V.
4. An area code assigned by a neighbouring country (for whatever reason) is still an area code, it is not a Country Calling Code.

This means the we now need to begin deletion of entries that are area codes, not country codes. It may be that they could be moved down to the section "Locations with no country code", but they would still need a WP:RS to comply with wp:verification. It also means removing "embellishments" (country name to be as spelled in the ITU list – for example, just "Morocco").

Any observations before I begin? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

If your intention is to remove disputed regions that may be dialled using local codes from the disputing countries, then it's a no from my side, primarily because this is encyclopaedic information.

Besides, the ITU list is (1) outdated, (2) lists only member countries, however ITU membership is neither compulsory nor universal. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, my intention is to remove everything that is not a country code. So all area codes will be deleted, irrespective of which numbering plan they belong to, thus avoiding any need for Wikipedia to adjudicate between competing claims. All this has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: the only reliable source for country calling codes is the ITU list, there is no other source. (I am not aware of any attempt to establish an alternative registry, the equivalent of (denounced) alternative DNS roots for internet addresses.) To retain them, pretending that they are country calling codes, is a violation of WP:No original research. Wikipedia relies on many sources that may be seen as in need of updating (Census results, for example): in all such cases, we wait for the update, this one is no different.

To minimise misunderstanding, at the top of the article I will quote the ITU's hatnote:

• The designations employed and the presentation of material in this List do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the ITU concerning the legal status of any country or geographical area, or of its authorities.

  — International Telecommunications Union

This question has been discussed to death, please let's not string it out any longer. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Strong oppose. Providing dialling codes for, say, Jersey, Guersney, or Isle of Man is certainly what an encyclopaedia should be about. It doesn't matter that these are not independent countries (although they are not part of the United Kingdom either). If additional sourcing is missing, it can be added easily.

The headings in this article should not be confused with List of sovereign states. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not a list of sovereign states nor should it be. It is a list of polities that have an E.164.1 country calling code, as registered by the ITU. The Channel Islands and IoM do not have their own country calling code, they have area codes within +44. For comparison, Gibraltar does have a CCC (+350) – other British overseas territories have their own codes too – so omission of the adjacent Crown Dependencies is not an accident. To include them despite their absence from the registry is unambiguously original research. Their area codes ("STD codes") are described in Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom#Crown dependencies, which is where they belong. As has already been said a number of times, Wikipedia is not a guide and Wikipedia is not a how to; the infobox at the Isle of Man article gives its area code and that is where the encyclopedic presence belongs.

Hard cases make bad law: yes there are edge cases that present difficulties but if we stick to the ITU list, we have a justifiable position for inclusion or exclusion and it is one that does not require Wikipedia editors to make a value judgement.

You are adding nothing that has not already been dealt with at the Noticeboard. Your only recourse now is to escalate to WP:ANI because I see no purpose in reiterating the same arguments here, over and over again. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is a list of country codes and codes shared with polities that do not have an own E.164.1 code.

Much like Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom includes dialling codes for polities not being part of the United Kingdom (such as Crown Dependencies or Overseas Territories). Yes, intuitiveness and user convenience do matter on Wikipedia.

By the way, ANI is for incidents, not for content disputes. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The title of the article is "List of country calling codes". It is not "list of country calling codes and miscellaneous area codes that took my fancy". It is not "list of ways to make an international call". Intuitiveness certainly does matter but accuracy and honesty matter more. We must rely on authoritative sources. We can't just let an article become bloated with forked material. We can't pollute articles with unsourced and unsourceable assertions. If these principles are challenged then it is not a content dispute but a policy dispute and that makes it an incident that needs an ANI reference to resolve. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Then feel free to file it at ANI. I see no point repeating my oppose to this ill-thought idea any more. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

By the way, the same ITU "country code" document also lists assignments to telecommunication operators. Will you be trying to call all those operators "countries", because "ITU says so"? — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The ITU has a note "Integrated numbering plan": should we write that as Integrated numbering plan without explanation; [[North American numbering plan|Integrated numbering plan]]; or avoid the WP:EGG and write the note as [[North American numbering plan]]? I prefer the last one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agree with writing out North American numbering plan. Important for the proposal is that +1 is the ITU code, with the NANP providing different area codes (or multiple area codes) for each country. CMD (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

North American Numbering Plan is the WP:COMMONNAME and I'm against renaming it to Integrated numbering plan. This is not an ITU technical document but an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good, that makes it unanimous. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

unbelievable. kbrose (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not much of all this makes much sense. There is no doctrine that says that this article can only list the code/country associations that are listed by the ITU. Any entity is free to associate with another to obtain routing through a provider, and that means that they have a country code too. Just not their own. This is the way the NANP operates, after all. There are plenty of reliable references for such arrangements, and it does not make it original research when not listed in an ITU document. Writing that 2 + 2 = 4 without reference is not OR, if no reference exists. It is not OR to state that the Vatican uses 39, even though they have their own ITU code, they just don't use it. As the table shows already there are many arrangements like that, and they ought to be accepted, if the entry can be supported reliably. Clearly an area code is not a country code, nor is a country code plus area code, and that was the reason I placed the area codes in parentheses for distinction. It seems highly useful to list them, without being in violation of NOTDIRECTORY or NOTHOWTO. This is an article to inform, not to regurgitate standards documents. kbrose (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

But there certainly is a doctrine that the content of articles should at least broadly match their content. We must make our best efforts to be accurate. Area codes are not country calling codes. The only authoritative source for country calling codes is the ITU registry: there is no competitive registry (like the failed attempts to create competitive alternatives to the Internet Domain Naming System (DNS)).

Any entity is free to associate with another to obtain routing through a provider, – true and that means that they have a country code too. No, not true. That is not a country calling code, it is bilateral routing code.

By the way, the CCC for the Vatican is +39. Same as Italy. (Just like +1 is shared by US, Canada, Jamaica and about twenty more, each individually listed in the ITU document.)

I do appreciate that you have put a lot of effort into researching and adding these area codes, but you have put them in the wrong article. You need to put them where they belong. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I didn't add any area codes. I just emphasized that they are not part of the country code by adding () punctuation, so that there is no confusion. The ITU-granted country code of Vatican City is 379. 39 is just a borrowed code from their provider, Italy. 39 is a country code no matter what you think about with your nonsense about bilateral routing. You can't have it both ways. Either you admit you're wrong and the ITU is the only reference in town, or you abandon the latter, and let many countries have the country code of their provider. If I get a telephone with area code 'NPA' from a provider then that is my area code too, no matter where I am. Make up your mind. This is just crazy idiocracy. If you want to cling to ITU documents then drop the + sign too, it is not part of the code, it is punctuation for complete telephone numbers in presentation, a dialing aid, and should not be used with just the code, where it is useless, unneeded embellishment. Global titles don't use it and SS7 does not know about it either. kbrose (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

So you recognise that the area codes are not country calling codes, are not part of the country calling code, yet continue to insist on their presence. I'm sure you have a logic behind that but it is not obvious what it is. But the fact remains that area codes are not country calling codes and it is OR to claim otherwise.

According to the ITU table: 379 Vatican City State and 39 Vatican City State. If the ITU says that the Vatican has two CCCs, who am I to argue? But it is not a "borrowed code from their provider, Italy": the Italian state does not provide telephone services. Yes, it is almost certain that the Vatican has a contract for telephone service from one of the companies listed at List of Italian telephone companies and that the international infrastructure is not used for what are in reality local calls within Rome. But enclosed micro-states are special cases and no valid general inference can be made from their peculiarities. I see no value in digging this hole any deeper.

NPA (Number Planning Area/Number Plan Area/Numbering Plan Area), also known simply as an Area Code, is the three-digit number that identifies the telephone service region. For example, if you have the phone number 555-101-1234, the NPA would be 555. (Bandwidth.com). So how is that remotely relevant to Country Calling Codes?

I am well aware that the plus sign is not part of the CCC and is just a widely used convenient indicator in running text that this is a CCC, not just a random number. Nowhere have I indicated in any way an intent or expectation that it should be given in the article.

The ITU is the only reference in town. Your let many countries have the country code of their provider makes no sense because CCCs are allocated to countries not providers. [We may be at cross purposes here? To me, a "provider" is a telecomms company but you seem to be using it unconventionally to mean a country?] It is for each individual country to determine how their national number plan is organised between its TelCos (in the UK, for example, TelCos have to share area codes and a fully qualified number is portable between TelCos). If country A allocates one of its area codes to numbers in the territory B, that is an incidental detail: it does not make that CCC|AC string a Country Calling Code.

So I have to say again: an article called "List of country calling codes" should consist only of country calling codes as defined in E.164.1. Area codes within a given national numbering plan belong in the relevant articles, not here. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

More hairsplitting and senseless Bullshit. Just for the sake of arguing. It is a waste of time to engage here. No, country codes are not given to countries, they are given to members of the ITU. The members are usually agencies of their respective governments, and thus are simply referred to as countries, but they don't have to be. The term country code is just a short form for convenience, like area code is a short form of numbering plan area code, at least in the country that defined this. Listing the area code in addition to the CC is just good practice and informational, just like listing the time zone is, because it informs readers of closely relates or useful data. None of it qualifies as OR. It is plain stupid not to list it. If you want to delete something, start with the entire long list, because it is just duplication of the following table, which can be sorted by columns. kbrose (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let's discuss this like adults and skip the WP:NPA. This is a nicely structured dataset, so "hairsplitting" (aka value judgements) doesn't arise. It either is or is not, there are no grey areas.

Please read International Telecommunication Union#Member states: Membership of ITU is open to all member states of the United Nations. The members are not "agencies of their respective governments" although their representatives are likely to be national experts. Same deal as the World Health Organization etc etc. Your claim that [members] are simply referred to as countries, but they don't have to be is unambiguously false: they are countries and they do have to be.

Country codes are not "given" to members of the ITU since the ITU is its members: there is no "giver". There is a broad methodology of allocation by geographic area. When a new member is admitted, members reach consensus on which number it should have, taking into account its size and broad regional location.

Listing the area code in addition to the CC is just good practice – no, it is not good practice: the established good practice all over Wikipedia is that broad concept articles should not be cluttered with detail: that is why we have more detailed subsidiary articles. That's the beauty of a hypertext encyclopedia. There is however a specific and limited problem with the small countries (UN members) that share the North American Numbering Plan, because they have pseudo-area codes rather than their own dedicated country codes. The solution I have proposed above is that we give that detail as a footnote that will display on mouse over. NB that every one of those countries is listed in the ITU register, with its country code that it just happens to share with its neighbours because it has proved most convenient that way.

I will start on the clean-up next week. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is British Telecommunications a member of ITU? Or Inmarsat? No. So why have they been allocated country codes (or so the ITU document is titled)?

Your stubborn deference to the ITU document is taking the discussion nowhere. As you are in a minority, I suggest you either drop the stick or, if you're really unable to, just publish an RfC here to gauge the consensus. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I know of no other case where an RFC has been required to have an article be what its title says it is. Nor has there ever been an RFC to require that material in an article is supported by a reliable source.

The only reliable source for country calling codes is the body that manages the database, the International Telecommunications Union. Neither you nor anyone else has produced any source whatever that supports any other definition of a CCC. The continued pretence that some <country calling code>/<area code> combination is also a country calling code is blatant WP:OR (as well as a logical nonsense).

No, BT, Inmarsat etc are certainly not members of the ITU. I would expect you to realise that global TelCos need test codes and that the nations where they reside would request such facilities on their behalf. These uses are clearly identified as such in the table, as are codes reserved for prospective non-country global services. These are not CCCs, as the source makes abundantly clear.

So the only stick I see being wielded here is one to defend the indefensible, to give a veneer of legitimacy to a war criminal's fantasies. Provide the reliable sources or give way. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let me remind you of WP:TPG and WP:NOTSOAPBOX, unless you are asking for an admin sanction. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Any organization that has been allocated a country code has to be a member of the ITU, and pay their dues according their status, and maintain that status. They also must continually justify the use of the resources allocated. Most large carriers around world are ITU members, even if they do not hold CC allocations. You have no status to remind editors here, because you do not have the expertise, as is clear. Using terms like you do ("managing the database", and others) provides no credibility, it is silly. Many credible orgs have databases of CCs.

It is also silly to assume that the ITU would have the only credible, reliable source documents. If that were the case then Wikipedia would only accept primary references in citations every else.

Furthermore, the title of this article confers no specific reason to resort only to the ITU as the only reliable source of definition. The term country calling code is not an ITU term. The ITU defines country code, not country calling code, and they use country code pretty consistently. So, Wikipedia is free to use its own term in any sense it likes, and a code such as, say, 1 123, can easily be justified to be listed as a country calling code, when it is the code required to reach a country, and no other. Nobody here has been suggesting that area codes are part of the country code, and my (punctuation) only made that clearer. Why you keep harping on that is unfathomable.

And finally, bringing world politics into this, and displaying your hate, does not make things easier. It is legitimate to reject dubious, biased sources of propaganda and such, indeed, and that should be enough here. You can hold an RFC on the credibility of a given source. There are probably also reliable sources that state the current routing in war regions. Find them. If there is doubt, the entries should be removed. WP shouldn't try to follow the back and forth of short term events, and certainly not events of war action before they are concluded. kbrose (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Kbrose has undone an edit in the introductory section of the article which had added:

"Below the following Overview table there is a list of country codes Ordered by world zone. Below that is a further list displaying countries in Alphabetical order". The reason given for the undo was: "(terms overview and alphabetic do not need elaboration, there is a TOC already.)"

Because newbies or non-technical users may not realise there is a TOC (Table of Contents), it seemed reasonable to me to add those two links to the other helpful parts of this long article.

I'd expected that the addition of such links would be a non-contentious matter but it's clear that Kbrose thinks otherwise.

Does Kbrose have some special rank or privilege granted by Wikipedia which gives the right to control and/or "police" such harmless edits - contributed in good faith by other auto-confirmed users - without any prior discussion, just as if the edits were vandalism? If so, how and why was that special rank or privilege granted, and by whom? Anameisbutaname^Talk 17:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Anameisbutaname: It's not about you or @Kbrose – the issue was that your edits did not comply with the Manual of Style. Article content should not discuss the article itself. It's called "breaking the fourth wall" and must be avoided. More information here: MOS:SELF.

Hope this helps. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! We now have three sections duplicating the same info. The first one has already been discussed before. But we also have the sorting by world zone and alphabet. The latter does not have all the information I guess, but also enables the user to sort by world zone as well as alphabet. Wouldn't it be better to move all the missing info to the table and remove the list by world zone to avoid duplicating info? That way the reader still has the option to sort whichever way they want. Dajasj (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree. One comprehensive, sortable table would be better than the current shape. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

By all means. Move overview to bottom and rename it 'summary'. Combine the other two lists into a single sortable table. First column and default sort should be calling code, then rowspan= will nicely show grouping and hierarchy. YBG (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you like, you can create a subpage to work on the table without disturbing the live page, or a page in your own userspace. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kashmiri: Good idea. Of course, it would have to be in user space because sub pages do not exist in article space. YBG (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Before I start (in my user space), do we need to keep the time zones? I don't understand their relevance, but maybe I am missing something. Dajasj (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Dajasj I don't see any use of them to be honest. But we can indeed consider extra columns beyond continent/geographical region, like type of dialling plan (open/closed), number of digits that follow the country code, and so on. — kashmīrī ^TALK 04:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@YBG: Article Talk pages often have subpages (used e.g. for archives). But true, userspace and draftspace feel more appropriate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 04:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Different ways of presentation can accommodate different readers. Also see previous remarks from Anameisbutaname. Both presentations are valuable, a long list without additional structure looks really very different than a list where each zone is covered in a different subsection. So I am opposed to deleting one of the presentations. Bob.v.R (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply