Talk:ZIP Code

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ZIP Code article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Philately Low‑importance

	Philately portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

11-digit ZIP

This article makes only passing reference to 11 digit ZIPs, whereas it concentrates a lot on ZIP+4. I'd like to see more information on ZIP11. I remember when it was first implemented, but I know very little about it. --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anyone continually working on this article, you may want to do a little research yourself. Wikipedia will be the better for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one source for Zip+6 (also given as Zip+4+2): https://dataladder.com/blog/2017/09/21/zip-4-2-equals-zip-plus-6/ WilliamKF (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a ZIP+6, just a ZIP+4. You are referring to the Intelligent Mail barcode instead, but individuals would never write out the extra two digits on their own and its not technically part of the ZIP code.--2601:642:C301:119A:9DF5:701B:DAFA:9F10 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: ZIP Code, Background

Second address format shows a proper ZIP Code address as:

Mr. John Smith
3256 Epiphenomenal Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416

The previous paragraph stated:

“Simultaneously with the introduction of the ZIP code, two-letter state abbreviations were introduced. These were to be written with both letters capitalized.”

Therefore, the proper address format with ZIP Code and two-letter state abbreviation should be:

Mr. John Smith
3256 Epiphenomenal Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55416

Just a minor correction from a retired old postmaster.

Paul L. Fletcher
1816 N. Moreland Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46222-4828 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.236.211 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postal zones in big cities are seen in advertisements from 1920

As of this writing, the article states that postal zones in big cities (such as "Minneapolis 16") began in 1943. But I have been looking at journal and magazine advertisements from 1920, and have seen several examples of them. Here are two: Boston 9, Mass. and Boston 9, Mass.. Perhaps someone can look deeper into the history of these zone numbers. Possibly me, later, although not right now. — ¾-10 21:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Card Authorisations

The requirement of the vast majority of US pay-at-the-pump, er, pumps, is a royal pain to visitors from Abroad who don't have a ZIP code. A gas station cashier in Mesquite NV told me that visitors can get a special ZIP code from their card's issuer, but I suspect that this may only apply to Canadians (she specifically mentioned "snowbirds") as no-one I asked back here in the UK, nor British ex-pats, had ever heard of such a thing. If Jane of Mesquite is correct then it could be worth a mention from someone who knows what they're talking about. Mr Larrington (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 August 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZIP code → ZIP Code – The other day, an editor capitalized "ZIP code" to "ZIP Code" throughout the article. Indeed, the whole thing is trademarked as "ZIP Code"[1]. Should the article be moved to ZIP Code, which has always been a redirect, and which currently redirects here? Largoplazo (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to Special:Diff/733447345/733863331. I believe the editor has not read MOS:CAPS. Despite inconsistency on the web [2] [3], ~~I don't think "ZIP code" is a proper noun. Weak oppose move for now~~. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. For a government-created term, the GPO manual is "official", but I don't know how strong a criterion that is for Wikipedia's decisions on capitalization. Largoplazo (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Essentially neutral, leaning support now. (Willing to go with consensus, cheers) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move. "ZIP code" is an odd mix of capitalisation: use "zip code", as people often do casually, or "ZIP Code", for the official name. I prefer "ZIP Code" myself, because official terms are generally more solid, more encyclopedic, than informal usage, but either one is better than this mongrel usage. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move: based on my reading of trademark rules and the one example of a multi-word name, Cadbury Creme Egg, title capitalisation seems the correct way to go. If the word "code" were descriptive of the product and not an integral part of the name, as a non-proper noun, I would vote for it to remain as it is. ww2censor (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ww2censor. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 01:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move: ZIP Code is a proper name and should be capitalized. Postal code is the generic term. Concept14 (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Based off use in the GPO PDF linked above. Meatsgains (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Influence of Time Warner on introduction of Zip codes?

The page http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Time_Warner&oldid=811646121#1960s says: "In 1963, recommendations from Time Inc. based on how it delivered magazines led to the introduction of ZIP codes by the United States Post Office."

The page ZIP Code says nothing about the influence of Time Warner. Can somebody help to clarify this!? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.130.124 (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ZIP Code. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 08:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"ZIP code" vs. "ZIP Code"

Is it really "ZIP Code"? Wiktionary (which is extremely strict) uses "ZIP code".

--Mortense (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"ZIP Code". The two words together (well, the acronym and the word together) are a trademark, basically a brand name, for what are generically known as postal codes. See https://tools.usps.com/go/ZipLookupAction_input. Largoplazo (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved and updated the Wiktionary entry. Largoplazo (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this article was moved from ZIP code to ZIP Code in 2016 subsequent to a discussion that I initiated at Talk:ZIP Code/Archive 1#Requested move 13 August 2016. Largoplazo (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Readded to the main talk. It's not clear why that was archived (to the incorrect archive) while things six years older remained here. Dekimasuよ! 18:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should think of it as a genericized trademark, because it otherwise looks pretty messed up. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Wikipedia should reflect the common usage, not try to impose an arguably more correct usage. fgnievinski (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 March 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZIP Code → zip code – Lower case it per MOS:CAPS - that previous RM had mainly dubious rationales, per MOS:CAPS, capitilization should only be used when the terms are consistently capitilized, ngrams reveal a very mixed usage with "zip code" not only being the most common, but also preferred by MOS as least amount of capitilization. Or at the very least it should go to "ZIP code" and not "ZIP Code". Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using the plural ngrams it is even clearer that the dominant style is lower cased, with second being "ZIP code" Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:TMRULES. "Capitalize trademarks, being proper names." "Capitalize IKEA, IBM, as acronyms/initialisms," which ZIP is. Largoplazo (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that it is now more of a common word. It's relatively rare for it to be styled as "ZIP Code" so I'd say it should atleast be to "ZIP code" Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point. However, normally when one speaks of a trademark becoming a common term, it's a matter of making it generic, using it to refer to any instance of a class of things of which the trademark is only one brand. Examples: "kleenex" to denote any facial tissue, not just Kleenex brand, or "jello" to denote any flavored dessert gelatin, not just Jell-O brand (and, on the other hand, not to refer to any Jell-O brand products, such as puddings, that aren't flavored dessert gelatins). Uses of "zip code" still generally refer to the U.S. ZIP Code, rather than representing a genericization covering postal code worldwide. Or, let's flip that: if people are using "zip code" generically to denote postal codes, well, this is not the article about postal codes generally. It's about the specific postal code system branded as ZIP Code.

Further, the idea of "zip code" becoming generic vanishes as soon as one steps outside the United States. Anywhere else in the English-speaking world, I imagine that people think of U.S. postal codes just as they think of Canadian postal code and Australian postal codes. They may have no idea that we have a trademark for ours. And those who are aware of the trademark, I would expect a priori, would be fully aware of its status as such, and would expect the capitalization. Largoplazo (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move - article is properly titled as is per WP:COMMONNAME and the acronym ZIP should remain all caps per MOS:CAPSACRS.--John Cline (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons stated above. It is clearly a trademark and should be titled as trademarked. It's like how many people in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s informally referred to "xeroxing," but the correct trademark is always Xerox and the correct verb is photocopying. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. However, maybe further discussion should be had on whether it's "ZIP Code" or "ZIP code". Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed that and are discussing that, so feel free to join in. Largoplazo (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partial support It's not clear to me whether "ZIP" is sufficiently widely used as a generic term to be lower-cased, although the Google ngrams are interesting and a Google search for "ZIP code" shows many uses of the term for postal codes outside the US, but "code" is a common noun and there's no reason to capitalize it in this context. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ZIP Code is a proper name of itself, and capitalized therefor. The quality sources I noticed give it this way as well.--John Cline (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The USPS, which manages them, calls them ZIP Codes. To comply with WP:NOR, we should either call them what the USPS calls them or have a good, sourced reason why not. Doctor Whom (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Doctor Whom. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: USPS's trademarked name is per the article name so there is no reason to vary that usage. At the very most it might be renamed "ZIP code" per some sources but certainly not lowercase. ww2censor (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Distribution area for ZIP Code 34119

Distribution location for ZIP Code 34119 8.26.227.206 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that is a question, there must be better places to ask it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mention preservation of leading zeros

Maybe mention e.g., 00501 cannot be written as just 501. Jidanni (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting inclusion. Do you have any citation on this? Leading Zeros are one of the many reasons I hate working with GIS data that try to use ZIP codes as a spatial ID. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of semantics, software should never treat ZIP codes, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, etc. as numbers because they aren't numbers. They're codes that happen to consist entirely of digits. Treating them as numbers falls apart as soon as an app needs to accommodate, for example, Canadian postal codes. The only reasons they're ever treated as numbers is to save storage space and speed up indexing and sorting. And, you're right, that creates a pain in the neck dealing with output. Largoplazo (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. ZIP codes are postal codes that serve kind of as names for the post office it is being sent to. They are not numbers, and they are not spatial identifiers, and should not be used for operations calling for these kinds of values. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's covered by the descriptions of the codes as having five or nine digits rather than, in the case of the basic code, for instance, as an integer under 100,000. If you dropped the leading zero, it wouldn't be five digits. And that's reinforced throughout the article, where leading zeroes are never dropped, and where the lead zero is presented as significant just as each other digit is. Largoplazo (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That, along with the repeated explicit mentions that a ZIP Code can begin with 0, should make it clear. Doctor Whom (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that explicitly calling attention to the leading zeros is beneficial. It could be one small sentence, or just two or three words, in the descriptions that @Largoplazo mentioned. We just need a source, do you have one? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]