Talk:List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland Low‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland 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.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Channel Islands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Channel Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Channel Islands 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.Channel IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Channel IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Channel IslandsChannel Islands-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Isle of Man Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Man, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Isle of Man 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.Isle of ManWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of ManTemplate:WikiProject Isle of ManIsle of Man articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Jersey Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jersey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jersey 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.JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject JerseyTemplate:WikiProject JerseyJersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

VfD?

I moved this from List of United Kingdom area codes which could be mistaken for postcodes. I am still not at all sure that this is encyclopedic. I'm tempted to VfD - anyone agree?--Doc (?) 23:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it's encyclopedic or not. If it's kept, however, I'd like to recommend a table structure of several rows across, so that one doesn't have to scroll so much. func (talk) 00:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the content should be kept, in some form. But the formatting leaves plenty to be desired, and I'm not convinced that it's accurate or up-to-date either. Southampton is not even listed! As it stands, I'd agree to delete, but I'd rather someone put on an accurate and nicely formatted list! UkPaolo 12:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to tidy it up, but I can't do anything about it at the moment - am at work all day today. I would propose three columns (if they fit) and swapping the towns and codes round so that the codes are listed first - that makes more sense to me (and it would look neater). I don't think this content is any worse or better than other lists on wikipedia, just badly formatted. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 16:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have split list into three columns and put numbers first. Still to do: fact checking and disambiguation of links. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 16:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. We could just send people to my version but this one has got Wikilinks which makes it so much more useful. I would like to see it move again - to List of United Kingdom dialling codes. -- RHaworth 23:30, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

We could of course turn your version into a wikified list with your permission, but it would need explaining. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 22:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You certainly have my permission to use it. I have added a note at the bottom of the page to confirm that. I will try and find time to do the explaining. -- RHaworth 2005 July 6 06:29 (UTC)

Well I can think of better things to do with three hours of my life, but I just sat here and tidied up the whole list. All the links are now fully disambiguated. What I'm not sure about is whether all of the links are factually correct: there were some glaring inaccuracies in the original submission and there may still be some. My main reference for cleaning those up has been this website. -- Francs2000 | Talk

21:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

01632

Is this code Birtley (currently pointing to a disambig link) or a fictitious area code? There are several Google links saying it is fictitious. Thanks, Ian Cairns 00:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[1] No match here. MRSC 06:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. My suspicions are that the article has been synchronised against an out-of-date list, despite clear best intentions. Looks like Wiki needs to identify a definitive list and re-synch - we could use 01632 as a litmus test? Any idea where we can find such a definitive list? One area at a time will be deadly... Thanks, Ian Cairns 07:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia 555 telephone number and UK telephone numbering plan#Drama numbers for confirmation of 01632 - so it is just this article that is out-of-date. 07:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I have found a link to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/261701.pdf for the current (see date of this comment) geographic area codes and confirm that 01632 is fictitious. Any website that says otherwise must be out of date.... Ian Cairns 08:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum

Much as it pains me to admit, I must have been using an out of date reference when spending four hours cleaning up this article recently. Never mind. Can I just request though that the links that have been added in since my last edit be cleaned up themselves - last time I looked Moscow was the capital city of Russia and was nowhere near the United Kingdom. I don't know which of the other links added are also incorrect. Also can we have confirmation that the large number of dialling codes that have been removed are no longer used in the United Kingdom? -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

01 only included

Where are the listings for all the 011 codes, the 02 codes, etc?

They are at the top of the page, above the 01200 to 01999 entries. That top table could do with splitting into two tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.207.209 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*DONE* (79.65.168.225 (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

List now looks to be fully up to date. Ebbsfleet (01987) is probably the most recent litmus test for that. Multiple minor formatting issues have also been fixed. (79.65.208.7 (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There is a place in Ayrshire Scotland called Moscow and a place on the upper Clyde near Lanark Scotland called Moscow 217.44.33.17 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Lizzie[reply]

External links

Would like to suggest changes to external links. Newbie so please excuse any mistakes of etiquette, format etc. Understand that "Before adding a website to an External links section, you should suggest it on the article's Discussion (talk) page."

Current link to UK STD Codes (http://www.ukphoneinfo.com/section/tci/old_std_list.shtml) is to historic STD codes from 1990s. Needs to be made clear list is historic/not current.

Current numbering system is administered by UK government regulator, Ofcom. Suggest adding following links direct to Ofcom:

Ofcom UK telecoms numbering homepage, http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/
Ofcom UK telecoms numbering scheme, http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/numbers_administered/
Ofcom The National Telephone Numbering Plan (pdf), http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/numplan081107.pdf

Gjm (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Someone has made a lot of changes to place names as well as adding new ^{[disambiguation needed]} tags. Anyone care to check the changes out and make further comments? See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_Kingdom_dialling_codes&diff=317993030&oldid=317061268

Allocation errors in the 01387 and 0138 73 area codes

Dumfries uses the 01387 area code. Langholm uses the 0138 73 area code.

For many years, Ofcom's data for the 01387 and 0138 73 area codes has contained some errors.^[1]

The allocations have been listed as:

Place	Dumfries		Langholm		'Dumfries'	Langholm	Dumfries
Number	01387 0xxxxx 1xxxxx	(01387) 2xxxxx	0138 73 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0138 73) 2xxxx	01387 33xxxx	(0138 73) 4xxxx 9xxxx	(01387) 4xxxxx	(01387) 5xxxxx	(01387) 6xxxxx	(01387) 7xxxxx	(01387) 8xxxxx	(01387) 9xxxxx
DE	00-19	20-29	30-31	32	33	34-39	40-49	50-59	60-69	70-79	80-89	90-99
Type	NDO	4+6	NDO	5+5	4+6	5+5	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6

Items in red were mis-reported by Ofcom until 2010-08-30. NDO is National Dialling Only.

The allocation at 01387 33xxxx is an obvious error. This number range cannot be using the Dumfries area code.

All numbers beginning 013873xxxxx are, by definition, part of the Langholm area and use the 5+5 number format.

The Langholm area code is 013873, and therefore the correct format for that range is (013873) 3xxxx.

After many years, Ofcom recently corrected this error.^[2]

The allocations are now correctly listed as:

Place	Dumfries		Langholm		Dumfries
Number	01387 0xxxxx 1xxxxx	(01387) 2xxxxx	0138 73 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0138 73) 2xxxx 9xxxx	(01387) 4xxxxx	(01387) 5xxxxx	(01387) 6xxxxx	(01387) 7xxxxx	(01387) 8xxxxx	(01387) 9xxxxx
DE	00-19	20-29	30-31	32-39	40-49	50-59	60-69	70-79	80-89	90-99
Type	NDO	4+6	NDO	5+5	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6

(80.42.224.139 (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

0169 77 - a long history of errors.

Data as shown in 2003 - 2009

The 016977 area code has had a chequered history. An error in Ofcom's database incorrectly marking 16977 2 and 16977 3 as 4+4 (instead of 5+4) format, and marking 16977 4 and 16977 5 as 4+6 (instead of 5+5) format has essentially hidden the 0169 77 area code from view for many years.

BT tried to tell Ofcom about their errors on several occasions.^[3]^[4] Some websites don't list the 0169 77 area code at all, as the noted incorrect 4+x format in Ofcom's database for 16977 x numbers essentially said that it didn't exist. (79.65.204.163 (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Additionally, part of the 016973 area code has been incorrectly marked as 4+6 instead of 5+5 for a long time. Numbers in the range 16973 8 are supposed to be 5+5 format and within the Wigton area code. 79.70.235.157 (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Place	'Brampton'		Wigton		'Brampton'	Raughton Head		'Brampton'	Protected	Brampton				Protected	'Brampton'
Number	01697 0xxxxx 1xxxxx	(01697) 2xxxxx	0169 73 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0169 73) xxxxx	01697 38xxxx	0169 74 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0169 74) xxxxx	(01697) 5xxxxx	(01697) 5xxxxx 6xxxxx	01697 70xxxx 71xxxx	01697 72xx(x) 73xx(x)	01697 74xxxx 75xxxx	01697 76xxxx 79xxxx	(01697) 8xxxxx	(01697) 9xxxxx
DE	00-19	20-29	30-31	32-37,39	38	40-41	42-49	50-53	54-69	70-71	72-73	74-75	76-79	80-89	90-99
Type	NDO	4+6	NDO	5+5	4+6	NDO	5+5	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+4	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6

Original allocations shown where entire column is bold. Items in red might be mis-reported by Ofcom. NDO is National Dialling Only. (79.70.227.18 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

March 2010

Ofcom's database has recently been partially fixed^[5], and the news that (0169 77) is Brampton should now slowly filter through onto other code lists. BT used to list it, but inadvertently removed all but one of the dozen (01xx xx) area codes from their list^[6] last year. They did this when fixing the very long-standing errors with the London and other codes, errors that had been on their site for most of the last decade; but also removed some other items that did not need editing.

While the errors with 16977 x numbers persisted in Ofcom's database, other number allocations in the 01697 space were made on the assumption that there was no (0169 77) area code, and so this area now has 6-digit numbers beginning 2xxxxx with an (01697) area code as well as 4-digit numbers beginning 2xxx with an (0169 77) area code^[5] (which, until very recently, various people incorrectly thought were (01697) 72xx or (01697) 72xxx numbers). It is unclear how local dialling works between the 6-digit and 4-digit schemes, presumably the area code is needed.

Likewise the 16977 0 and 16977 1 ranges that would ordinarily be expected to be NDO number ranges within the (0169 77) area are actually marked as 4+6 format: 01697 70xxxx and 71xxxx.^[5] It is also unclear how these numbers are dialled locally.

Additionally, 16977 5 to 16977 9 are marked as 4+6 in the database,^[5] but since the (0169 77) area code is now proven to exist for 16977 2 to 16977 4, these numbers should really be 5+5 allocations.

What is clear, is that Wigton (0169 73) 5-digit numbers and Raughton Head (0169 74) 5-digit numbers are not local calls from the rest of the 01697 number range and the area code must always be dialled for those from there. It is unknown whether there are still any 'short code' dialling rules in place anywhere in this area.

Confusion will continue in this area while Brampton has 4, 5 and 6 digit local numbers under two different area codes: 01697 for 6-digit numbers and 0169 77 for the 4-digit and 5-digit numbers; and especially while some numbers with D=7 are incorrectly marked as 4+6 and the others are correctly marked as 5+4 and 5+5.

It would help greatly if the 01697 numbers with 6-digits were associated with some other place name, leaving Brampton as (0169 77) with 4-digit and 5-digit numbers in the same way that (0169 73) is Wigton and (0169 74) is Raughton Head both with 5-digit local number schemes.

Place	'Brampton'		Wigton		'Brampton'	Raughton Head		'Brampton'	Protected	'Brampton'	Brampton		'Brampton'	Protected	'Brampton'
Number	01697 0xxxxx 1xxxxx	(01697) 2xxxxx	0169 73 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0169 73) xxxxx	01697 38xxxx	0169 74 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0169 74) xxxxx	(01697) 5xxxxx	(01697) 5xxxxx 6xxxxx	01697 70xxxx 71xxxx	(0169 77) 2xxx 3xxx	(0169 77) 4xxxx	01697 75xxxx 79xxxx	(01697) 8xxxxx	(01697) 9xxxxx
DE	00-19	20-29	30-31	32-37,39	38	40-41	42-49	50-53	54-69	70-71	72-73	74	75-79	80-89	90-99
Type	NDO	4+6	NDO	5+5	4+6	NDO	5+5	4+6	4+6	4+6	5+4	5+5	4+6	4+6	4+6

Original allocations shown where entire column is bold. Items in red might be mis-reported by Ofcom. NDO is National Dialling Only.

(79.65.204.163 (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

November 2010

After another 7 months delay, Ofcom's data was recently updated again:

(016973) 8xxxx is still marked as 4+6, but should be 5+5.
(016977) 0xxxx is now marked "National Dialling Only" but the format is still marked as 4+6, when it should now be 0+10.
(016977) 1xxxx is still marked as 4+6, but should be 0+10.
(016977) 5xxxx is now correctly reported as 5+5, not 4+6.
(016977) 6xxxx to (016977) 9xxxx are still mis-reported as 4+6, but should be 5+5.

This is shown in the following table:

Place	'Brampton'		Wigton		'Brampton'	Raughton Head		'Brampton'	'Protected'	'Brampton'	'Protected'	Brampton	'Brampton'	Brampton		'Brampton'	Protected	'Brampton'
Number	01697 0xxxxx 1xxxxx	(01697) 2xxxxx	0169 73 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0169 73) xxxxx	01697 38xxxx	0169 74 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0169 74) xxxxx	(01697) 50xxxx 54xxxx	(01697) 55xxxx 59xxxx	(01697) 60xxxx	(01697) 61xxxx 69xxxx	0169 77 0xxxx NDO	01697 71xxxx	(0169 77) 2xxx 3xxx	(0169 77) 4xxxx 5xxxx	01697 76xxxx 79xxxx	(01697) 8xxxxx	(01697) 9xxxxx
DE	00-19	20-29	30-31	32-37,39	38	40-41	42-49	50-54	55-59	60	61-69	70	71	72-73	74-75	76-79	80-89	90-99
Type	NDO	4+6	NDO	5+5	4+6	NDO	5+5	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6	5+4	5+5	4+6	4+6	4+6

Original allocations shown where entire column is bold. Items in red might be mis-reported by Ofcom. NDO is National Dialling Only. (79.70.238.241 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

January 2011

After another two months delay, Ofcom's data was recently updated again:

(016973) 8xxxx is still marked as 4+6, but should be 5+5.
(016977) 0xxxx is now marked "National Dialling Only" and the format is correctly marked as 0+10.
(016977) 1xxxx is still marked as 4+6, but should be 0+10.
(016977) 6xxxx to (016977) 9xxxx are still mis-reported as 4+6, but should be 5+5.

This is shown in the following table:

Place	'Brampton'		Wigton		'Brampton'	Raughton Head		'Brampton'	'Protected'	'Brampton'	'Protected'	Brampton	'Brampton'	Brampton		'Brampton'	Protected	'Brampton'
Number	01697 0xxxxx 1xxxxx	(01697) 2xxxxx	0169 73 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0169 73) xxxxx	01697 38xxxx	0169 74 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0169 74) xxxxx	(01697) 50xxxx 54xxxx	(01697) 55xxxx 59xxxx	(01697) 60xxxx	(01697) 61xxxx 69xxxx	0169 77 0xxxx	01697 71xxxx	(0169 77) 2xxx 3xxx	(0169 77) 4xxxx 5xxxx	01697 76xxxx 79xxxx	(01697) 8xxxxx	(01697) 9xxxxx
DE	00-19	20-29	30-31	32-37,39	38	40-41	42-49	50-54	55-59	60	61-69	70	71	72-73	74-75	76-79	80-89	90-99
Type	NDO	4+6	NDO	5+5	4+6	NDO	5+5	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6	NDO	4+6	5+4	5+5	4+6	4+6	4+6

Original allocations shown where entire column is bold. Items in red might be mis-reported by Ofcom. NDO is National Dialling Only. (79.75.217.60 (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

November 2011

After another ten months delay, Ofcom's data was recently updated again:

(016973) 8xxxx is now correctly marked as 5+5, returning it to the Wigton area code.
(016977) 1xxxx is still marked as 4+6, but should be 0+10. This is an NDO range.
(016977) 6xxxx to (016977) 9xxxx are still mis-reported as 4+6, but should be 5+5.

This is shown in the following table:

Place	'Brampton'		Wigton		Raughton Head		'Brampton'	'Protected'	'Brampton'	'Protected'	Brampton	'Brampton'	Brampton		'Brampton'	'Protected'	'Brampton'
Number	01697 0xxxxx 1xxxxx	(01697) 2xxxxx	0169 73 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0169 73) xxxxx	0169 74 0xxxx 1xxxx	(0169 74) xxxxx	(01697) 50xxxx 54xxxx	(01697) 55xxxx 59xxxx	(01697) 60xxxx	(01697) 61xxxx 69xxxx	0169 77 0xxxx	01697 71xxxx	(0169 77) 2xxx 3xxx	(0169 77) 4xxxx 5xxxx	01697 76xxxx 79xxxx	(01697) 8xxxxx	(01697) 9xxxxx
DE	00-19	20-29	30-31	32-39	40-41	42-49	50-54	55-59	60	61-69	70	71	72-73	74-75	76-79	80-89	90-99
Type	NDO	4+6	NDO	5+5	NDO	5+5	4+6	4+6	4+6	4+6	NDO	4+6	5+4	5+5	4+6	4+6	4+6

Original allocations shown where entire column is bold. Items in red might be mis-reported by Ofcom. NDO is National Dialling Only. 79.70.232.143 (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

In recent weeks the (016977) 8xxxx range has been withdrawn. It's still incorrectly marked as 4+6.

(016977) 1xxxx is still marked as 4+6, but should be 0+10. This is an NDO range.
(016977) 6xxxx to (016977) 9xxxx are still mis-reported as 4+6, but should all be 5+5.

79.70.235.157 (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ UK Phone Information. "S Digit 1 List, SABC=1387". Retrieved 2010-08-30. (archive copy ca. 2009-09-09)
^ Ofcom. "Code and number blocks - 1200 00 to 1399 99" (xls). Retrieved 2010-09-01.
^ BT (2003-05-16). "BT's Response to the Consultation by OFTEL on Proposals to Publish a National Telephone Numbering Plan" (pdf). Retrieved 2010-04-02. Page 7: '01697 – Brampton should be 0169 77; not 01697'.
^ Director General of Telecommunications (2003-07-09). "The National Telephone Numbering Plan" (pdf). Retrieved 2010-04-02. - Page 20 shows Brampton listed as 0169 77.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Ofcom. "Code and number blocks - 1600 00 to 1799 99" (xls). Retrieved 2010-07-28.
^ BT. "UK Area Codes". Retrieved 2010-04-02.

Merger proposal

As has been discussed on talk page for List of UK dialling codes covering Wales since around April ~~2007~~ Edit: 2008, sorry..

As previously mentioned, by Dynam1te3, I think that area codes under the +44 country code belong in one list. If Wales had a country code of its own, I would support preserving this page, but Wales is not Gibraltar, Diego Garcia, Macau or Hong Kong. (Gibraltar and Diego Garcia have country codes of their own, but belong to the UK. Macau and Hong Kong have country codes of their own as well, but belong to China.)

90.208.56.217 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I don't believe the article on UK dialling codes covering Wales adds any extra information. Eventually one code may cover Wales anyway. Any pertinent information could be placed within the full UK article, in its own section if warranted. I suggest this purely for duplication of information - were the dialling system separate, I would see a need. 90.208.56.217 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any "merge" of the Welsh list with the UK list would in actual fact simply be a straight "delete" of the Welsh list, since the UK list already lists all of the codes covering Wales. However, I see no problem in having separate pages listing Welsh, or even Scottish for that matter, area codes.(79.73.225.137 (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I can't see any reason to have separate pages for what is effectively the same information. As per Wikipedia:Merging, a good reason to merge is overlap. To quote, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability." So far as I can see, the Welsh list contains exactly the same information as contained in the UK list, and seems to me to be needless duplication, which, if needed, could be better covered in a section under the UK list as a whole. 90.208.56.217 (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, as per This edit. ;) Owain (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to merge the two articles. List of UK dialling codes covering Wales is far more user friendly than List of United Kingdom dialling codes. Indeed, I recommend creating pages for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland along the same lines (see what I did there?). Daicaregos (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to agree with this merger and suggest a split of the UK list into sections for England, Scotland, Wales and NI. But due to the current layout, it would be inappropriate. Therefore I'd reccommend keeping this list, and support Diacaregos' reccommendation for seperate lists for England, Scotland and NI, as it is not obvious on the UK list which codes belong to which nation. On Wikipedia, things are generally done by each different nation rather than the UK as a whole, e.g. Economy of Scotland, Transport in Wales and History of England. Welshleprechaun 10:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your rationale, but at the same time, I'd think that those articles exist because of differing histories, economies, and transport systems; whereas the UK dialling code system isn't differentiated along those lines, and is one system (so far as I'm aware). For an example, there's a list of UK by-elections, UK think tanks, and UK police forces - as at present, the information doesn't need to be split by constituent country (although perhaps the police forces may be better served split... but that's something for another time). My preference would be for a UK list, perhaps divided into sections, as splitting the list up into different pages constituent country doesn't currently seem to yield any different information. I think that things are generally done by different nation when the information itself differs. However, while I disagree that different lists are required, because the information is not inherently constituent nation specific, I could live with the information split into Wales, Scotland, England, and NI lists:- rather than the current situation which is kind of a mixture of both.~CortalUX^Talk? 22:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Just a disclosure, all edits by 90.208.56.217 on this toopic were done by myself; I was unable to login previously. )~CortalUX^Talk? 22:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that from a practical view the list would be better served on one page. If one wanted to answer the question, "Which place is served by UK dialing code 0xxxx" then it is all on one page. It's not obvious from the code itself that it might be in any one of the four constituent countries, and the only practical gain (i.e. beyond patriotism) added by splitting is that the pages themselves are smaller. But searching for a particular code is harder, and I think that outweighs that advantage.

Personally I find the multicolumn format of the list makes it less accessible than a longer list with code and place in separate columns – and such a list could have another column added for country. However I imagine this has been discussed before.

Are there places along the border where an area code is used in both England and Wales? I'd imagine so (though of course the exchange will only be in one of the countries). Si Trew (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that one single list is more practically useful, and there are of course area codes that cross borders, e.g. Saltney (Wales) uses the Chester (England) code 01244, and Cornhill-on-Tweed (England) uses the Coldstream (Scotland) code 01890. Maintaining separate lists for Wales and Scotland would duplicate information unnecessarily, and a list for Northern Ireland would only have one code on it anyway. --Deskford (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is something that I would like to throw in at this point: Germany has 9 seperate area code pages. However, this seperation does only exist because Germany has 5200 area codes which would be too much for one article. The UK has way less than 520 area codes, so I think it would be acceptable to keep them all in one page. Note that the German area codes are split up by numbering range, not by Federated Country. This wouldn't make much sense anyway because some states (e.g. Berlin - 030) would only have one area code on their page, just like Northern Ireland. -- 62.156.56.125 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two letter codes?

There are two letter codes after many towns in the list. What are they? Why aren't they explained in the article? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two letter codes are listed in the first two references cited and are explained in great detail in Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom (82.22.199.75 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

But these alpha codes have had no status for at least 30 years. I can't see any reason to display them in an article that describes the current (2010) dialling codes. I don't deny that they are of historical interest, but that implies that they belong in an article that describes the history of STD. They don't belong here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of United Kingdom telephone dialling codes. It is based on Ofcom's area code list, but includes defunct codes and historical changes, including the derivation of the two letter identities where known. It is certainly not just a verbatim copy of Ofcom's list. If that were so, the article should simply be deleted in its entirety, and people referred to Ofcom's site. (77.99.179.33 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Fair enough, but throughout the list, historic designations which are no longer current are given in grey. Wolverton (in Milton Keynes), which contributed the WO8 to 0908, is one such. It certainly should be included, but it should be in grey like the others. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The area code list combines many different things: current codes and names, as well as changes to various area codes in the 1960s (scrapping the 00 codes), 1970s (the creation of the 091 area code), 1990s (phONEday and Reading changes), 2000 (Big Number Change), and so on. As far as I can see, greyed out entries are those where the old area code name has moved to a different area code number.(80.42.227.86 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The derivation of the two letter codes is not consistent. Many codes like 01483 — Guildford (GU) are straightforward. However the derivation of many other codes is not so easy. Some come from the name of the county, such as 01209 — Redruth, Cornwall (CO). In this case Cornwall is not a part of the official name for the area but there's no need to grey it out because Redruth is still in Cornwall. Others come from an exchange name which is not the main name associated with the area code, such as 01834 — Narberth, Tenby (TE). There's no need to grey that out, because all Tenby numbers are still within the 01834 area code. They have not moved to a different code. Likewise for 01908 — Milton Keynes, Wolverton (WO), Wolverton numbers are still within the 01908 area code. Those numbers have not migrated to a different area code, so there is no need to grey this name out. Greying out is solely for places that have moved to a different area code. This is not the case here. For comparison, the 01906 entry is greyed out, because Worthing 0906 numbers were moved to 0903 back in the 1980s.(80.42.227.86 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I still think that the lede needs an explanation of the TLCs. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK international dialing code, and how to use it, please ?

I came to this page to find out how to give my UK phone number to someone in another country, and I can't see it mentioned at all. Please would someone add the international dialing code for the UK, and how to interpret it related to the number, preferably at the top of this article ? If this is already in another article, please would you put a link to it at the top of the page ? Many thanks, Darkman101 (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article at Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom listed in the "see also" links at bottom of the article page explains it. Formatting is mentioned only a few paragraphs in. (80.42.239.241 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Special consideration of subcodes under 023?

Is it worth mentioning that the codes 023 92 (Portsmouth) and 023 80 (Southampton) are geographically separated (codes such as 01329 Fareham come between them). What are Ofcom's plans for new codes once these existing codes are filled up? 86.13.158.235 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plan a decade ago was to gradually convert all of the UK to the 2+8 numbering scheme, where single (02x) area codes would each cover a whole region such as South-west, Wales, Midlands, Scotland, etc. It was the right move for London, and for Northern Ireland. It was abandoned very early on, but only after Cardiff, Southampton, Portsmouth, and Coventry had also started using it. Recent consultations have put forward the idea that local numbers beginning 0 and 1 would be introduced and the area code not made optional for local calls. An alternative was to have two area codes in each area using an overlay system. Another option, seemingly ignored so far, is for local numbers to change from six to seven digits when a shortage occurs. {79.70.227.68 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Areas with closed local dialling

In this section it says "In the following area local calls must be dialled using the area code from the date shown". Why is that please? --JetBlast (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1980s BT changed 3 and 4 digit local numbers in small towns and villages to 5 or 6 digits depending on demand, and changed 4 and 5 digit local numbers in larger towns and in cities to 6 digits. These places mostly had 3-digit area codes (e.g. 0205, 0303, 0602, etc). A few 4-digit codes remained (e.g. 03873, 06977, etc) with 5-digit local numbers (and one with 4-digit local numbers).

In the 1980s, six cities moved to 7-digit local numbers with 2-digit area codes (e.g. 021, 041, 091, etc). London had a 1-digit area code (e.g. 01) plus 7 digit local numbers.

Subscriber numbers always began with the digits 20 through to 98 and the maximium total number length was 9 digits (area code plus local number). Local numbers could be dialled with or without area code from within the same area. Leading 0 signified an area code followed. Originally 010, but later 00, signified that a country code for an international call followed. Leading 1 signified numbers for operator services and the like, and 99 plus another 9 called the emergency services.

In 1995, all geographic area codes moved to begin 01 (e.g. 01303, 0131, 013873, 01488, 016977, 0191, etc), and six more cites moved from 6 to 7 digit local numbers and to new, shorter, area codes (e.g. 0114, 0117, etc). Maximum number length was now 10 digits.

In 2000 several places moved to 8 digit local numbers with 2-digit area codes (e.g. 020, 023, 029, etc). This continued the 10-digit maximum number length policy.

In the 1980s and 1990s there were only a few phone companies: BT, Cable and Wireless, etc. Telephone numbers were issued in blocks of 10 000 and latterly 1000 as the number of operators increased. An operator will have a block of 1000 numbers even if they only have one customer with one telephone line. Nowadays there are several hundred phone companies. Many operators have reserved blocks of numbers in every area code in anticipation of having customers in the future. As a consequence, several dozen area codes now have very few free blocks of numbers left.

In the past, areas with 6-digit local numbers that have run out of numbers have simply moved to 7 or 8 digit local numbers and to a shorter area code. Ofcom has decided to no longer do that. Instead, they now issue local numbers beginning 0 or 1. In order for the system to know what you mean when you want to call 01202 001111 from another 01202 number you have to dial the code as well, otherwise it would think you were making an international call. To retain consistent dialling for all numbers within the area, you have to dial the area code for all local numbers. Brighton, Norwich and a number of other places are set to adopt this system in the next couple of years.

Issuing numbers beginning 0 or 1 is only a short term solution. When those also run out, Ofcom have indicated that they will issue a second area code covering the same places as the original area code. You could have the situation where a shop is 01202 123456 and the shop next door is 01201 123456. The UK is following the same confusing route that the US adopted some years ago.

In the 1990s, geographic number changes occurred because of the massive demand for new numbers for second lines for fax machines and internet access, etc, and to free up more codes for mobile phones and non-geographic numbers. The changes happening now are not happening because of a massive demand for extra numbers but instead they are caused by Ofcom's wasteful policy of allowing hundreds of phone companies to stockpile tens of millions of phone numbers that they will likely never use. - 79.70.227.143 (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks for the very good reply! Maybe we can shorten this and put it into the article? Thanks a bunch. --JetBlast (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those details can already be found in the Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom article. This article is merely a list of current area codes and historical changes. -- 79.70.227.104 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In the 1980s, six cities moved to 7-digit local numbers with 2-digit area codes (e.g. 021, 041, 091, etc). London had a 1-digit area code (e.g. 01) plus 7 digit local numbers." - It was only Newcastle which MOVED to 7-digit numbers with the new code 091 (previously 0632) at that time. The six existing cities with 7-digit numbers (London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester) had already been 7-digit cities for many years (since before STD came along in fact). 46.208.146.35 (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

01706 & Shaw

Hi. I have added Shaw as an 01706 area. Although it does come under Metropolitan Borough of Oldham the rest of Oldham uses 0161. Shaw uses 01706. --JetBlast (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

01 numbers?

Where are the 01 numbers? It starts at 02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.209.12 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look a bit more carefully. Immediately to the right of the "02x" column are the "011x" and "01x1" columns. The others follow in the next table below. -- Dr Greg talk 19:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue Sharing

08 numbers are described as Freephone and revenue share non-geographic numbers. Can someone supply an expanded definition for what "revenue sharing" means? BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415100755/http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2012/03/20/dialling-the-01202-area-code-in-bournemouth-poole-and-christchurch/ to http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2012/03/20/dialling-the-01202-area-code-in-bournemouth-poole-and-christchurch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01931 — Shap

I notice that Shap (01931) is missing from the map of area codes 86.15.214.161 (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete map in the lead

Is this map at all useful? Indeed, as it is clearly obsolete, is it not manifestly misleading to include it? (xref the preceding question about Shap). Is there any convincing reason to retain it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[archive1387-1] UK Phone Information. "S Digit 1 List, SABC=1387". Retrieved 2010-08-30. (archive copy ca. 2009-09-09)

[database1387-2] Ofcom. "Code and number blocks - 1200 00 to 1399 99" (xls). Retrieved 2010-09-01.

[Brampton-3] BT (2003-05-16). "BT's Response to the Consultation by OFTEL on Proposals to Publish a National Telephone Numbering Plan" (pdf). Retrieved 2010-04-02. Page 7: '01697 – Brampton should be 0169 77; not 01697'.

[Plan-4] Director General of Telecommunications (2003-07-09). "The National Telephone Numbering Plan" (pdf). Retrieved 2010-04-02. - Page 20 shows Brampton listed as 0169 77.

[database-5] Ofcom. "Code and number blocks - 1600 00 to 1799 99" (xls). Retrieved 2010-07-28.

[6] BT. "UK Area Codes". Retrieved 2010-04-02.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]