Talk:ZIP Code

Question

Small correction needed: "Use Zip code" (sic) labels were also usedŃ to promote the use of a ZIP code.

The page appears to have a rather serious formatting problem, or has been vandalised or corrupted somehow. Large chunks of text are unreadable and malformatted.

Why have all the individual US State ZIP Code entries been deleted? --130.156.169.212 15:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I need to assign a red/blue condition in an SCF map, much like a red and blue state election map, except it would be red and blue SCF's. Simple map, no highways etc, don't even need state borders and SCF areas can be approx. Any suggestions how I might do that without hiring a marketing/mapping company?

Funny the online USPS mailing standards don't specify a preferred font. USPS has been using OCR since the 70's, surely they can handle all routine common fonts, but they should reject artsy/calligraphy fonts on bulk mailings, in my opinion. Don T. 15:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Does anyone know what the USPS recommended fonts for mailings are?

---

The correct name for the "zip plus four" code is "ZIP + 4" - please note the spaces before and after the plus sign. 21:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC) R. West

Should this article talk about SCF -- "Section Center Facilities" -- Codes? They are the first 3 digits in a Zip code, and I believe that every SCF has a routing office. -- Ben M

Mention Mr. Zip? --Daniel C. Boyer

Obviously before my time. Description? Years? In movies? On TV? In school educational films? What? --Brion

See external link. --Daniel C. Boyer

"In general, zip codes have no intrinsic meaning; however, the area around Concord, Massachusetts? has the zip code 01776." -- what is meaningful about the number 01776? -- Tarquin 09:37 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

If I'm correct (I'm not an American), Concord's one of the places where the American Revolution began, and in 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed. Jeronimo

• • Correct, and noted in article

dml

Is it possible for a ZIP code to be entirely removed, I assume by merging into another zip? If so, need to update with the fact it happens and how. --Ward99

---

Removed the following from article:

• In general, ZIP codes have no intrinsic meaning; however, the area around Concord, Massachusetts has the ZIP code 01776, representing the year of America's Declaration of Independence, as the Battle of Lexington and Concord was one of the opening battles of the American Revolutionary War (though it took place in April 1775).

Actually, Concord's zip is 01742; Sudbury (6 miles away)is 01776 and Wayland (8 miles away) is 01778. However, these predate ZIP codes. Concord's post office was "Boston 42, Mass." or sometimes "Boston 42, Mass." and Sudbury was "Boston 76, Mass." or sometimes "Boston 76, Mass." -- Bcorr 19:58, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am a resident of Sudbury where the zip code is 01776 and I was brought up being told that Sudbury was awarded the zip code 01776 because more minutemen that fought in the Battle of Concord in the American War of Independence came from Sudbury than any other town. If somebody wishes to add this to the article then they can.--WarrenPorter 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Source of the "secret White House ZIP Code" bit, anyone? -Penta 04:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

• It's mentioned in a deposition from Travelgate: [1] (text search for "zip code"), assuming that transcript is legitimate -- saying that the President is informed of his private zip code upon taking office. There is also the text of a speech by President Clinton ([2]) where he explicitly mentions the special zip code that he has given out to "ordinary people that he grew up with". It was also mentioned in the media, but most of the references I found specifically mentioned President Clinton. These special ZIPs may be specific to each President, and the current President may or may not have one.
  Also, this link at whitehouse.gov [3] states that the USPS can and does create special zip codes for specific government functions, but doesn't state that the President has one.
  Even if the President does have one, there's no reason here to believe that it is a unique 5-digit ZIP; it could just be a special +4 code. Which is about as "special" as having your own post-office box. - KeithTyler 17:42, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Source of abbreviations

Does anyone know the source/reasoning of the two letter state abbrieviations? I've always wondered why Iowa is IA and not IO, for example. --Feitclub 20:38, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Just guessing, but that example would look a lot like the number 10, and might be avoided

for that reason. -- Coneslayer 21:43, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

The abbreviations are a hodgepodge, and in the present example, IA is the "modren" form of Ia,

in the old-style way of doing abrvtns, derived from the (still current) French style ... you use letters from the beginning and the end of the word, just enough for recognition and avoidance of ambiguity. As in "Thos" for Thomas. In normal usage, Iowa is almost too short to abbreviate. I ought to get down and write a section on this like I've been thinking about. I do recall that when these two-letter forms first came out, the Postmaster General said "They're awful. Don't use them." ;Bear 18:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Postal Bar Codes

removed:

These two digits are usually the last two of the street address or box number, though non-numeric points with names or letters are assigned DP numbers by the local post office. However, when house numbers differ only by a letter suffix, e.g., 120 and 120A, the delivery point may be the same.

replaced with:

The Delivery point digits (the last two digits) are calculated based on the primary or secondary number of the address. The USPS publishes the rules for calculating the Delivery point in a document called the CASS Technical Guide.

Kenrus

White House ZIP Code

The ZIP Code for the White House is 20500. It's been my understanding that the President's friends are given a special code they write on envelopes that ensures it reaches him and doesn't go into the slush pile. I read this many years ago and it was a plot point in a "West Wing" episode, as well. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Most of the 205xx space is taken up either by the White House or by the DC Post Office. (Oddly, 20500-20502 centers at Pennsylvania Ave, but 20509 centers on E st in the middle of the grounds.) 20528 also centers on the White House grounds. - KeithTyler 18:06, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Change frequency

A new zipcode database is published every month now. I would like to know about how many zipcodes change every month, and what grace periods communities have to respond.

The answer is of interest to those of use who use the data for zipcode-based searches, and need to know how frequently it's necessary to freshen the data.

I'm personally not aware of a case where a location's ZIP codes have changed, but hopefully someone else may know of one. My expectation is that ZIP codes are mostly created for newly developed areas (and sometimes skyscrapers) but not split a la Area codes.

Actually, ZIP codes can be split or renumbered. Both of these things happened in Montgomery County, Maryland, in 1981. The new ZIP codes became effective on the day on which we were notified of them, and we were given a one-year grace period to change over.

In the past year the number of ZIP codes has decreased by about 1,000. Each month there can be hundreds of additions and removals from the ZIP code system.

There are a number of ZIP Codes that are split each year. Look in Postal Bulletins from April for examples. The number is generally a couple dozen annually. Most commonly the reason is that the existing ZIP is projected to run out of ZIP+4 Codes within the next 20 years, as there is a finite number of available values (9999), and it's considered better to split the ZIP before it's absolutely needed so as to minimize the impact on customers.

The USPS is a federally managed agency (or something), so it would seem clear that there is no grace period needed. The post office(s) in the area are aware of the ZIP code, and begin honoring it immediately.

See above. The post offices are aware of the new ZIP code, but the rest of us need time to notify others of the change, use up old stationery, and the like.

I have added a reference showing that there is in fact a grace period needed and giving a reason why. Doctor Whom 13:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the zipcode database also includes +4 codes, which are likely added a lot more often than the base 5-digit codes.

USPS provides a flat file called ZIPMove that provides a list of changes in zip codes; this appears to be a pay service.

Keith D. Tyler [flame] 20:04, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

New delivery area (what the article calls "standard") ZIP Codes are implemented only on 1 July of each year, unless there is extreme political pressure brought to bear. New unique or PO Box ZIPs can be added at any time. Whether there is a "grace period" depends on what type of mail we're talking about. Single-piece First Class Mail (the 37 cent stamp) is not required to bear a ZIP Code, and I know that some customers take years to stop using their old ZIP Code. Mailers who do any sort of discount mailing are required to update their lists twice a year, so they'd catch the new ZIP on their normal update cycle.

Also, all new delivery area and PO Box ZIP Codes are announced in the "Post Offices" section of the Postal Bulletin.

ZIPMove is primarily going to report changes to ZIP codes that cause a ZIP code to be moved from one finance number to another. Typically, inter-finance number changes will not be reported in the ZIPMove file. Kenrus 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

HH?

I've been playing around with Google Earth a lot and there's an option on there to enable Postal Code Boundaries. In places such as east of Wilsonville, OR and west of Wolf Point, MT, there are ZIP code labels that end with the letters 'HH'. Does anybody know what these are or what they mean? These 'HH' numbers also appear in online ZIP infosites like city-data.com and lat-long.com, both of which offer no explaination. - Billdorr 02:20, Jul 31, 2005 (UTC)

What you are looking at are ZCTA code boundaries, not ZIP code boundaries. ZIP codes have no intrinsic geographic meaning. The ZCTA codes ending in HH represent water (Hydrographic) features[4]. 216.231.50.177 13:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

questions and comments

During the 1970s, there were TV ads where well-known personalities promoted use of the ZIP code, with slogans like, "Zip up your mail with the right ZIP code".

The TV series "Batman" with Adam West emphasized the ZIP code in one episode for identifying a crime location, as if the ZIP code would be relevant to visiting a location. It was a seven-digit ZIP code: 9999979!! Perhaps they were doing their bit to interest the viewing public in the ZIP code!

Does the Postal Service have a long-term proposal for expansion of the ZIP code upon exhaustion of the first three digits?

GBC 17:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think an exhaustion of that sort could happen unless the United Snakes were to annex more terriroty ( ;Bear 18:37, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

ZIP codes and municipal boundaries

The article includes the following:

ZIP codes and municipality boundaries may fail to match either because the ZIP code system was formed before the municipality was founded or because voters or governments have elected to move a municipal border.

I can think of situations in which both of the proffered reasons are plainly inapplicable. Does anyone have a source for all of the reasons why the boundaries do not match? Otherwise, we're just engaging in speculation, which does not belong in the article. Thanks. Doctor Whom 20:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. Probably more common than either is when areas outside the city limits of any incorporated community use a ZIP code (and town/city name) from a nearby community. My parents' house in Cedar Mill (unincorporated suburb of Portland, Oregon, more than a mile outside Portland city limits but well within the metropolitan area) has a mailing address ending in "Portland OR 97229". Not sure what to do about the article... DanielCristofani 08:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the boundaries don't always match is simple. ZIP Codes are mail routes. The post office doesn't care where the city and county starts and ends. It wants to deliver the mail efficiently. Jon Miles 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jon is right - but the implications are much greater than efficient mail delivery. The USPS assigns a single "default" place name to each ZIP code. This has three consequences:

1) That place name is elevated to the status of "city" or "town", even if it is neither. When people see "Place Name, ST 12345" in an address, the automatic assumption is that "Place Name" is an entity with a mayor, etc. If the USPS had designated "Cedar Mill" as the default place name for 97229, people would assume that is is an actual city or town - when, as Daniel points out, it is not.

2) It is readily assumed that an address is within the city limits of "Place Name" - which is problematic, because so much development in the U.S. lies outside municipal boundaries in unincorporated county areas. Again, from Daniel's example, most people will assume his parents live "in Portland" because that is what appears in their address, although they live at least a mile outside of Portland.

3) Any city or town that must share the same ZIP code with "Place Name" has second-class status. The USPS may deem other city or town names as "acceptable", but there is only one "default" place name. Since databases used by businesses associate the default place names with ZIP codes, any other place names - which may be "acceptable" - may not be recognized, and thus, for practical purposes, do not exist. For instance, you may have noticed that when giving your address to a business, they simply ask for the street address and your ZIP code, and do not ask for your city or town. The agent will simply enter the ZIP code you provide into a database, which will provide the "default" place name - which may or may not be the city or town that your address is actually in. So, if Cedar Mill were to incorporate and become an actual city, the USPS may or may not add "Cedar Mill" as an "acceptable" place name for 97229 (it currently is not acceptable). But even if it did, since "Portland" would remain the "default" place name, people would continue to use "Portland" and would assume that the address is in that city, even though it would actually be in the new city of Cedar Mill. People making a point to write "Cedar Mill, OR 97229" as their address would be going against the grain and would encounter difficulties - some businesses, calling up "97229" in their database, would ask, "that's in Portland, right?" If one replied "no, it's in Cedar Mill", s/he might get the response, "there's no 'Cedar Mill' here, are you sure that's right?" A possible solution would be to make "Cedar Mill" the "default" place name for 97229 - but the USPS rarely changes the "default" place names - and would not in this case if part of 97229 and the 97229 post office does lie within the Portland city limits. As a result, the City of Cedar Mill would have little "legitimacy" and most people would have no idea that it exists.

This situation is one of my pet peeves - the USPS should not have the power to define boundaries and political entities, but de facto, it does. Citizens should decide how local government should be set up, and postal designations should reflect them - not the other way around. With today's technology, GIS, and nine-digit ZIP codes, we should not have these problems. The "default" place name for an address should always be the actual place the address is in.

I edited the article a few weeks ago raising some of these issues. An entire article could be written with examples from around the country where the USPS ZIP code boundaries and designations create confusion and distort how things really are.

Denvoran 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to add some information.

Override City Name - A ZIP+4 record on the USPS database is associated with a specific last line (Place Name/State). If this association is different than the general association with the 5 digit ZIP, then this is deemed an override and is suppossed to take precedence.

So, if the default city name for the ZIP 11111 is "BIG CITY", but "1 MAIN ST" has a ZIP+4 of "11111-0001" and this is actually in "LITTLE SUBURB", then software is suppossed to use "LITTLE SUBURB" as the printed name on the mail piece.

Ofcourse this all depends on the local AMS office coding the specific ZIP+4 records with the override city name. Kenrus 21:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What about advertisements. Some advertisers use the discrepencies between zip code addresses and geographical areas to lie to their audience in order to gain an advantagein their bottom line. Example #1: A radio advertisement in San Diego County, CA says "New homes for sale in beautiful Pine Valley." In fact, these homes are located in Live Oak Springs which is 20 miles and 4 towns away from Pine Valley. Many locals consider Pine Valley a desireable place to live, with barely an acceptable commute time average of about 45 minutes to the San Diego area and Live Oak Springs is 20 miles farther out of town. The prices advertised would be a great deal in Pine Valley, but not in Live Oak Springs. You can't convince me that these developers actually think that the properties they are selling are located in Pine Valley. These developers are falsely advertising their product and the USPS is enabling them to do so as the ZIP Code says Pine Valley. The mailing address would be the only thing the developers could point to in their defense. Example #2: When reading the local classified ads for rentals, I find a common practice is to list homes in the area known locally as Paradise Hills (higher crime/lower property value area of the city of San Diego) as Bonita (lower crime/ higher property value unincorporated area of San Diego County. These are just 2 small examples of what is going on all over the San Diego area. The USPS enables this by giving both areas a common ZIP Code and the name of one area. I believe most, if not all of the property owners and devlopers know exactly what city their property is located in. These people just play dumb to increase their profit by increasing the numbers of responses they get to an ad which is a lie that gets a little help from the USPS. If the USPS just looks at the Zip Code, then the name of the city should be allowed to be accurate. This practice by the USPS serves to confuse many people. There are many out there that don't even know what city they even live in. Property owners should not be confused as property deeds don't reflect an abstract mailing address, but a real, accurate, legal location. It seems to me that the ZIP Code tells the USPS the default city name that they have designated. To also require that default city's name in the address would seem to be redundant. If the Zip tells the city, then why do we even write a city in the address? The only explanation I can think of is that there is more to a ZIP Code than mail. I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but something tells me there is more going on with ZIP Codes than sorting the mail. Someone, somewhere is or has gained in money, power or politics because of the needless confusion created by the USPS ZIP Code system. Typical government.

Well, I suspect the prospective property owner eventually finds out where his property is, and not too late to back out of the deal. What you mention has little to do with ZIP codes, but has been a real estate practice for many years. And as you say, the city and state are unnecessary, but they are a useful doublecheck in case of error in the ZIP code, so they remain in the mailing standards. To test this, when the ZIP+4 came in, Linn's Stamp News sent mail from across the country to its unique ZIP+4 addressing it without city or state, and most, if not all, got through just fine.--Wehwalt 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Trademark

"ZIP Code was originally registered as a trademark by the U.S. Postal Service, but its registration has since expired." Cite for this? My understanding is that trademarks don't expire; many have been in use for far longer than this, e.g. Coca-Cola or Bass Ale. —Michael Shields 00:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

U.S. trademark registrations have to be renewed periodically (15 U.S.C. § 1059). The status of trademark registrations can be searched here. Doctor Whom 16:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have confirmed this, USPS allowed its registration of "Zip Code®" as a trademark to expire.. I placed the link to the Patent & Trademark Office record for the Postal Service's registration of Zip Code in the article where this has been mentioned; PTO has the record as "DEAD", i.e. expired. Paul Robinson 18:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed:

Unusually, localities are assigned ZIP Codes which do not match the rest of their state's. This is when a locality is so isolated that it is served from a sectional center in another state. For example, Fishers Island, NY bears the ZIP Code 06390 and is served from Connecticut--all other New York ZIP Codes (excepting those at Holtsville for the IRS begin with "1".

This paragraph appeared twice. I removed one instance of it (left it in where it better fits)

Jefs 18:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for ZIP Code has failed, for the following reason:

(No references) SeizureDog 13:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lowest ZIP code?

I can find references to a series of ZIP codes, 00210 through 00215, that were/are used in Portsmouth, NH, for the annual immmigrant visa lottery. But all the web references to this are from several years ago, and I suspect the program may be conducted electronically now. Does anyone know whether those ZIP codes still exist? If they do, they'd be the lowest ZIP codes, instead of the IRS one that's currently listed. -- JustSayin 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The USPS online database doesn't list them, so I gather that they no longer exist. Doctor Whom 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that federal lands such as National Parks and Wildlife Refuges have (at least nominally speaking) ZIP codes beginning from the very beginning - i.e. 00001 - The North Dillingham Census Area, Alaska; 00002 - Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge; 00003 - Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge; etc. I'm guessing however that perhaps these are only for unpopulated areas: Yosemite National Park has a "real" ZIP of 95389, but also a degenerate ZIP 00058. See This Map derived from The US Census Bureau's Tiger Database. User:Middleforkmaps

State ZIP code lists

Wouldn't it be more helpful if the State links in this article pointed to the lists of ZIP codes in the states? I.e. if I click the "Illinois" link next to the map, I should be directed to a list of ZIP codes in Illinois, and not the general article on Illinois? Mtford 09:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

ZIP+4 lookup

Does anyone know some web service where people can search ZIP+4 codes (that means including information which is determined by last four digits)? Link to that service would be fine there... Jakub Horky 62.24.71.47 10:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This section on Zip+4 should be moved to later in the article after explaining how zip itself is described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daqingzhao (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture

Which zip code has the most people living it in? I mean receiving mail through it. I would rule out institutions, military zip codes, etc.

I've removed the following from the pop-culture section:

• The lowest numerical ZIP code (for destinations within the 50 US states, excluding unique ZIP codes) is 01001 for Agawam, Massachusetts.
• The lowest numerical ZIP code anywhere in the United States is 00601 for Adjuntas, Puerto Rico.
• The highest numerical ZIP code (for destinations within the 50 US states) is 99950 for Ketchikan, Alaska.
• To honor the tradition of the number 44 at Syracuse University, the zip code for all academic buildings was changed to 13244.{{fact}}
• The zip code for the main campus of the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio is 43210

These aren't related to pop culture, and not all of them are even accurate. Doctor Whom 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Soooooooooooooooooooo WHAT?!66.97.207.39

External Links

There are millions of ZIP Code lookups on the internet. I don't think it's necessary for Wikipedia to link to every one of them. I believe that we should stick with the official lookups on the USPS website. Many of the others that seem to pop up reguarly are pretty spammy.

• I suggest we start a list of the websites that have been spamming this article regularly. If anyone sees these links on the page, I recommend they are removed. Any comments on this, including reasons why these links should be included, would be appreciated.Mil97036 18:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • www.aresllc(dot)com/zip-codes-finder/
  • www.code322(dot)com

• Do we really want to do this, or are we giving the linkspammers the publicity they crave? The fact that someone posted a description of one of those sites here on the talk page concerns me. Maybe we should post the domain names in some other way.--Wehwalt 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In some articles, the regular editors have taken the position that any new external link is guilty until proved innocent, i.e., discussed in the talk page first. Is that an example worth following in ZIP-code-related articles, since they are such spam magnets? Doctor Whom 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that these ZIP Code articles are prone to spam, I think that Doctor Whom's suggestion may be a good one. Is there a way that we can indicate this on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mil97036 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I think that we keep removing, and when we do, we mention "See discussion on talk page" and if the editor wants to tell us why the link should remain, he can discuss it with the group.--Wehwalt 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Here is a link that I inserted a few days ago and which was removed about a day later. This is not spam (the page does not have ads, and there is no way to make money from it). It is an art-inspired visualization of "the secret live" of ZIP codes, and since Fry's zipdecode is also linked, I thought it was ok. The page also got quite a bit of exposure over the last few days on sites like reddit.com, and there are 50 comments on it now, most of them positive (plus dozens more on other sites). So here's the link and description: US ZIPScribble Map - a map created by connecting all ZIP codes in ascending order, which reveals some interesting patterns. Any thoughts? -- Robert Kosara 04:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure it is fascinating to watch the patterns of the "secret live" but I don't think it contains info for further reading, which is sort of the point of "see also"--Wehwalt 14:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have a site for your consideration as a useful external link. HipCodes(dot)com provides an instant, free, no-registration-required map of any* ZIP code in the United States. Zip Code boundary data are extracted from the most recent US Census Bureau Tiger data (*as of 01/2007 Tiger2006fe). There will be omissions in this data set, but not many. Interactive maps allow panning and zooming throughout all levels of detail. To my knowledge there is not another site on the internet - including Gmaps - which provides such a service. Following Wikipedia rules I am asking for review here and not adding a link myself. Thank you for your consideration Middleforkmaps 02:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for going through the procedure. I do not see any great harm in the site and it seems to do what the editor said with a minimum of advertising. I'm not good at detecting if it is doing anything else, like spyware, though.--Wehwalt 13:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections either. Doctor Whom 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback. I'll allow the question gestate for a while. Middleforkmaps 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to re-introduce the above external link discusion for hipcodes(dot)com, last discussed on 1 February 2007. At that time external links were limited to US government sites. As there is now at least one dot-com link included, HipCodes would again like to note that it provides an instant-free-no-registration Zip Code map and search tool which may benefit some users. I still shall not add any link myself. Middleforkmaps 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Still OK with me. I deleted the other site, by the way, they didn't go through the process. We must have been asleep at the switch.--Wehwalt 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fellow editors, I wish to have an external link considered; I believe it can be of great use to the readers. http://geocoder.ibegin.com/downloads.php has a free download of US Zip codes (to quote the page: "Includes zip, city, state, latitude, longitude, and county"), and as far as I can tell, there isn't any advertising on the page. Please let me know if you think it'll be ok to add this one. TY. -- Corsarius 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, guys. I hope it wouldn't come across as an affront to you if I will go ahead and add the above-stated link. I reckon that that would be OK, since the link can be easily removed by an editor anyway (of course, with due discussion here in the Talk page). Thanks again. -- Corsarius 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Corsarius, when adding the iBegin link, why did you remove the USZip(.)com one? There is no direct competition between the two sources, as far as I can tell, and since the iBegin one is a ZIP codes database for download it serves a totally different and much narrower audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.46.132 (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Editors, per your instructions we would like to suggest our website as an external link candidate. USZip(.)com is an instant ZIP code search followed with U.S. census data that can be searched and browsed by ZIP code or city name.

As it name implies, USZip(.)com is all about U.S. Zip code data and will provide users with geographic and several demographic factors for a given zip code using a clear and intuitive AJAX based user interface. The data is compiled from the public domain US Census Bureau 2000 ZIP code tabulations.

We would appreciate if you will consider our entry and objectively compare it to other non-governmental sources that are listed such as the 'ZipCode Finder', and decide which resource provides more relevant information, ease of use and less aggressive advertising to better serve the WikiPedia audience.

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.255.60 (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any major problems with it, except that most of the stats it gives is available through the other commercial EL we already have (I deleted a third as unuseful). I can't speak to if it is a spyware threat or something, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Wehwalt.

Regarding your spyware threat concerns, I can assure you our family of reference related websites are 100% safe and secure. Our websites (lead by Abbreviations(.)com, an acronyms and abbreviations directory edited by volunteering editors) are serving millions of visitors from all over the world and we've been running our online business for more than 7 years now without a single malicious code complaints.

We'll be waiting for more feedback before adding USZip(.)com to the external links section.

Thanks again, Yigal Ben Efraim CEO STANDS4 LLC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.244.240 (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole of the external link discussion here seems solvable with a single dmoz link I would imagine. Wikipedia is not a web directory and links really should be the exception not the rule. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dmoz link? Can you explain the term?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure - take a look at this. If you poke around you will find links to pretty much anything and a link on the page here to the correct section of dmoz (I think there is an interwiki link too which may make it easier - I'll check) will give people a way to find link of the nature they require (and keep our pages cleaner). Failing which I guess a google link maybe. The problem is that links here have no real vetting, we are not link experts etc etc - dmoz/google are web directories. Hope it helps, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in a DMOZ link then Top: Reference: Directories: Address and Phone Numbers: Postal Codes is probably going to be the closest match. The link isn't very easy to find directly from the DMOZ home page but a direct link from this article might allow people to find what they're looking for. Unfortunately, the DMOZ page is not limited to just US zip codes. It postal codes from other countries as well.

If you're interested in a Google link then free zip code database is probably the most relevant search term for this particular article. Please note, if you remove the word "free" from the search query you'll simply get a ton of commercial websites trying to make a fast buck (sometimes hundreds of dollars) for data and services that are (obviously) available for free. --PopularData (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Since no new discussion seems to have happened here I have removed the old/incomplete US Census bureau links. People would be better off searching on Google, DMOZ, etc themselves. If someone wants to add those searches as ELs feel free (see notes above). I have also removed the USZIP link as it really isn't relevant to this article (ie. USPS website has it covered). Perhaps it is more relevant to an article about the US Census or US demographics? --PopularData (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

PopularData.com

Looks like 65.182.233.93 has been spamming PopularData.com on the page repeatedly, and removing the "If you want to add an external link to this list, please discuss it on the talk page first. Otherwise, it may be immediately removed. Thank you." comment. Polpo (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the main problems here is that we have a bunch of people with a bit of a "god complex" here. Just read the page history and you can see examples of long time editors adding USEFUL links only to see them removed a day or so later. Anyone who bothered to do even a little research would see that the populardata.com website is a FREE, opensource site. It is featured on MANY blogs around the internet, has been published in multiple magazine articles, and even a few books. The site is clean. Futhermore, I feel it is an EXTREMELY relevant site. It is perhaps one of the best sources of FREE up-to-date zip code database data. Please leave it intact. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.233.93 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not true. We have come up with a process here. Ask for a approval on talk page, before posting a site. In this case it is a download. Probably better to use a website than have a dedicated program. PopularData adds nothing not available from existing ELs, at an increase in inconvenience and threat. Oppose having it as an EL.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the ELs and can not any ELs that provide good raw zip code data. Web services are fine for most but as a programmer I am looking for RAW data. The only raw data available in the ELs appears to be the US Census data. I have downloaded the census data and it appears to be VERY out of date. I did some research (based on the claims above) and it does appear to be a relevant (at least Google thinks so) source of zip code data. I would suggest to the person(s) running populardata.com that if they added a web service or something to their site it might be more easily accepted? I don't care for such a thing myself. There are HUNDREDS of sites out there with web portals and services for zip code info. I just want a database to include in my own programs. Just my two cents. I vote to put it back in. Or, should I just add it back in? One person takes links out, another adds them back in. I'm new (to this article) but I fail to see the "process" here? Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.123.50 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that the PopularData.com external link has been removed again... for no real reason. I would kindly request that Wehwalt stop removing it. I welcome open discussion on the subject and encourage anyone interested to do a little research and explain to me why its not relevant. Also, while I'm on the topic of relevant links I would like to point out that the external link to the census bureau data is seriously out of date. Not only is the data over EIGHT YEARS old... it was never complete to begin with! The census bureau themselves state this in the following link:

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/tigerfaq?Q16

I don't see anyone anxious to remove that link (and it probably should be) so it makes absolutely no sense to remove the PopularData link. The PopularData link contains information that is more complete, and more accurate. Since one single individual decided to remove the link I have added the link back in. I welcome discussion as to why anyone feels it is not relevant to this article. I would also like to thank the person above (Andrew) for his comments. I don't have any immediate plans to add any sort of webservice since there are a TON of sites out there that already. What I provide is complete and raw data for download (for free). I do appreciate the suggestion though. If that was all it took to have people stop removing the link I could easily do that. The code for such a lookup service would take me less than 10 minutes to write. *shrug* --PopularData (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that by your name, you have WP:COI with the link, you should not be adding it. You can bring it to the attention of talk page, fine, but you have to leave it to editors to decide. There was no consensus, so I will remove it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, PopularData.com should not be adding it due to a direct conflict of interest. I disagree with you being judge, jury, and executioner though. Who are these editors? What are their names? Time for a vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.123.50 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you add it back in? And why does your talk page, in its entirety [5] consist of a statement from last October that the populardata site should be added in? The only edits you have ever made to article pages are additions of external links, adding software packages. Are we seeing sockpuppets here?

WP is not a democracy and does not work by voting. Additions, such as the addition of the populardata site, need to be by consensus. I and another user objected; thus there is not consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you clearly need to do some research. I personally am not associated with PopularData (just a supporter) so no need to worry about "sockpuppets". For an attorney you don't argue very well. WP is not a democracy but its not a dictatorship either. Based on your logic are you saying that if two or more people disagree with your changes they should be undone? That's just silly. Furthermore, your talk about "software packages" is silly as well. There isn't a software package on that entire site. Just raw data in text form. :-) Do some research and stop grinding that axe. :-) -Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.123.50 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, would you please refrain from undoing the changes. I am trying to "follow procedure" even though I disagree with some of what Wehwalt is saying. We have had a discussion over on a separate WP page and he has recommended I come over here and post my points. It seems to me (on the surface anyway) that nobody has a problem with the populardata.com link itself but with the lack of proper procedure or asking for permission (or whatever). That being said, I spent some time today reading through the dispute resolution policies. That being said, I am "officially" requesting that someone review and add the following link to the "External Links" section of this article and also consider my other points:

All that being said. My website is NOT a product... simply a resource. It is NOT a program... simply raw data. So, while you and I seem to be in a "battle over procedure" and we're clearly both being stubborn. I propose that we set our differences aside for a moment. I would like to extend the olive branch and ask that you please review the populardata.com link. Here are the reasons why I personally feel it should be submitted (Andrew, I have included some of your points as well, thank you):

1. If you go to Google and search for "free zip code database" or even "zip code database" you will find that PopularData.com consistently shows up on the first page for those phrases and several variations. For the phrase mentioned above, I think it comes in around 4th place (just above the wikipedia article). If Google considers it "relevant" I think it deserves a second look and consideration for inclusion here.

2. If you LOOK at the populardata home page itself you will see that NOWHERE on that page is the phrase "zip code database" or even "zip code". The REASON the site ranks so high on Google is because a large portion of the web community out there have linked to my site in their blogs. Google considers this "link relevance" (ie. many people talking about the same thing and pointing to the same place). I would be happy to provide a list of referring links to back this up if necessary.

3. The PopularData.com website is free for everyone. While many, MANY, other sites out there are requiring payment for zip code databases, etc... this site is (and always has been) free. For this reason alone, I feel it could be a valuable addition to the Zip Code article on Wikipedia.

4. In addition to this site being published in multiple blogs and papers it has also been published in several books. I feel that this further makes the case for it being a relevant link here.

I would not like to discuss the CURRENT external links on the Zip Code article:

The article currently contains a link to (http://www.aresllc.com/zip-codes-finder/)... if you go to this link and try searching for a zip code, you will find the site is malfunctioning. Regardless of what you decide on my link, you should probably remove this one. It looks like the USZip.com serves the exact same purpose anyway.

It is also worth mentioning that I could easily provide that same service on a page on my site (less than a day to implement) if you feel it actually adds value and would make my site more worth of submission. (kill 2 birds with one stone?)

The article also contains a link to (Zip code data sets) from the census bureau. This is the only link on this article that contains downloadable zip code data. This seems to indicate that there is already a "concensus" that downloadable zip code data IS valuable to this WP article. Unfortunately, the Census data is incomplete and out of date. The census bureau also makes mention of this on their website.

I respectfully propose that the http:/www.populardata.com link be added to this article or possibly even replace the census bureau website as the data is complete, more accurate, and more up to date.

(There Wehwalt, how did I do?) ;-) --PopularData (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, for a beginner. Let me ask you this: I note on your site (yes, I did look at it both in May and recently) that it indicates that the data are not current, but several years old. Is it the same data as on the Census Bureau site? If so, why should we use a private site as an EL, rather than a government site with no worries about copyright?

And, to restate my question from last month, does it really help the WP reader on ZIP codes to be confronted with a database download, rather than a lookup service of one kind or another? Does it fill a need? Is it helpful to the reader? Have you read the standards under WP:EL, and how do you think they relate?

I should add that if you read back through the talk page discussions, we have had tremendous problems with people linkspamming this article. At one time this was a very active article, but there seem to be few editors watching it right now, and I've felt obligated to uphold the standards that were implemented. I don't have anything against your site, and while I did not download the data, I'm sure it is valuable, and for my part (as one editor), I'll consider what you have to say without prejudice.

As for Andrew's comments, both he and PopularData had a pattern of editing that looked odd, and, to my view, justified myself in asking that an admin, with greater resources than I have, take a look at it. I suspect it will end "looks odd, but can't prove it". Incidently, your earlier comments on this talk page (god complex?) were not exactly helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I will attempt to address your points in order:

It is NOT the same data as on the Census Bureau site. A download of both sets of data will easily confirm this. As of this writing, the main data on the PopularData.com site is about 1-2 years old. An update is actually scheduled before the end of the month which will bring the database current to 2008. Zip codes don't change on a month-to-month basis (contrary to what may pay sites would have you believe, most of them bundle in telephone area code data which DOES update often) so I typically queue up many of the changes, confirm them, and roll it all out at once.

I am uncertain as to how to address your copyright question other than to say I have always offered all of the data on the site free and without any catches. I suppose if that were to cease, someone could simply discuss and remove the EL?

I believe the link DOES help a lot of the readers of this article and would go as far as to say it is probably more than you realize. If someone wants to do a simple zip code lookup, they just go to the US Post Office website (USPS.COM). There are hundreds (if not thousands) of zip code lookup sites on the internet but very few actually offer the complete set of data. In short, how do you think all of those zip code lookup websites work? ;-) (Ironically, I can trace many of them back to downloads from my site) LOL

I have read the WP:EL and I believe this link falls under those standards just as much as any of the links you have already accepted for this article. I believe that the link to the Census Bureau data already establishes the concensus that being "confronted with a database download" is acceptable. Furthermore, if I were to play Devil's advocate for a moment, I would question the relevance of all zip code lookup websites (other than the USPS.COM website). Anyone can go to Google Maps, type in a zip code, and see a map. That's about all most of the zip code lookup links do. (one could argue the point that some links show demographic data, but now we're not talking about zip codes anymore, are we?) :)

I hope that I have satisfied your questions but let me know if you have more. If you truly have nothing against the site and you are truly considering what I have to say without prejudice then I think you'll find my intentions are sincere. Clearly I have jumped through more than enough hoops here. :-)

You have stated that you're pretty much the only editor on this article so you tell me what's next? --PopularData (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

suggest we give it a few days to see if other editors chime in. Note that it is usual on WP that the views of new editors aren't taken with the same weight as veteran editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In practice PopularData would be prevented from placing a link to this site per conflict of interest policy anyway. As such it should be removed if placed by that user. Given the events I would suggest that if it were placed by an IP it also should be removed. If it continues to be placed it will probably be blacklisted. It is the behaviour & breach of policy that is the issue rather than the content of the site. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Herbythyme. So, it seems like what you are suggesting is that the link be rejected based on what has happened in the past rather than the fact that I have finally come around to discuss it (in great detail) here on the talk page? While I respect your opinion I feel that this article in particular seems a bit bias. Up above I have discussed several of the external links and I am curious as to why the "aresllc" link is still here? Right at the top someone called them a link spammer yet they're still allowed? The lookup service at that link is broken by the way (pukes out a bunch of PHP errors when you try to look up a zip code). So, why aren't the "rules" the same for everyone? :-) I respectfully disagree with you that the issue here is the breach of policy. At this point in time, wouldn't the issue be what is best for the overall quality of the article? I have not re-added the PopularData.com link ever since it was pointed out that it was COI. I still feel the link is valuable to this article though, especially when examining and considering the links that have been allowed here. Can someone tell me if there is more to the story with the "aresllc" link? I don't see any discussion of it on this page... yet it was allowed? I'm new here so I could have easily missed something. If so, please let me know. --PopularData (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The link is gone now I see. Personally I would not wish to see any more links here. Wikipedia is not a web directory. DMOZ on the other hand is - a link to the relevant part of that would be fine. I would strongly advise you not to re-insert the PopularData link - your account is blockable per policy as it stands. Equally, should any IP add the link I would investigate that very closely with a view to enquiring about the appropriateness of blacklisting. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

States and first 3 digits of ZIP

The way I read

 When a sectional center facility's area crosses state lines, that facility is assigned separate
 three-digit prefixes for the states that it serves; thus, it is possible to identify the state
 associated with any ZIP Code just by looking at the first three digits.

I should be able to look at the first three digits of any ZIP, say 06390 as is mentioned a bit later, and map 063 to the state for Fishers Island, which should be NY. But the vast majority of the 063 codes are in Connecticut. For example, 06389 is for Yantic, CT. (These codes were looked up in the latest City/State product from the USPS. You can confirm the assertion by going to the USPS zip+4 lookup page at http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp and looking for PO Box 1 in the 06389 and 06390 ZIPs. The former comes back in CT, the latter in NY.)

So either I am reading the sentence above incorrectly, or it has ceased to be true. I only find 8 ZIPs in the current data where there is ambiguity on the first three digits, and only 4 different 3-digit prefixes where all 8 ZIPs appear. So the statement is almost true. But I think the statement needs some rewording, or we run the risk of misleading people.

Jpl 17:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fishers Island is the exception to most of the rules. Plus there used to be some DC branches in Virginia, at government offices and the like. As far as I know, Fishers Island is the only fully independent post office, with its own postmaster, with an "out of state" ZIP. Maybe, Jpl, you could post the excepions and we could discuss?--Wehwalt 15:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WE MUST SOLVE THIS ZIP CODE CONNUNDRUM

Here are the exceptions from the May 2007 City/State product from the USPS.

 '06'=>[3,'CT'],
 '063'=>[4,'CT'],
 '0639'=>[4,'NY'],

 '834'=>[4,'ID'],
 '8341'=>[5,'ID'],
 '83414'=>[5,'WY'],

 '967'=>[4,'HI'],
 '9679'=>[5,'HI'],
 '96799'=>[5,'AS'],

 '969'=>[4,'GU'],
 '9694'=>[5,'FM'],
 '96940'=>[5,'PW'],
 '9695'=>[4,'MP'],
 '9696'=>[4,'MH'],
 '9697'=>[4,'MH'],

The way to read them is: everything starting with the prefix to the left of the => is the state that is the second item in brackets, but you must check prefixes of the length that is the first item in brackets for exceptions. So '06' is 'CT' unless a prefix of length 3 is also in the table, and '063' is also 'CT' unless there is a prefix of length 4 in the table, and '0639' is 'NY', and since that is already a prefix of length 4, there are no other exceptions. A bit clunky, but quite compact, since many states are already unambiguous with prefixes of length 2. So the only exceptions to the "3 digits is sufficient" rule are entries of length 4 or more, all of which appear above (as of May 2007, anyway). Most exceptions involve "territories", like AS (American Samoa), GU (Guam), FM (Federated States of Micronesia), MH (Marshall Islands), MP (Northern Mariana Islands) or PW (Palau), but the first two exceptions are in the 50 states. So, although exceptions are rare, we dare not suggest that 3 digits are always sufficient to identify state. Jpl 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, 3 digits do not uniquely determine the state. Here are a few more exceptions I know about:

• "527" : ["IL","IA"], # QUAD CITIES
• "515" : ["NE","IA"], # OMAHA
• "516" : ["NE","IA"], # OMAHA
• "865" : ["NM","AZ"], # GALLUP
• "410" : ["OH","KY"], # CINCINNATI
• "838" : ["WA","ID"], # SPOKANE
• "369" : ["MS","AL"], # MERIDIAN
• "961" : ["NV","CA"], # RENO
• "424" : ["IN","KY"], # EVANSVILLE
• "307" : ["TN","GA"], # CHATTANOOGA
• "723" : ["TN","AR"], # MEMPHIS

This situation usually seems to come up when a city is very close to a state line. These exceptions came from grinding through a database of 15 million US business addresses, and noting exceptions to the one-state-per-3-digit-ZIP rule. The Census Bureau web site says that even 5-digit ZIP codes can cross state lines.

It also looks like 297 can appear in both NC and SC.

I could use a solidly reliable 3-digit ZIP vs. state table. Anyone know a current, free source? None of the listed links have it; they're either out of date or search-only.

I put a {{fact}} tag on that portion of the article. --John Nagle (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, why don't you find a better way of putting it, and improve the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to find a reliable source. I tried one of the article references [6], and it has only two 3-digit zip codes that span state boundaries:

• "063" : ['CT', 'NY'], # NEW LONDON
• "834" : ['ID', 'WY'], # IDAHO FALLS

It appears that table only has US states, not the special cases like territorial islands. More later.

--John Nagle (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Aren't there still some DC ZIP codes in Virginia as well? I know they got rid of some when they made 201 Virginia, but for National Airport, the Pentagon, etc?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found part of the problem. The USPS has a list of sorting facilities vs. 3 digit ZIP codes. I'd been using that as a 3-digit ZIP code list, but it's not valid for that purpose. In some cases, the sorting facility is in a different state than some ZIP code it serves. For example, 527xx is entirely in Iowa, but its sorting facility is across the Mississippi River in Illinois. It now looks like the only cross-state ZIP codes in the continental US are 063 and 834. The other exceptions seem to be for sparsely populated islands. --John Nagle (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well . . . never been there, but Fishers Island, the exception in "063" is, no doubt, sparsely populated. Where do you draw the distinction?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two US Postal Service products that I use regularly. Neither is free or redistributable. The City State product is described as

a comprehensive list of ZIP Codes with corresponding city and county names. This file also contains other names by which a Post Office may be known.

The ZIP + 4 product has a record for every ZIP+4 add on. Samples of the files are available at the referenced websites. It is tempting to think of these files as defining official USPS policy, but the accompanying documentation is fairly sketchy about precise definitions, so what I say here is what I have inferred from these files, not official policy. The ZIP + 4 product stores 6-character City State Keys to identify the bulkier city and state names stored in the City State product. Although the City State product has default preferred names for all the names by which a Post Office may be known, the ZIP + 4 product sometimes overrides that default, as is mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. If one uses the USPS ZIP Code Lookup page as defining policy, then one can confirm that the City State Keys from the ZIP + 4 product are, indeed, what the USPS wants to see used. And, using the same site, we can determine that it is the state from the City State product, not the state stored in the ZIP + 4 product, that the USPS wants to appear on an envelope. With all this as preface, we need some precision when discussing what is meant by a "ZIP to state" table. If what is wanted is a mapping from ZIP code to the state the USPS wants to appear on an envelope, then the City State product is adequate, and the only exceptions to the 3 leading digits of ZIP Code establishing state are those I itemized above (at least as of the January 2008 City State file). If what is wanted is a mapping from ZIP Code to the state to which that envelope would be delivered, it does not exist. I counted 160 ZIP Codes in the January 2008 ZIP + 4 file that spanned two or more states, 4 of which, 30559, 51640, 57717 and 82082, spanned three states. I am quite certain that no ZIP Code + ZIP 4 add on would span multiple states, but I didn't bother to check. Unless the USPS made an official proclamation that that were the intent, confirmation might just be an accident, or disproof might just be dirty data.

Jpl (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

U.S. ZIP codes for other countries

Mail from the US to Canada may bear a US POSTNET code such as 00101-2406 for a Canadian postal code which begins M6R. These codes are not listed on the USPS web site, but are used internally by the USPS to machine-sort mail from the US to other countries. Is there a list of these codes? --Eastmain 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

U.S. ZIP code required? Notation/formatting?

Hi! I have a few basic questions which I couldn't answer by reading the article:

• Are ZIP codes an absolute requirement for mailings within the U. S.? Will a mailing arrive at the addressee if the ZIP code is ommitted, i. e. Chicago, IL'?
• Will a mailing arrive at the addressee if the ZIP code is placed _before_ the city name, i. e. 12345-6789 Chicago, IL?

Thanks in advance! --Jaba82 18:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not for First Class Mail. For most other kinds of mail, it is. And as for your other question, I don't think putting it before the city name will get it there faster, but may get it there slower by making requiring hand sorting--Wehwalt 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Move WTC/Katrina items from section 2.2 to section 4?

I think the information about zip codes 10048 (World Trade Center) and 77230 (post-Katrina refugee shelter at the Houston Astrodome) should be moved from section 2.2 (Structure and Allocation, by type/use) to section 4 (pop culture). 10048 is not a good example of a Unique ZIP code (it is currently classified as Standard, and may have been Unique, Standard, or P.O.-box-only prior to the destruction of the twin towers). The class of 77230 at its creation is similarly unknown (to me, at any rate). These unclear examples of ZIP class don't belong in a section meant to describe ZIP code types or classes. Pop Culture would be a nicer home for them.

More generally, there appears to be some confusion regarding ZIP codes that are "unique" in some common meaning of the word, as opposed to "Unique" in the specific sense of the ZIP code class assigned by the USPS. In particular, the fact that there is a one-to-one correspondence between a ZIP code and a particular building, campus, or complex does not mean that the ZIP code in question is classified as Unique by the USPS. Perhaps the word "unique" should be capitalized throughout the article when referring to the USPS classification; alternately or in addition, synonyms or rephrasings could be used to indicate broader or more casual meanings.

216.231.50.177 14:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: No objections; changes made.

216.231.50.177 09:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Errors introduced by 199.72.40.115 on 17:14, 1 June 2006 and other problems

Most of the many changes made by 199.72.40.115 on 17:14, 1 June 2006 were erroneous, and most of them are still present in this article. Here's the revision I'm referring to. I corrected his addition of "No." which altered the meaning of the algorithm on bar codes, making it incorrect. However, I don't have the patience to systematically change all the references to "ZIP code" to the proper "ZIP Code" that was formerly used in the article.

It is unfortunate that his edit was not immediately reverted. It appears the only valid improvement he made was to change "US" to "U.S."

In the course of looking for the edit that introduced the "No." error, I also noticed a significant vandalism-related deletion, and the person who undid the vandalism that was introduced did so by manually deleting it rather than reverting to restore the deleted text, so the section on Postal Abbreviations was removed. Perhaps that section is off-topic for this article anyway.

--dreish~talk 17:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

10022-SHOE

How do letters map to numbers in a ZIP+4? —Random832 21:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ZIPs loosely tied to cities

There's a paragraph in the referenced section that includes a few examples of ZIPs where the postal place name (e.g., Kirkwood NJ) refers to a much larger municipal jurisdiction (e.g., Evesham Township, New Jersey). After that section, the paragraph includes two further anecdotal examples (one about the Town of LaGrange, NY and one about Armstrong Township, IN).

I propose deleting those two examples.

In the case of the Armstrong Township example, I believe that the author is mistaken. I went to the Vanderburgh County web site, got a map of the county's eight townships which showed major roads only, and then went to Google Maps in order to assemble a list of a dozen prominent roads in that part of the county which could conceivably fit the description of "Armstrong, Indiana" (as described by Rhatsa26WD). I then went to USPS.com and did ZIP searches for those roads, and the only ZIP codes that were returned were 47720 and 47725, not the 47617 listed in this paragraph. (By the way, the 47617 referenced in this article maps to HATFIELD IN, in an adjacent county.) Furthermore, the 47720 and 47725 that USPS.com returned do not map to a postal place name of ARMSTRONG IN but instead are EVANSVILLE IN postal addresses. Perhaps the mail is being delivered successfully to postal customers in Armstrong Twp addressed as "Armstrong, IN 47617", but successful delivery does not mean that the post-office name and ZIP code are correct as written.

In the case of the LaGrange example, the facts as presented are more or less correct (except "Lagrangeville," the postal place name, is not spelled with a mid-word capital G), but the situation is not all that unusual. It's an example that is matched in several states where the political boundaries of a "town" (or "township") do not correspond to a post-office name in its vicinity.

Seeadam 10:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree. In the Northeastern states, that is, Pennsylvania and east and north of there, there are a plethora of municipalities. The ZIP Code system had to accept as given a huge number of municipalities and post offices which just "were". Check out the description of the ZIP Code system in Toms River, New Jersey for example. I'd oppose having everyone put in their pet example. For example, I grew up in a borough Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey which before we moved in had a 07680 ZIP Code, throughout my residence there we were 07675 along with four other municipalities, and after I moved out, got an 07677 ZIP code. Go figure. There are so many such examples, which change as the USPS reacts to political pressure, establishment and disestablishment of post offices, etc., etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the source you need for ZIP codes vs. geography: Technical ZCTA Document. This describes how the Census Bureau converted ZIP codes to geographic areas. ZIP codes are only loosely geographical. 5-digit ZIP codes aren't defined for many unpopulated areas with no mail delivery, or for water areas. ZIP code boundaries are often at the back of lot lines in urban areas (since, for delivery purposes, it's better if both sides of the same street are in the same ZIP code), while census boundaries and political boundaries are in the middle of streets. Census doesn't maintain this map data continuously; they did it for the 2000 census and will do it again in 2010. So there's no official, current ZIP code to map conversion that covers the whole US. --John Nagle (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we consider deleting or radically scaling back on this section. It really isn't encyclopedic, when you come down to it. I think it is sufficient if we note that ZIP Codes were not meant to follow municipal lines, give a couple of examples, briefly, and let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Inventor

The article currently states in an unsourced paragraph:

By the early 1960s a more general system was needed, and on July 1, 1963, non-mandatory ZIP codes were announced for the whole country. Robert Moon, an employee of the post office, is considered the father of the ZIP code. He submitted his proposal in 1944 while working as a postal inspector.

I just watched a classic episode of CBS's I've Got a Secret (a primetime nationwide U.S. show) and they had on one Bentley Hahn of Springfield, Virginia, whose secret was that he alone came up with the idea for the zip code. No other information was revealed about him, his role or his position at the postal servcie. There is a separate stub on Robert Moon with more about him inventing the zip code. Need I say there's an apparent contradiction here. Google searches are equally contradictory, with separate sources detailing each, separately, as the inventor of the zip code. In any event, the reference, should someone more familiar with this material wish to use it, would be <ref>Bentley Hahn appearance on [[CBS]]' ''[[I've Got a Secret]]'', November 6, 1963. Secret listed as inventor of the ZIP code. Rebroadcast on [[Game Show Network]] on March 4, 2008.</ref>--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we add this link?

Hi everbody, Do you think that this link: http://benfry.com/zipdecode/ would be suitable for this article? All the Best. Shane (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture section

The trivia/in popular culture section is starting to get out of hand. There are millions of cultural/TV references to ZIP codes out there, and most of the ones that are mentioned are minor and irrelevant to the general topic. I propose that the list either be deleted or drastically reduced, and perhaps a prose section can be added on the significance of ZIP codes in TV and popular culture. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I support deletion in its entirety.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I do NOT support total deletion of the list. A agree it could use a good pruning though. --PopularData (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've cut it back to four that seemed be widely known, and deleted the ones that were mere passing reference to ZIP codes.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Section 2 under "By type/use" says: "There are four types of ZIP codes: Unique..., P.O.-box-only..., Military... and Standard..." but then the sub-section entitled "Non-standard examples" reads: "A few ZIP codes fall outside the three types..." . . . jg (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Fix it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

.

ZIP code to Zone Improvement Plan code

Shouldn't we stop using acronyms as article titles and start using the terms in full. Like FIPS state code Redirects to Federal Information Processing Standard state code Mr Taz (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what may have been true in 1963, do you have info that this is still the official term? I would say that we should leave it alone, you should put the article at the most common search term, and that is for sure ZIP Code.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Utilization

Does anyone know what percent of zip codes are actually in use? In theory this would not be difficult if one had an exhaustive list of ZIP codes, but I do not know whether such a list exists in a form easily readable by computer.RSido (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Area of average zipcode

I am looking for the area of the average zipcode, but could not find it on this page. 199.106.103.248 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess we don't have that information, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wikipedia Spelling Uses a Derivative of the Trademark Without Attributing the Trademark

"ZIP Code" is a trademark of the United States Postal Service. Shouldn't Wikipedia use the correct spelling, with the "C" capitalized? Thpn (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Users in another section correctly write that the registered trade mark "ZIP Code" was allowed to expire. However, the United States Postal Service still has rights to the trademark ZIP Code^TM. The distinction is that of registration. For reference, look at any page at usps.com dealing with ZIP Codes^TM. ZIP Code^TM is a trademark of the United States Postal Service and the spelling used by Wikipedia is incorrect. Wikipedia should adopt the correct spelling for ZIP Code^TM and this article should be moved to the title with the correct spelling.Thpn (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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