Talk:Verizon Communications

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Companies (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 


Updated "Sponsorships and naming rights" section[edit]

Hello, I would like to propose replacing the "Sponsorships and naming rights" section of the article with a new draft I have been working on, as the current section is essentially just a list of venues which contain the Verizon name. While working on a more detailed version of that section I realized that the article also lacks information on Verizon's marketing efforts.

So, I've created two sections: "Marketing campaigns" and "Sponsorships and venues." These sections would serve as an overview of Verizon's most widely recognized marketing campaigns and detail the company's sponsorship activities, as well as include some information on named venues. I'd like for editors to take a look and let me know what they think of these new sections. I've posted the draft in my userspace.

If you have any comments or questions please let me know. Because I'm an employee of Verizon, I won't make these changes myself. Instead, I'm hoping an editor will move the draft over to the article and delete the current "Sponsorships and naming rights" section.

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday, an editor from an IP address made several changes to the infobox for this article, which are largely unsourced and incorrect. I'm hoping that, in addition to looking at the marketing sections mentioned above, an editor can roll back these infobox edits to how it looked on May 2, which is much more accurate. I should note that even that information is not perfect, and I'll be back with a few improvements that could be made to it as well, but it is certainly more accurate than the current version for the time being.
Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Some infobox improvements, and a recent edit[edit]

Hello, I'm back with some suggestions for correcting information in the infobox on this article. I also have a comment about a recent edit that you'll find below. As I've mentioned before, I'm an employee of Verizon, I so won't make any of these edits myself. Instead, I'm hoping volunteer editors can look at what I've suggested, and make the changes if things look okay.

For the infobox, there are several pieces of information that should be corrected:

  • “President” should be removed from Lowell McAdam’s titles. He’s “just” the Chairman and CEO (see, e.g., here).
  • GTE, MCI Inc. and NYNEX should be deleted under the subsidiaries. They are former companies that were subsumed by Verizon and not currently operating subsidiaries (see discussion in current History section).
  • Change “Telematics” to “Hughes Telematics” (source).
  • We should also remove Vodafone Italy under subsidiaries, as Verizon no longer owns this as of Feb. 2014 (source).
This was done by an IP address editor. VZBob (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Technically, Verizon only has two divisions: wireless and wirelines. I think that everything currently listed under "Divisions" should be moved included under "Subsidiaries."
  • Symbol delete vote.svg That's not really what the divisions thing is supposed to mean. It's more about pointing out each locational office. SilverserenC 04:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense to me. Thanks so much for all of your help on these edits! VZBob (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about an edit[edit]

I'm also a bit concerned about a recent edit that was made, adding in a paragraph about an FCC ruling against Verizon regarding tethering. The paragraph reads:

In July of 2012, the FCC made a ruling against Verizon, requiring it to stop charging users an added fee for using 4G smartphones and tablets as Wi-fi hotspots (known as "tethering"). Verizon had charged its customers $20 per month regardless of whether they had an "unlimited" plan. A writer on ZDNET, described the policy as being "about trying to squeeze the customer for the maximum amount of income with the minimum amount of service." Verizon paid $1.25 million to the US Treasury.

This is a very minor thing in the history of Verizon, and I feel that devoting a whole paragraph to this topic is a case of recentism. I'd like to suggest that, if other editors agree, this paragraph be removed from the History section. If, however, editors think this should be mentioned, I'd suggest that it be shortened, perhaps:

In July 2012, the FCC required Verizon to stop charging for tethering. As part of the settlement, Verizon made a voluntary payment of $1.25 million to the U.S. Treasury.

Regardless of which course of action editors think is best here, I do think the language included in the article should note that the money paid to the U.S. Treasury was voluntary, and not a fine.

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This one you're going to have to get/convince other editors to do, since I don't think i'd be an objective enough source to make such a change. Apologies. SilverserenC 04:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No problem at all; I will reach out to some other editors. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I made part of the change, which you can see in this edit. That's as far as i'm willing to involve myself, however. SilverserenC 22:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Silver seren! I really appreciate your help on this article. VZBob (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

New "Corporate responsibility" section[edit]

Hello, I've worked up a draft for a new section for this article, discussing Verizon's corporate responsibility efforts. A while back, I realized that this article is lacking any information on the company's charitable foundation or its other activities that would fall under the heading of corporate social responsibility.

Based what I've seen in some other well-developed company articles, it seems that including a section on this topic is encouraged, so I've created a draft to do just that. The section I've drafted is titled "Corporate responsibility" and is intended to give an overview of Verizon's philanthropy, particularly through the Verizon Foundation, as well as including information on its investment into alternative energies.

You can find the draft in my userspace. As I've mentioned before, because I'm an employee of Verizon and won't edit the article myself, I'd like to ask editors to review this draft and move it over to the article if all looks good. Please let me know if there are any comments or questions. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@VZBob: Seems legit in general. I dropped a source or two that seemed iffy and limited the naming of dollar amounts to the single per-annum figure so its not quite so relentlessly self-promoting. Rhoark (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Rhoark, looks good to me! VZBob (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)