Talk:AT&T Mobility

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cingular.com[edit]

I just wanted to point out that cingular.com now redirects to http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/welcome/index.jsp. Also, nowhere on the page does it say "AT&T Mobility". On the navigation bar, it uses the term "wireless".Jcembree 02:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think that this whole article should be renamed "Wireless from AT&T" as that is how they refer to it. Michaelcox 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, never has it been known as AT&T Mobility(at least to my knowledge as a rep) but always with the intention of transitioning from Cingular to AT&T Wireless. chrism583 11:58, 22 June 2007 (-6 CST)
The name is AT&T. Internally they use the name "AT&T Mobility". Majoreditor 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I posted above, the internal brand center for AT&T directs that all references should be "wireless from AT&T" (lowercase 'w' deliberate). Yes, I am an AT&T (former BellSouth) employee with access to that.--Donovan Ravenhull 10:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AT&T webpage does now say "Service provided by AT&T Mobility."Cwc2311 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 19th AT&T/NASCAR[edit]

The information surrounding May 19th needs looking in to. Please see [1] or [2].

This is still on going. Pontiac36 03:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T is still claming fewest dropped calls[edit]

Someone added that AT&T is no longer mentioning that they have the fewested dropped calls, which is false. even though they have dropped the claim, they still show commericals where two persons are talking on the phone, then to call drops. This is still part of their claim, no matter how they change it up. So even though web sites have reported the change, AT&T is still making the claim by using the dropped call commericals.

The2ndflood 12:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They currently claim only that "a dropped call can ruin a conversation". December, 2007.


http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/08/att-ditches-few.html

Windows Mobile 6 Update Controversy[edit]

I requested sources for the material in the "controversy" section related to the WM6 upgrade multiple times. There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a source, and what statements required sources. It is absolutely required that a reliable, third party source is provided to support what appears to be someone's personal commentary on the topic. A link to a single forum post is not a reliable source; a link to a general forum is not a reliable source. I'm extending some good faith in leaving the material up for a few more days; pending some rather radical re-write of what appears to simply be a trivial and non-notable consumer personal grudge. Please reference our policy on original research and the reliable sources guidelines. Kuru talk 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call a situation where a company promises something, doesn't deliver, and then doesn't give any reason why and won't communicate at all trivial and non-notable. Here's a link on AT&T's website that says the update is available, when in fact it is not: http://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/windows-mobile/?_requestid=31563 This is especially considering around 200 pages of forum posts on AT&T's official forums on the lack of information on the Windows Mobile 6 update. However, I do appreciate the need for reliable sources. I'll see if we can come up with some sources. To be honest, I don't know how to actually put source citations in, as I'm kind of a novice at this, but if we can find anything, I'll post some links here and maybe someone can put them in.Cwc2311 15:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what you've done today, you seem to have figured out how to add cites perfectly. It's still the reliability of the cites that is a critical concern. Again, we cannot use random forum posts, or blog entries, or original research to verify the claims of this being some significant controversy. If you can find some third party reference to the scandal in a newspaper or some other publication, that would be perfect. Kuru talk 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't add those citesCwc2311 05:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. When reliable sources are found, please let me know and I'll assist you in citing the material. As it is, the content completely fails WP:Verifiability. Since nothing has been forthcoming since I've asked for references, I'll remove the material for now. If you'd like to try and re-write it into some sort of neutral passage, I'd be happy to assist as well. Kuru talk 19:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't actually come up with the passage to begin with. I agree that it fails the standards for verifiability on Wikipedia. I think someone on the AT&T forums put the actual passage up. Perhaps a passage simply dealing with AT&T missing some release dates and having trouble getting the update out on all its upgradable phones would be a better passage. If so, I probably wouldn't put it under the controversy section. Any thoughts?Cwc2311 (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I'm just seeing the one press release from Palm talking about the availability of WM6 in March, but I assume AT&T put out something as well. It's really the hyperbole of the previous passage that was causing my concern; a simple referenced annotation that something was advertised and then not delivered is fine. I would still question the notability of such a thing, but as you noted above, that assessment is subjective and I'm willing to concede the point. Kuru talk 03:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what are the frequencies for ATT[edit]

I know there native frequency is 850 MHz and from what I am aware of ATT sold there 1900 MHz (1.9ghz) to t-mobile


what are the frequencies UMTS, W-CDMA ?

i have found my answer ATT uses a mix of 1900mhz and 850mhz

this makes there UMTS handsets and UMTS network closed from non ATT phones unless they are umts(wcdma) quad-band

~Tauri5663~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.43.162.146 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who merged/bought who?[edit]

The article makes this confusing...

Who merged or bought who?

It seems as if AT&T and AT&T bought Cingular, Cingular bought AT&T, and then Cingular merged with AT&T.

Can someone give me some insight on this?24.58.143.68 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was overruled on this before (but the actual way that makes the most sense). SBC was split from AT&T back in the '80s... SBC went on to exist on it's own independent company with their own shareholders etc. Then in the 90's SBC buys AT&T's Wireless unit and merges it with Cingular.

That was when you had people with "Cingular Blue" and "Cingular Orange" wireless plans. (Blue meant you came from AT&T, Orange meant you were a Cingular customer all along.) AT&T (the Mom Bell or "Ma- Bell") started to have more money troubles. So their Cable business got sold to Comcast. The Telephone (Long Distance division) was snapped up by SBC some years later. But then, SBC after buying AT&T said that name was a better brand so they renamed all of SBC thereafter to at&t (small case) and that's where it is today.

Then Cingular got renamed back to at&t wireless... It was kind of a roundabout way for SBC to get their merger approved. If SBC had gone way back then and said they wanted to combine AT&T's Long Distance business with a Local phone company that tacktic probably would have gotten more opposition. So, they've done it piecemeal and then just rename the whole animal back to the way it would have been... P.S. Then the buyout of Bellsouth happen thereafter and became "at&t" too. CaribDigita (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 300-page iPhone bill into AT&T Mobility#iPhone[edit]

There has been a degree of dispute about the 300-page iPhone bill article. It has both been deleted and declared a Good Article. The GA listing is based on the article meeting certain technical standards and does not in itself reflect directly on the notability of the subject. While it is accepted that at the time there was a media buzz on the subject, this is now declining, and there is a question as to the long-term value of an in-depth article on a single phone bill, as well as the focus of the article itself. As there is still an interest in the subject matter, and people may now and in the future wish to research the background to the event, it is appropriate that the article is kept in some form. It has been suggested that the article be merged with another article - iPhone has been mentioned - though this seems the most appropriate place. The article would need to be cut down to the essential details - a blogger got a 300 page (is it that big? the video itself seems to show fewer than that) bill which she then made a video of and released on YouTube which gained some media attention - when merging. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 11:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this juncture, I'm not going to get terribly invested in this discussion except to point out the following. It seems you're inferring that the notability of the former topic is depreciating over time; however the apropos guideline states that "[i]f a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic." The notability of the 300-page iPhone bill has been upheld 4 (5?) times thus far, so suggesting it be merged and culled on that basis seems unlikely? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policy states that "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events", and a thoughtful essay - Wikipedia:Recentism - has some useful things to say on this matter. It is not unknown for articles on current news events to condense as time lends perspective. It is difficult to know at the time how notable a news event will become. Wiki is very good at tapping in on current events, and buzz events in particular are popular subjects for the typical Wiki editor. However, as we get a firmer grip on the event's notability so it becomes appropriate to deal with the article accordingly. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your best argument for merging this article is an essay then the merge just isn't going to happen. As has been mentioned, 300-page iPhone bill has been evaluated for notability several times and has passed each time. It will not magically cease to be notable overnight, and certainly not in the brief timespan between the event and now. If we were to evaluate the article 5 years from now, maybe. Maybe. Now, not a chance in hell. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comment was directed at me. I did reference a policy as well as an essay. And the essay is well used and respected, reflecting wide consensus. So I have referenced official policy and wide consensus. I'd also like to point out that the article has been deleted, then restored, so "passed each time" is not accurate. The article is problematic, and I am suggesting a solution. I have given what I feel are good reasons. Be nice to hear some thoughtful and insightful comments either in favour or in opposition to the suggestion. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something that is written by a "respected" user does not have any sort of inherent consensus to it. You are, essentially, linking to another user's opinion rather than explaining it in your own words, which is fine mind you so long as you don't attempt to imply it means anything more than that.
As to concerns of notability, the fact that this was discussed at length in numerous news programs and newspaper articles and (indirectly or directly) led to a change in AT&T's billing policy seems to confirm its notability fairly well. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me get this straight: you want to merge a good article into a section of a B-class article, where the GA has more reliable sources (properly formatted to boot) than the target article, and is better written overall. Why is this thought necessary? WP:NOT#PAPER; WP:N#TEMP; WP:SS would be my policy links for why this is completely counterproductive; but I also approve of WP:RECENT, and absolutely abhor the "it's only an essay" argument. Oppose merge. Happy‑melon 09:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retail Locations / Kiosks[edit]

Does anyone have a cited source for the number of retail, Point of Sale locations for AT&T or AT&T Mobility? B.K. (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism?[edit]

I don't know who plagiarized who, but http://www.solarnavigator.net/sponsorship/telecommunications/AT&T.htm appears, almost verbatim, the same as this wikipedia page. I think that some parts are exactly the same and others have the same structure but use different words. 216.193.2.1 (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC) (meviin)[reply]

at&t should be lowercase.[edit]

in the tittle it is AT&T the company refers to themselves with lowercases, if you call in wanting support, they ask if your phone has capital AT&T or lowercase at&t, the old company was capital and the new company is lowercase to show themselves different. that should be adjusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.0.52 (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is merely cosmetic. Practically every line of PROSE on the AT&T Web site refers to AT&T capitalized, not in lowercase. It is a common practice in graphic design (I used to be crazy about it when I was a teenager) to goof around with capitalization of the client's name in the logo to make it look interesting, but that does not change the client's name as used in standard prose documents and legal documents. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatically it's still a proper noun, so it would be capitalized, no matter what their branding department says. However, considering it is no longer an acronym, might it be At&t? Lexlex (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of phones[edit]

The list of phones that are offered is ever-changing, filled with redlinks because most phones don't warrant an entire article, and unencyclopedic. I believe it should be removed. Phones of particular significance to the company and this article (iphone, n-series, etc) should be fit into the body of the article. -76.21.103.36 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance[edit]

Is it really that important to Atlanta or Georgia for it to be rated Top?

Clean-up needed[edit]

Besides the bloated WP:LEAD section (the union stuff doesn't appear to be covered elsewhere and thus should not even be in the lead/lede), the coverage of the NASCAR sponsorship item needs to be reduced to about a paragraph, as one issue/minor lawsuit over sponsorship should not take about about 1/10 of the article. Doing so violates WP:UNDUE. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent surgery by Attitude2000! He's correct, though, in that it needs a little more work. Nevertheless, should we remove the {{Lead too long|date=April 2010}} tag from the beginning? UncleBubba (Talk) 21:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I chopped up the intro, but the sheer level of detail still makes the article seem a bit like a promotional brochure. -- Beland (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aio Looping Link[edit]

The link to subsidiary Aio Wireless is a redirect back to the AT&T Mobility page.

There should be a section for Aio, or another page in its entirety.

Jaysonwhelpley (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frequencies used on the AT&T Network[edit]

should iden and CDMA be included? those are currently active networks in their ATT mexico division? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.2.228 (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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[3].

I am wondering if the site it identifies[4] 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[5] 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]

  • Support – This is mostly obvious. Not only is there no presented notability in 5G Evolution, but the first sentence is "5G Evolution (5G E) is a trademark of AT&T Mobility...". ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 28 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]

  • I also agree with ViperSnake151 that it should go into subsection 6.5, under the "Marketing" section, right below the "4G LTE" subsection. Huggums537 (talk) 12:42, 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=1197161476"