Talk:Verizon (wireless service)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Introduction and "RootMetrics" section

Hi page watchers, I think the introduction to this article needs updating. As per Manual of Style: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". I've put together a draft I think summarizes the article, especially given recent edits and restructuring. You can see it here in my user space.

You'll also see in the user space a new draft I created for the RootMetrics RootScore Awards section. This proposal simply contains minor tweaks to the introductory paragraphs of the section while adding in-line citations. It also puts the awards, currently in list format, into a clean table. This makes the section a little easier to read, and takes up less article space.

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look at the drafts and move them into the article if you feel they look good. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@VZBob: I'm almost happy to do this, could I just request that you add some references to the last two paragraphs (especially the final one, as it reads somewhat promotionally without refs. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, crh23. Thanks for taking a look at my edit requests. I updated the draft introduction and added inline citations in the second and third paragraphs, as you requested. Please note that I used the shortened citations in my draft, as the full citations already exist elsewhere in the article. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done OK, VZBob, I've implemented the edits you requested (with the very minor change of removing wikilink per MOS:DUPLINK). —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 08:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crh23 Thank you, the introduction is in great shape now. Also, were you able to look at the new tabulated form of the RootMetrics RootScore Awards section that I proposed above? Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@VZBob: Oops, I'm an idiot. I unintentionally put it as a new section at the bottom rather than replacing the existing section, fixed now —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 13:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crh23 Ha! No problem! Looking good now, thank you. VZBob (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I have added a caption to the table, used standard formatting techniques and removed some uncited WP:PEACOCK description. If someone wants to expand the fist (and only) sentence in the section with more information from the USA Today source, I would not be opposed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Verizon Wireless. 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/20000519214314/http://www.verizonwireless.com/ to http://www.wirelessgovphone.com/verizon-wireless/

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) 19:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox update

Hi, page watchers. I recently noticed while looking at this article that the infobox is outdated and I'd like to update it. This currently names Andrew Davies (who hasn't worked with Verizon for years) and David Small (who is now Executive Vice President - Wireline Network Operations) under Key people. I suggest we replace those two names with Ronan Dunne (Verizon Wireless group president)

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look and make these edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Altamel (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Altamel: Looks good. Thank you for taking care of this so quickly. VZBob (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Vandalism on this page

Hi, page watchers. An IP editor vandalized the second paragraph of the History section. Is someone able to remove the WP:POV edit? Thank you, VZBob (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Key people

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. Following in the footsteps of my former colleague, VZBob, I won't be making direct edits to articles where I have a conflict, so I will propose edits here.

Can editors consider updating Key people in the infobox to clear up any potential confusion? The infobox refers to Ronan Dunne (executive vice president and Group CEO) simply as "CEO", and the body of the article mentions Hans Vestberg (CEO of Verizon Communications) becoming CEO. A couple small updates to the infobox could help make everything clear. First, it would be helpful to refer to Ronan Dunne by his title. Second, Verizon Communications CEO Hans Vestberg was previously listed here, then removed. I would argue that the CEO of Verizon Communications is one of the "key people" of Verizon Wireless and belongs in the infobox. I suggest updating Key people to:

• Hans Vestberg (CEO, Verizon Communications)
• Ronan Dunne (Executive vice president and Group CEO, Verizon Consumer)

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done  Spintendo  22:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you! VZEric (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Verizon Consumer

"Verizon Consumer" is listed in the infobox as Verizon Wireless' "parent", but this is not explained in the article. I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. Following in the footsteps of my former colleague, VZBob, I won't be making direct edits to articles where I have a conflict, so I will propose edits here. Is it possible to include at least a brief explanation of Verizon Consumer and how it relates to Verizon Wireless in the body of the article? The following could fit in History:

• In 2019, Verizon restructured its business units by customer served, rather than by service. Ronan Dunne, who led Verizon Wireless under the company's previous structure, became the executive vice president and group CEO of Verizon Consumer, which includes wireless and wireline services for consumers. Wireless and wireline services for businesses are part of Verizon Business.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 03-SEP-2019

  Clarification requested  

1. The proposed text doesn't explain what it is about a company which structures its business units by service, which is distinct from a company which structures its business units by customer served.
2. The proposed text does not need to differentiate between Verizon Business and Verizon Consumer, nor does it need to explain whom each part serves, as neither of those companies are the topic of this article.
3. According to the COI editor, certain items are not explained ("but this is not explained in the article.") although it is not certain what is meant by this.
4. Ronan Dunne is a key person to Verizon Wireless, but details of what Dunne does are germane to the article on Verizon Consumer.
5. If Verizon has chosen to label their companies by customer served, then it would seem to necessitate the abandonment of the name Verizon Wireless. If the article name is to be changed, then the request needs to go to WP:RMCM.

Regards,  Spintendo  19:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

@Spintendo: Thank you for your comments above! What makes this a little difficult is the lack of depth provided in available sourcing to fully flesh out how Verizon's wireless services fit into the company's new overall structure. In the simplest terms, when Verizon reorganized its business structure earlier this year, Verizon Wireless' services were effectively split between two new units; Verizon Consumer took on the consumer-focused wireless services, and Verizon Business took on wireless services for businesses. Because Verizon Wireless is split between these two business units, I'm not sure whether "moving" this page is the right answer, especially given how these services are well known to the public as "Verizon Wireless". Also taking into your account your other feedback, I have created this new edit request. Do you think the following changes will help clear up some of the confusion surrounding this topic?

1. Remove "Verizon Consumer" from parent in the infobox, as it is technically incorrect
2. Add a brief description of the aforementioned split at the end of History: In 2019, Verizon restructured its business units by customer served, rather than by service. With the restructuring, Verizon Wireless' services were split between two new business divisions: the Verizon Consumer division took on Verizon's consumer-based wireless segment, and wireless services for businesses were made part of the company's Verizon Business division.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 13-SEP-2019

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  17:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you! VZEric (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Fake logo

Verizon's logo in the infobox was replaced with a fake logo. Can editors please revert this edit?

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. Following in the footsteps of my former colleague, VZBob, I ask others to make this edit on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply 31-OCT-2019

  Reverted to status quo ante  

• Thanks to Retimuko for fixing this.

Regards,  Spintendo  05:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Retimuko and Spintendo: Thank you for fixing and resolving this request! VZEric (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

The CEO of Verizon Consumer is Ronan Dunne[1]. Can editors please revert this edit?

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. Following in the footsteps of my former colleague, VZBob, I ask others to make this edit on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kuyabribri: Thank you! VZEric (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Verizon Consumer

This edit incorrectly named Verizon Consumer as the parent of Verizon Wireless. This is technically incorrect. As is written in this article's History section, "In 2019, Verizon Wireless services were split between two new divisions: Verizon Consumer and Verizon Business." A similar request to remove Verizon Consumer from parent was requested and implemented last year. Could editors consider removing "Verizon Consumer" from parent in the infobox?

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Reply 15-JAN-2020

  Item removed    Spintendo  23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you! VZEric (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

5G update

I am proposing an addition to Network to show Verizon's year-end 2019 5G figures. As 5G is a major topic in the industry, I felt it germane to this article. I included what people say are the pros and cons of the spectrum Verizon uses to keep this neutral. My proposed addition is shown below:

By year-end 2019, Verizon had launched 5G in 30 cities across the U.S. Verizon's 5G network is deployed on millimeter wave spectrum (mmWave). While fast, the high-band spectrum Verizon uses has limited range and penetration is a challenge.

References

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Tweaked wording and added an additional reference. Thanks, –Erakura^(talk) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Erakura: Thank you for this edit! Do you think the Verizon Communications article would benefit from having an update to Verizon's 5G efforts as well? If so, I posted a request at Talk:Verizon Communications if you have time to review it. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Warning banners

I am a little confused by this edit by User:75.168.82.113. It looks like an error where the editor was trying to add a script to the page to update date formatting, but it added a warning banner dated 2019 instead. It appears that the Verizon Wireless article is the third article this happened to; the others were on February 27 and February 29. Could editors take a look at this? If done in error, could the warning banner be removed? As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Erakura: As you helped review another request here, can you also review this? As outlined above, I believe these banners were added in error. VZEric (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done The IP editor's contribution history is very strange, and the edit summary they left is dishonest. I'm assuming this was a vandalism edit that wasn't caught. Reverted. –Erakura^(talk) 23:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Erakura: Thank you for reverting that edit! VZEric (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@VZEric: I have reverted the two other edits by this IP that you've mentioned (on Satellite phone and T-Mobile), and I also agree with the reversion made by Erakura. Thanks for pointing these out. — Mike Novikoff 19:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Novikoff and Erakura: Again, thank you both. If either of you are interested, I have another request at Talk:Verizon_Communications#Financial_information where I'm hoping for guidance on how to add new financial figures to the article's Finances section. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"IDon't" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IDon't. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Rootmetrics is an ad

It's very clear these scores which are defended tooth and nail by wiki mods and admins are marketing material. They are worthless to wiki and should be removed if wiki wants to retain credibility.  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:497F:87C9:4029:E1BF:E07:728C (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, we do not defend these sources because they’re marketing material, but for these two reasons:

• Sometimes, sources like Rootmetrics are the only sources that have this info because they specialise in technical stuff like compiling network speeds and the like.
• In this case, the source is covered by USA Today, which is a Reliable Source.

Of course, in this case the section may have to be trimmed, but blanking it, especially without any consensus, is not a good idea. — RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Its very clear that verizon as an isp and mobile provider benefits from the posting of "root" metric. idk why im being treated so rudely :-( wiki is very unproductive for the common person when obvious sponsors are allowed to edit pages to their advantage. I miss the old wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:497F:87C9:4029:E1BF:E07:728C (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@2601:184:497F:87C9:4029:E1BF:E07:728C:, if you still believe that the section should be removed, you may ask for advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse where more experienced editors can explain what should be done as per Wikipedia policy. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Wireless connections

Hello, Wikipedia editors! This edit is incorrect, and no source was provided for the new figure. I cannot provide an updated subscriber figure because Verizon does not report its wholesale numbers. However, Verizon does report its retail wireless connections. Verizon published a PDF of its Financial & Operating information alongside its 1Q 2020 Earnings'; this PDF reports 119.5 million retail wireless connections.

Because Verizon does not report its wholesale numbers, and thus does not have an official subscriber count to offer here, I suggest the sentence "Verizon Wireless provides service to 154 million subscribers" in the introduction be re-worded. I propose:

• Verizon Wireless provides 119.5 million retail wireless connections.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Reply 02-MAY-2020

  Unable to implement  

• The request asks to remove information which describes one parameter (how many subscribers it has) and to replace it with information describing another parameter ("retail wireless connections").
• It is not immediately apparent how these two parameters are connected and/or the description given with the request which attempts to explain these differences is not accompanied by text to be placed in the article explaining the difference to readers.

Regards,  Spintendo  10:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Notes

@Spintendo: Thank you for your notes. There are two issues with the text in the live article. I'll explain.

1. The figure "154 million" subscribers is incorrect. However, Verizon does not report its wholesale subscribers. As a result, there is no way to accurately cite the correct number.
2. When an IP editor edited the introduction to claim there are "154 million" subscribers, they never updated the citation. Therefore the citation (which is a dead link) does not verify "154 million".

The closest thing Verizon does report is the number of retail wireless connections. That is why I recommend the sentence "Verizon Wireless provides service to 154 million subscribers" be replaced with: "Verizon Wireless provides 119.5 million retail wireless connections."

If that solution is not sufficient to remove the inaccurate information, perhaps the sentence "Verizon Wireless provides service to 154 million subscribers" could be deleted altogether because it is unsourced.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

• This source gives an estimate for approximately 154 million subscribers, so I've changed the sentence and citation to reflect that. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  I think this should satisfy the edit request. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, all, for considering. VZEric (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Website url

Hello, Verizon Wireless' website has officially transitioned to verizon.com, formerly verizonwireless.com. Notice that verizonwireless.com now redirects to verizon.com. Would any editors here be willing to update the "Website" parameter of the infobox to show verizon.com? Due to my conflict of interest, I will avoid changing the article myself. Thank you in advance for any consideration, VZEric (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Westminster88: You helped fix broken links on other Verizon articles recently. Not exactly the same situation, but would you be willing to update the "Website" parameter of the infobox to show verizon.com, as the former URL verizonwireless.com redirects to verizon.com? Appreciate your help! VZEric (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Updated website in infobox and references. Westminster88 (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Westminster88: Thanks for your help! VZEric (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Pricing and Availability--GSM

Edit in pricing and availability: "Often, more advanced games must be purchased and downloaded." replaced "Unlike other carriers, Most verizon phones don't come with any free games, although some older Nokia's do(2128i,6015,etc)." Previous information was poorly presented, and based on personal experience. Most Verizon phones actually do come pre-loaded with simple games, especially the more advanced models. As with all carriers, advanced games will require a download. Despite the fact that many GIN phones do not come loaded with any games, I still felt this sentence was misleading and should be amended due to the bias of the previous statement. Moruitelda 21:20 EST, 3 Dec 2006

GSM advantages?

"have a number of advantages for consumers. For example, more GSM handsets support Bluetooth (Verizon Handsets do as well) (Consumer Reports), and GSM is more widely available worldwide than CDMA. "

This reads more like a personal comment, then a fact. Most of the new CDMA phones coming out have Bluetooth. And CDMA is the fastest growing wireless technlogy, with Many areas around the world using it. I think this statment needs to be updated. (I just changed the wording. Feel free to change it around if you see fit. But please don't make it bias.)

"Verizon is one of three national carriers to use CDMA technology; the other national CDMA carrier is Sprint PCS. Another CDMA carrier which is not considered national, but has a large presence in many areas, especially the rural South, is ALLTEL." ... If ALLTEL isn't considered national, then who is the third national CDMA carrier? Mr2001 08:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ALLTEL isn't considered national because their own network focuses on small to medium sized cities, especially in the South. However, Verizon and ALLTEL have a very good cross-network roaming deal that allows ALLTEL to offer national plans essentially indistinguishable from Verizon's, and allows Verizon to have excellent service in rural areas, especially compared to some of its competitors.

This isn't a cellular network information page. It is supposed to be about Verizon.

Can anyone give us a little info on the history of Verizon? Like the PrimeCo acquisition and so forth.--Jporter07 22:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be worth mentioning Verizon's crippling of the Motorola V710's Bluetooth. They disabled most of the functionality one expects from Bluetooth on a phone, in order to force customers to pay them more money in data charges (e.g. you can't download pictures to your computer via Bluetooth, even though the phone's hardware is perfectly capable of it).

GSM is generally technically inferior to CDMA, even if Verizon offers fewer services than competing companies using GSM. What Verizon Wireless offers and what CDMA is capable of are two entirely different issues.

Would anyone be able to back up the assertions here that claim that CDMA is actually superior to GSM? Is there any technical source or authoritative articles anyone can find to back this up? From what I understand, two key faults of CDMA involve a lack of SIM cards and an inability to use data while continuing to receive voice calls.

Due to the lack of SIM cards, CDMA users cannot switch phones without calling Verizon and having them carry everything over. This is not an easy procedure, whereas GSM SIM cards can easily be popped out and put into another GSM phone. Further, if you have extensive damage on a CDMA phone, you probably wouldn't be able to pull your saved phone numbers off of it, whereas on GSM phones this information is stored on the SIM card, which would likely still be in tact.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with CDMA, don't you essentially dial a data number when you use the internet on your phone? This means all your calls while using data are sent through to voice mail, right? When you're using GPRS data on a GSM phone, you can still receive phone calls, the phone just pauses the data connection.

No longer a division

Hello, Wikipedia editors! I am seeking guidance on the best way to update this article. The issue is a little convoluted, but "Verizon Wireless" as a division of Verizon Communications is no longer accurate. Verizon Wireless was a division of Verizon Communications that was absorbed into the main body of the parent when Verizon became sole owner in 2014. Verizon discontinued use of the "Verizon Wireless" moniker in 2019. This means that Verizon Wireless (with a capital W) is a former division of Verizon Communications. Verizon wireless (with a lowercase w) constitutes the products and services that are part of the company's Verizon Consumer and Verizon Business divisions.

I have a few ideas on ways to help clear up confusion that I wanted to run by editors for feedback on this discussion page.

1. Replace the Template:Infobox company with Template:Infobox brand
2. Edit the introduction to clarify that Verizon Wireless is no longer a division or a company itself
3. Change present tense mentions of "Verizon Wireless" to "Verizon"

I worked up a draft infobox and introduction to share here. In addition to the updates I identified above, I included updated info on Verizon's network and removed the RootMetrics RootScore Reports details. If editors think this works, could you update the live article? As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. If this draft needs work, I'm willing to collaborate with others and come up with a solution.

I propose:

Verizon

[[File::Verizon 2015 logo -vector.svg|frameless|upright=1|class=ib-brand-logo]] Verizon's current logo as of September 1, 2015
Product type	Wireless communications products and services
Owner	Verizon Communications
Produced by	Verizon
Country	United States
Introduced	May 19, 1998
Markets	United States
Previous owners	Vodafone (45 percent)
Website	verizon.com

Verizon Wireless was a division of Verizon Communicationsoffering wireless products and services. In 2019, Verizon split up its Verizon Wireless unit. Since then, Verizon's wireless products and services are part of the company's Verizon Consumer and Verizon Business divisions. Verizon is the second-largest wireless carrier in the United States, with 120.3 million subscribers as of the end of Q3 2020.

Verizon Wireless was founded in 2000 as a joint venture of American telecommunications firm Bell Atlantic, which would soon become Verizon Communications, and British multinational telecommunications company Vodafone. Verizon Communications became the sole owner in 2014 after buying Vodafone's 45-percent stake in the wireless venture.

It operates a national network covering about 98 percent of the U.S. population. As of December 2020, approximately 230 million people are able to access Verizon's 5G, or fifth-generation, network. Verizon offers mobile phone services through a variety of devices. Its LTE in Rural America Program, with 21 rural wireless carriers participating, covers 2.7 million potential users in 169 rural counties.

References

Present tense mentions to "Verizon Wireless" can be updated to "Verizon" in the Network, Apps, Products and services and LTE in Rural America sections.

Thank you, VZEric (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• @VZEric: It seems like there is a slightly larger issue. If "Verizon Wireless" is now just called "Verizon", then it would make sense for this page to be titled "Verizon" ... except that Verizon points over (understandably and appropriately!) to Verizon Communications. Another approach would be to merge this article into the Verizon Communications article... but both articles are quite long and are (IMHO) worthy of the separate articles. Perhaps the answer is to change the title to something like "Verizon (mobile network)". Thoughts or comments from other editors? - Dyork (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dyork: Thanks for this. You raise some good points here. I'm still thinking through the idea of changing the title of the page. I'll circle back. VZEric (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dyork: What would you think of renaming it "Verizon (formerly Verizon Wireless)"? Is that an option? VZEric (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@VZEric: Hmmm. It strikes me as a bit redundant having Verizon twice... and it goes back to the issue that from a corporate perspective,if I understand this correctly, THIS page is really now about a "brand" within Verizon Communications. I also wonder if you were to imagine almost a disambiguation page for all "Verizon" pages, how would we want this page to be easily understood from the other Verizon pages. Does any other part of Verizon do anything with a mobile network? If not, then re-titling it "Verizon (mobile network)" might be a way to go. - Dyork (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dyork: That's fair. In that case, it sounds like "Verizon (mobile network)" would be a fitting title for this article. After the article is moved to "Verizon (mobile network)”, the article will still need edits similar to those I outlined above so the body of the article is accurate. Are you able to move this page to "Verizon (mobile network),” or should I post a separate request for that? VZEric (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@VZEric: As you can see, I moved the page. As noted, there are still some text changes to be made. I tried to adjust the intro... but it is a bit challenging. I didn't quite agree with how you wrote it, but I'm not sure I 100% captured it, either. I also tried moving it from 'infobox company' to 'infobox brand', but more work is needed for that than I have time for tonight. Anyway, this is a start. - Dyork (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dyork: Thanks for moving the page. Your updates to the intro are mostly correct, but I would edit slightly:

"The mobile network previously operated as a separate division of Verizon Communications under the name of Verizon Wireless. In 2019, as part of a reorganization, Verizon started reporting out on its wireless products and services through two new divisions, Verizon Consumer and Verizon Business."

Do you think that's possible? VZEric (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@VZEric: That text doesn't work for me. 'reporting out' sounds odd to me. Maybe something more like "In a 2019 reorganization, Verizon moved the wireless products and services into two new divisions, Verizon Consumer and Verizon Business, and stopped using the 'Verizon Wireless' name." - Dyork (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dyork: Your suggestion nails it. I am onboard with that. Thanks for putting so much thought and effort into this. VZEric (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Sentence updated. - Dyork (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dyork: Thanks for your help! I'll be back shortly with additional suggestions to clean up any remaining confusion in the article. VZEric (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dyork: Now that the article title and intro paragraph have been updated, do you have any thoughts on my suggested updates for the infobox and the second and third paragraphs of the introduction? My proposed text above is my initial idea, but I'm willing to work together on cleaning it up if you are interested. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Note: I'm marking this request as answered. Not all of these changes were implemented. See Talk:Verizon_(mobile_network)#Infobox for the updated version of this edit request, which will be divided into smaller parts according to VZEric.

Name changed to "Verizon (mobile network)"

Per the discussion in the section above ("No longer a division"), I have moved the page from Verizon Wireless to Verizon (mobile network). I have made a few changes to the text, but more changes need to be made. See some of VZEric's comments above. - Dyork (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this violate WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAME? ViperSnake151  Talk  18:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ViperSnake151: This is where I did - and do - struggle a bit. I think many current Verizon customers (including myself) still think of "Verizon Wireless" as the cell phone provider. However, if you do a Google search on that term... there is no company using that name. It all redirects to "Verizon". As VZEric has noted above, they stopped using that name in 2019 and so all new customers are thinking about them as "Verizon". However, there is the existing Wikipedia article for Verizon and I think it makes sense to have an article about the mobile network that is separate from the main (and huge) article about the overall Verizon company. I'm definitely open to feedback - if you have another suggestion for how to do it, please feel free to share that. - Dyork (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Verizon

[[File::Verizon 2015 logo -vector.svg|frameless|upright=1|class=ib-brand-logo]] Verizon's current logo as of September 1, 2015
Product type	Wireless communications products and services
Owner	Verizon Communications
Produced by	Verizon
Country	United States
Introduced	April 2000
Markets	United States
Previous owners	Vodafone (45 percent)
Website	verizon.com

Hello, Wikipedia editors. I was reviewing my earlier request and realized it may be too complex for editors to review at once. Therefore, I decided to break my request down into smaller requests to help update this article. As I noted earlier, Verizon Wireless (with a capital W) is a former division of Verizon Communications. Verizon wireless (with a lowercase w) constitutes the products and services that are part of the company's Verizon Consumer and Verizon Business divisions. Dyork has been helpful in working to update the article to reflect this change. It may also help to replace Template:Infobox company with Template:Infobox brand.

I propose the infobox (at right):

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. If this infobox needs work, I'm willing to collaborate with others and come up with a solution.

Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi VZEric, I am declining this request. Per WP:INFOBOXREF infoboxes are a summary of the article and usually contain information that is already in the article. Therefore, it is probably wiser to propose the changes in the article's body first. Also, the infobox in the article right now is more detailed, and I do not see a reason to remove information from the infobox. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Manon Brouillette

Key people in the infobox is outdated. Manon Brouillette succeeded Ronan Dunne as executive vice president and chief executive officer of Verizon Consumer beginning on January 1, 2022. Would editors please consider updating this?

References

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, so I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Spencer^T•C 02:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spencer: Thanks for updating the article on my behalf. I appreciate it! VZEric (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Verizon Sim card is not registered to Verizon

How can I help? 73.75.210.199 (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Key people update

Key people in the infobox is outdated, as Manon Brouillette resigned from Verizon and is no longer CEO of Verizon Consumer (reporting by Bloomberg confirms the resignation).

Would editors be willing to delete Manon Brouillette from the infobox based on this new information?

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, so I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@VZEric Deletion completed. Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Duke Gilmore: Thank you for the swift update! There are three other Wikipedia pages that also have this outdated information. You can see those requests at Verizon Communications, Jean-François Bouchard, and the Manon Brouillette article on French Wikipedia (if you happen to know French, that is). Would you be able to review those as well? Thanks for considering. VZEric (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)