Talk:New England Telephone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	New England Telephone is within the scope of the Bell System WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the former Bell System. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Name confusion 2 discussion 3 Fair use rationale for Image:Bellatlantic logo.png 4 Fair use rationale for Image:Nynex logo.png 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Nynex logo.png 6 why it should'be be Verizon

[edit] Name confusion

All these telecom mergers and subsidiaries make it very confusing to know how to organize articles. If the name is now Verizon New England, etc., then I suppose the article name should no longer be New England Telephone - but changing it would lead to a ton of redirects. On the other hand, is Verizon New England etc. enough of a separate entity to be worthy of an article? No, I imagine. The article-worthy entity is the old, independent New England Telephone. In which case the Verizon name should be secondary, e.g.:

New England Telephone was a Bell Operating Company that served the majority of New England until it became part of Verizon following various mergers in the 1980s and 1990s. Officially New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. ...

Or something like that. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks 12:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I liked the articles without the infoboxes - I only added infoboxes to the Verizon operating company articles after someone else added infoboxes to other Verizon operating company articles. I'd say if there were no infobox, there would be no problem at all...the official corporate name could just be mentioned at the end of the article as it used to be. KansasCity 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We could make this an article about the old company, mentioning its new name so folks can go to Verizon if they want to see the present. But then the question is when do we end this article? In 1984, in the divestiture? Or 1994, when it just became NYNEX and "new england telephone" ceased to exist as a separate name? - DavidWBrooks 13:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've given it a shot. Maybe we should get rid of the post-1984 logos down below; they add to the confusion. - DavidWBrooks 14:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussion

This is a comment on put on User: X570's talk page after he reverted the article:

That's Verizon New England not Verizon New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. as you have written. Where did you get that title? And why is the "NYNEX company" logo in the infobox? And it's not a Bell Operating Company, it's a subsidiary of one; actually, it's just an operating unit according to the link you sent, which is less than a subsidiary.

Even if all that is corrected, the article as you have changed it starts out talking about a different name than the title, which is highly confusing to the reader. It would be like having George Elliot start out Mary Ann Evans was a Victorian writer ... and then mention two sentences later that she used George Elliot as a pen name. At the very least it should say New England Telephone was the name of what is now Verizon New England ... or perhaps we should move the whole article to Verizon New England. - DavidWBrooks 21:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in error in at least one point - it is a Bell Operating Company. I was mistaken thinking of an RBOC, the regional version. - DavidWBrooks 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are now 21 Bell Operating Companies as Southern Bell and South Central Bell has consolidated, and Mountain Bell, Northwestern Bell and Pacific Northwest Bell consolidated.X570 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention, the logo is the logo because it is the logo of New England Telephone itself. "A NYNEX Company" is there because it is where the logo was picked up from, http://www.bell.com/nynex_ad.htm.

The article should not be moved for a couple of reasons, and that is 1)VNET&T is the full proper name of the company, and 2)to remain consistant with the pages about the other Bell Operating Companies, as with the exceptions I mentioned before (the companies that consolidated: BellSouth Telecommunications, Qwest Corporation), and companies that were part of the original Bell Atlantic territory, that did officially drop their traditional names (New Jersey Bell became Bell Atlantic-NJ, then Verizon-NJ). All of the BOCs that are now part of the 'new' AT&T retain their traditional identities, though, for example the d/b/a of Pacific Bell is now AT&T California. - X570

If VNET&T is the full proper name of the company, why is the article titled "New England Telephone"? Shouldn't we turn the redirect around - have New England Telephone redirect to Verizon New England? No, that would be too much work - but I am going to put a "formerly' into the introductory sentence, as at New Jersey Bell to help the baffled newcomer. - DavidWBrooks 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically it is still subsidiary of a larger company, as it has been for over a century. As a company it deserves an infobox, and there is alot of data that can be seen at a glance in the infoboxes. The logo is the last logo used when the company was marketed to the public as NETel, and for the purposes of this article, should NOT be replaced with the generic Verizon logo. VNET&T is the official, internal name of the company. Even under AT&T prior to 1984 it was not marketed at New England Telephone & Telegraph, just New England Telephone, just the same as it is now marketed as Verizon New England. X570 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bellatlantic logo.png

Image:Bellatlantic logo.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nynex logo.png

Image:Nynex logo.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 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 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nynex logo.png

Image:Nynex logo.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 07:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why it should'be be Verizon

Consider this article: Sanders Associates. It's a Nashua, NH company that existed for years, had a distinct public persona, and whose name entered the local vernacular. The company is now part of BAE systems - same buildings, same customers, etc. But the Sanders article doesn't start out with BAE Systems and a BAE Systems infobox, followed by a description that it used to be Sanders Associates. Why not? Because nobody who goes to an article titled Sanders is looking for information about the current corporate form with a different name - they would go to the article *with that name*. The Sanders article should talk about Sanders - e.g., the company before it was bought - regardless of what has happened since then.

The same process should exist here. This article is about the company that was known to the public as New England Telephone, with that impossible-to-forget jingle, so it should talk about that company - not about its current corporate form that nobody even knows exists. That's why I changed it back (although I haven't changed it again): To serve readers' actual needs when the come to this article, rather than following an arbitrary inofobox style. - DavidWBrooks 17:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking above on this page, I see this debate has been going on for a year and a half! - DavidWBrooks 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This page still retains the New England Telephone title because it is more widely known as New England Telephone. Sure, people probably don't think to look for a company named Verizon New England, but it is essential to readers that they understand that a company still exists. That would be like saying the Macy's, Inc. page should lose its infobox and only keep the article talking Federated Department Stores before being renamed Macy's, without any mention that it actually exists to this day with a new name as Macy's, Inc. KansasCity (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the FairPoint sale has changed things to the point that this argument no longer holds true. The old New England Telephone is now (roughly) half FairPoint and half Verizon; it's not just Verizon New England as of March 31. Come to think of it, the intro needs to be rewritten to reflect this - and, in my humble opinion, the infobox should be killed. Hmmm ... this isn't exactly straightforward. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Federated Department Stores merely renamed itself. There were no merger's or acquisitions of FDS by another corporation. Indeed, the history of the original Macy's department store is present in the separate article on the store Macy's, not the article on acquiring corporation with a different heritage. Possibly, the history of Macy's after FDS and after the nationwide re-branding should go into a separate article.

To follow your analogy, create an article on Verizon New England that includes a history with a short section about New England Telephone with a link to it as the main article for that part of the history. The current article does and did link to Verizon and FairPoint.

Also, I live in New England, and no one calls the telephone service or company "New England Telephone"; they call it Verizon and recognize that New England Telephone was the telephone company long ago which was consumed and transmogrified by a succession of corporate changes. —Centrx→talk • 04:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

New England Telephone is not Verizon New England. It is false to speak of an organization and its descendant as one when its descendant has been chewed up over twenty-four years through multiple mergers and the latest partial divestment. Information about Verizon New England belongs in the article on Verizon. Some information might also belong in an article about "Telephone service in New England". —Centrx→talk • 04:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So I would suggest the intro should say something like:

New England Telephone was the name of the telephone company for most of New England, which existed as part of the the original AT&T from the 1907 creation of the national monopoly (often called "Ma Bell") until 1984, when AT&T was divested of its local operating companies. New England Telephone became part of NYNEX on that date, and after 1994 the name was no longer officially used. Its service area is now covered by Verizon Communications in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island, and FairPoint Communications in the three northern New England states.

Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The previous is intro is fine, no need to entirely re-write it. —Centrx→talk • 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly baffled - your comment and Edit Summary sound like you merely undid the last edit, but you actually made enormous changes that weren't there before. However, I like what you have better than what was there, so good on you - although I am going to make a couple of minor grammatical tweaks (e.g., clearing up uncertainty about antecedents). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)