Talk:Federal States Phone Plan

From OpenGeofiction Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The numbering plan and where it came from

Following this discussion the following was consensus:

  • Despite this being unnecessary for mapping purposes, a minimal and working plan would avoid regular discussions about the need of a numbering plan.
  • A national system of area codes like the NANPA would not work, as numbers need to be assigned, causing a lot of administrative work. Therefore each state has a two digit area code identical to its territory id.
  • A fixed length numbering plan would not work for the states being of very different sizes, despite all having a two digit code.
  • A national trunk prefix is necessary unless you want a more complicated plan. With prefix 0, some states would start with 0-0..., which looks quite odd. Prefix one makes it 1-0..., and also 1 is more familiar from NANPA
  • As subsriber numbers starting with 0 are odd, 0 is reserved for special services, including international access and emergencies. I set emergency to 011, which at least does not cause a conflict with the rest of the numbering plan. 00 for international access also seems to be conflict free.
  • Local variations are possible, and every state owner can design their own sub-area codes or whatsoever. Just put it on a different page to avoid confusion and make sure interstate and international calls to your state make sense.

If you think something is wrong, please consult the discussion and it's summary here before suggesting any changes. --Toadwart (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2019 (CEST)

Is 011 too similar to 911? -TheMayor (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2019 (CEST)
I just picked it to have something. I would suggest you discuss this in the forum thread. I am out on such details, I'll only "intervene" in the future when I discover that the numbering causes a conflict. Which valid number you choose is yours. --Toadwart (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2019 (CEST)


I started two lists. I don't know if they make sense, feel free to leave your opinion here. Without templates for many states it looks very odd, and the vacant states don't look any better. But again, having a list set up avoids some ambiguity and at least you know where to add your stuff instead of adding erraticaly it at various places. --Toadwart (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2019 (CEST)

I like it in theory, though the table is a bit hard to read. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (CEST)

I would prefer a simple list - easier to update, easier to understand; e.g.:

  • 01 - Huntington
  • 03 - Oakhill
  • 04 - Newlynn
  • 05 - Aperia
  • 06 - WhitestoneFlag.png Whitestone
  • 07 - Arghenna
  • ...
  • 15 - Passamaqueets
  • ...
  • 22 - FlagofBoscainifornio.png Boscainifornio
  • ...

And vacant states are simply not listed. /wangi (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2019 (CEST)

I set up a list with templates now. I guess the template might be of use at other places as well. Especially when referring to states by geography, for instance neighbours. Then there is only one place to get it sorted. On the other hand, the list now also includes the vacant states. I could imagine to set up a template which automatically hides them. But first I would wait and see if the general idea is ok. --Toadwart (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2019 (CEST)
I can see the use, but here it does need to ignore the vacant states (fine to show them in the OGF namespace). I also don't think the template should have to deal with the mess of template vs flag link vs wiki link - all occupied FSA states should have a template. /wangi (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2019 (CEST)