Jump to content

Talk:AT&T Mobility

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:AT&T GoPhone)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 10:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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) 06:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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) 15:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism 2?

[edit]

I see that this article is currently scoring 96.7% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector[1].

I am wondering if the site it identifies[2] is plagiarising us or vice versa. It doesn't acknowledge Wikipedia as a source. I see an old message from 10 years ago above noting the same sort of thing with a different site and the link there[3] looks very suspiciously similar (right down to the advert for "Solar Cola", whatever that might be, at the bottom) but with some differences. They both look a bit odd. I am wondering if they are each copied from different old versions of this article?

Are we happy that they are copying us and we have no copyright problems here ourselves? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 5G Evolution

[edit]

5G Evolution is merely marketing by AT&T Mobility to promote transitional 4G LTE networks to ride off the 5G branding. It should be incorporated here. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm rather unfamiliar with merging. Before I cast my decision, would someone mind answering a couple questions? In such merges, would all content and sourcing be retained? Also, is it possible for a redirect to be provided for readers who search for such a topic to be pointed to the new 5G Evolution section of the AT&T Mobility main page? Huggums537 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research at WP:Merge and WP:Redirect to answer my own questions. My initial response was to oppose this merge on the basis that the AT&T article is already too bulky and that the 5G Evolution page could be expanded. However, further analysis reveals this assessment is not correct since 5G Evolution is not *true* 5G and it could not therefore be expanded that much or merged with either the 4G, nor the 5G articles appropriately. Since my research indicates a merge typically includes a targeted redirect,

I Support [changed my mind about] the merge. Huggums537 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "5G Evolution" article is already 3-paragraph long and over 3000 byte in size. Indeed, it is part of the larger topic of AT&T Mobility, yet it received concern from various different places outside AT&T regarding this particular branding, see references in the original article. Is it really necessary to put all of them into this article and further increase this article size by 3KB, instead of simply linking that article from this article with a simple description? C933103 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was also concerned about the size at first, but more importantly, isn't omitting the controversy kinda misleading? I'm sure the whole thing could be pruned down some, but I for sure would not replace the controversy and all that with just a simple description that eliminates pertinent sourcing... Huggums537 (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah wait a minute, I misunderstood your suggestion, you want to link the articles and simultaneously add a short description to this one. I thought you meant something else to do with eliminating the 5G Evolution article in favor of a short description in this one. Disregard my previous statement. In fact, I'll strike it. Huggums537 (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is purely a creation of AT&T as a trademark to mislead consumers on upcoming 5G developments. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I do support the merge, and the limited local consensus we have here does seem to be in favor of the merge so far, I also think it is only fair that enough time should be given for anyone else to comment who might oppose it. That way, there can be no denial later on that the merge wasn't fully supported, or that every opportunity for anyone to oppose wasn't amply given... Huggums537 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been rethinking my position, and I think C933103 has come up with a viable alternative to merging. Especially since this AT&T article is already so large. Adding a small mention of the misleading controversy here and then linking to the 5G Evolution article is a better proposal in my view because it is easier to accomplish, and it keeps this article down to a more manageable size as well as the editorial ease of keeping the original article without requiring the work of doing the pruning and merging that would be needed for this proposal.
So, I OPPOSE [changed my mind for the last time about] the merge, and will strike my other votes. Huggums537 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! I just took a look at the merge that was easily done by ViperSnake, and all the content from the 5G Evolution article was retained in the merge. Plus, it just plain looks like it belongs in this article. AT&T is a HUGE company, so it's not surprising that it would have a correspondingly huge article. The 5G Evolution content fits in perfectly and there is no loss whatsoever. I am changing my mind for the last time. Sorry for the wish-washiness guys...
I Support the merge. I still think we should give other editors time to comment though... Huggums537 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: article size. There are bits and pieces that shouldn't be there to begin with per WP:NOTCATALOG. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AT%26T_Mobility&oldid=1240099857"