Talk:List of area code overlays

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

not longin garena

Ann Arbor[edit]

A reader noted the 278 is missing. See 278--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

263 is also missing, not sure if used at this moment or just planned: https://cnac.ca/area_code_maps/canadian_area_codes.htm 104.156.66.98 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing/Conflicting entries[edit]

Right now, the following listing appears under "Current": "475 overlays 203 in southwestern Connecticut."

...and the following listing appears under "Pending and Planned": "959 is to overlay Connecticut's 860. As with 475/203, it was proposed in 1999,[1] but withdrawn.[5]"

The wording of the latter entry is confusing, because it implies that 959/860 and 475/203 were both proposed in 1999, but withdrawn, leaving me wondering if 475/203 was withdrawn or not. I'm guessing what was actually meant was, "...As with 475/203, 959/860 was proposed in 1999, however 959/860 was withdrawn"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerine459 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article really needed?[edit]

This list article is severly out of date, missing many new overlay complexes. For more many years, NANP area codes have only been added by the overlay method. This makes one wonder about the usefulness of this list. Undoubtedly, the content can be obtained from List of North American Numbering Plan area codes, which is updated routinely, while this article is not. kbrose (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]