Talk:Area code 360

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

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	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.

List of Cities?

The article about the area code 425 has a list of cities who use it, but 360 doesn't. Thanks, from a miscellaneous IP address.

71.197.205.16 07:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

topology

Is it worth mentioning that 360 is (and apparently always has been) split into disjoint pieces by 206/253/425? Many maps don't show that detail clearly. —Tamfang (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia used to have nice maps. I am very sad about the present situation. The map in this article is pitiful to the point of less-than-useless. Sadsaque (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area code 360. 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/20090325100800/http://www.areacodedownload.com:80/360/index.html to http://www.areacodedownload.com/360/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contiguous or not

A quibble but the area is only non-contiguous across land. The county boundaries touch in Puget Sound so, technically, Snohomish is contiguous with Kitsap, and with Island, so there is continuity. - Brianhe (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on your definition of "contiguous". Per Contiguity#Geography, "Political or geographical land divisions that, as a group, are not interrupted by other land or water are contiguous." What definition are you using? - BilCat (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snohomish County is not interrupted by water from Kitsap County because Puget Sound is approximately half in one county and half in the other. In other words, there is no water separating the two counties except that which is in one county or the other. There is no other land or water thus no interruption. - Brianhe (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of the comment is that the land doesn't touch directly. But if it's that much of an issue to you, then remove it as an unsourced claim/original research. Trying to clarify it to include the land part would only open it up for another semantic quibble yet to be thought of. - BilCat (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I gave it a try. Quibbles are what we are all about :) - Brianhe (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you handle the next quibble that comes up regarding this. Hopefully, it'll seem silly to you, but of life or death importance to that quibbler. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]