Talk:Southwestern Bell

Fair use rationale for Image:Swbelllogo2.png

Image:Swbelllogo2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

smallest vs. largest "baby bell" and other comments

1. currently reads (from end of "history" into "changes") -

"While part of the Bell System, it was at times the biggest Bell Operating Company of the 22 AT&T owned.

Changes

Southwestern Bell Corporation For current information on SBC, see AT&T.

Southwestern Bell logo, 1964–1969

Following the breakup of AT&T, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company was managed by Southwestern Bell Corporation, which was ironically the smallest of all of the seven "Baby Bells", as it only held one telephone company."

odd seque. "at the times biggest" and BOOM, next sentence "the smallest of all." needs some cleanup. identify what period(s) it was largest and/or how it happened to drop to smallest at break-up time.

2. somewhere in article some language is needed to cover the "once-daughter company acquiring mother company" oddity.

3. "For current information on SBC, see AT&T." could be better styled "for information on SBC after [month date, year] see AT&T. "current" is only "current" at moment of writing.

--98.116.115.220 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

move/disambiguation

Since Southwestern Bell is short for both Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (which this article is about) as well as Southwestern Bell Corporation (its mother, which became SBC Communications in 1995 and now is AT&T Inc.), this article should move to Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Southwestern Bell should become a WP:D. Since these all are mere facts, I don't know what to discuss here, but when I put a WP:SPEEDY onto the redireting Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to move the article there, someone called Beeblebrox did an undo and asked me to "discuss" here first. --Jhartmann (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Declining your speedy/move request per WP:COMMONNAME, as the company was known simply as "Southwestern Bell" for most of its existence. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You just miss the point. "Simply known as Southwestern Bell" were both Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Southwestern Bell Corporation. But this article is only about one of them. That's why move and WP:D. Or merge both articles. --Jhartmann (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is already the case that Southwestern Bell Corporation rediorects to Southwestern Bell (and has since March). If there were an article actually causing confusion, that would be a different story, but right now, this seems like a solution looking for a problem, since there is no other article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, must have slept too little before posting this. So in fact the articles _are merged. Sorry for the confusion (mine; which possibly had to do with the link to Southwestern Bell Corporation within the Southwestern Bell article and with at least 3 articles for this one company, Southwestern Bell, SBC Communications, AT&T ... but well, I should just slep more regularly.) --Jhartmann (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Southwestern Bell Internet Services be merged into Southwestern Bell. There's not enough information in Southwestern Bell Internet Services for it to be a standalone article, and should be merged into Southwestern Bell. Steel1943 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. If SWBIS is merged into an article, it should be AT&T Internet Services. KansasCity (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Att

att was bought by sbc an sbc used att name because it was widely know gobaly.when att was broken up into baby bells sbc acquired most an other non bell companies.i know this because of the fact my spouse worked first for att an at time of division. He choose to go with sbt which became sbc.att did not save sbc 2600:100A:B055:8232:0:2D:A325:1701 (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Still exists?

Does this company still exists? Completely Random Guy (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)