Category talk:en:Area codes

RFD discussion: October 2018–April 2019

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Category:en:Area codes

Area codes are not lexical by default, and we don't want to include all area codes (that's under Wikipedia's purview anyway). What we do include are area codes like 213 that have entered the lexicon (and which often refer to an area that is not perfectly contiguous with the area code itself). There may well be a role for a category to hold these terms, but this is not what such a category should be called. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: I disagree with two of the nominator's main points here. a) "Category:en:Area codes" is what a category filled with area codes should be called (and the nominator hasn't bothered to offer up any other alternate title), and b) I dissent from the nominator's unsubstantiated claim that "area codes are not lexical by default". An area code can, and often is, used in phrases without the rest of the phone number, and an area code (unlike the rest of a phone number) has geographical boundaries. Anyway, whether all area codes are lexical or not isn't wholly germane to the existence of this category because there should be a category for the lexical ones. If the nominator wants this claim taken seriously, he needs to offer a policy-based rationale, rather than a series of vague, unsubstantiated claims that, in sum, amount to little more than "I don't like it" or "I don't get it". Purplebackpack89 23:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It would possibly be better as "English terms derived from area codes" or some such. Equinox ◑ 10:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a good suggestion to me. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I oppose that name change based on my rationale above that area codes are lexical. Purplebackpack89 15:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Funny idea of "lexical" you have got. Would you then consider any phone number to be lexical because it refers to "Bob's phone", and any street number because it refers to "Bob's house"? Equinox ◑ 07:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Funny how you reduce every argument you don't like to absurdity. Stop it. "If we have X, we'll have to have Y" is a logical fallacy, an inherently weak argument. Purplebackpack89 16:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge@Equinox Are either you arguing that an area code carries no meaning? That's what lexical means. Carrying a specific area code means that a phone number is in a particular geographic region. There aren't 212 numbers in California or 562 numbers in New York. Purplebackpack89 16:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not what lexical means. We're a dictionary, you can't play fast and loose with words. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The definition of lexical we have is "concerns morphemes". Morphemes are units of language that carry meaning. Are you saying an area code is not a morpheme? Purplebackpack89 16:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say that they are not morphemes, are not part of a language, and do not carry meaning (in the same way that a word or term does). - TheDaveRoss 17:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not all things that convey meaning are lexical:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Chuck Entz (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, they are not lexemes and have no meaning in a language. They only have a meaning in the telephone system, but Wiktionary is not a telephone directory. Also delete .nl and other TLDs, which likewise have no meaning in a language, only in the domain name system. —Rua (mew) 17:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If you think domains should be deleted, put your money where your mouth is and nom them for deletion (I'd vote keep, FWIW). Purplebackpack89 18:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rua, Purplebackpack89: I've nominated them for deletion here. Per utramque cavernam 19:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep area codes or area code–derived terms (whatever you want to call them) if they're really used as nouns to refer to the area that the area code covers. (I can't confirm that myself.) But I don't support including area codes that are not used in that way. For instance, I've never heard anyone say "the <my local area code>" to refer to my area. — Eru·tuon 23:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Erutuon: It seems that you have misunderstood. The entries are not nominated for deletion, just the category itself. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Metaknowledge: Oh, duh. Well, I support keeping these terms in a category and like Equinox's suggestion of "English terms derived from area codes" because it makes it clear that only area codes that have made it into the lexicon should be included, and we put most derivation-related categories in the POS category system. I wonder if any other languages have area code–derived terms. — Eru·tuon 00:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  I believe in Montreal French, there is an area code that is used lexically to denote what part of the Greater Montreal area one comes from (on the island or off the island, IIRC). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Metaknowledge To respond to your question in your edit summary for 514, no, I don't know of any others. Thanks for tracking that down and making an entry (it seems I can't be bothered these days to make entries myself :P). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Converted to Category:English terms derived from area codes. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)