Template talk:AT&T

message: should ATT mexico go under ATT mobility or under a different section of the nav box?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.122.160 (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATT mexico 

message: should sky mexico be added? ATT owns about 40% of it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.120.76 (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky mexico 

message: Cox Communications is listed in the subsidiaries section, mislabeled as Cox Communication. However, I can't find any article that has any mention the any part of AT&T ever owned any part of Cox Communications or Cox Enterprise, which currently owns Cox Communications. I believe it should be removed from the list. ARK ALPHA (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cox Communication 

message: Pinging nom and those involved in the TfD that resulted in simplifying: , , , 
 (nom) has simplified this template by removing the WarnerMedia section, I've restored this. If you go on the WarnerMedia page, it's terrible, two templates now: WarnerMedia Entertainment and WarnerMedia News & Sports (newly created template by Gonnym). Can we please discuss going forward, I've started by removing the acquisitions section that I mentioned in the TfD or should this be kept? Thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also removed links to generic articles such as mobile phone for wireless services Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've done this in your favour Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes absolutely no sense.  please elaborate on your close note. The proposal specially mentioned splitting using the current sections and it seems "simplify" to Steven means only removing some unrelated links while leaving 95% of this monstrosity in place. --Gonnym (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, you are pretty much the only one that had a preference for splitting which is what you did. You didn't reply to Alucard's comment? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

text: If there's a concern that splitting the template will create too many disjointed (or too many) navboxes, I think option #2 is the best way forward. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 's second option is more of what I had in mind actually. It keeps all the necessary bits in the same template then on other pages it can be set to show only relevant sections. Give me a few hours and I will create a sandbox example of how this could work. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 05:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So I have a sandbox version of the AT&T template here. In my sandbox version I moved the articles AT&T satellite fleet and DirecTV blimp to the Communications section beside DirecTV. My reasoning is these articles only apply to DirecTV and the "Buildings and facilities" section wouldn't need to be displayed on the DirecTV article and these articles wouldn't have two sections (Communications & Buildings and facilities) displayed. In a subpage of that sandbox I have various examples of how this template would now work displaying relevant sections on various articles. I also gave an example with notes for DirecTV, AT&T SportsNet, MLB Network and Audience (TV network) as to why they may need two sections visible. Comments on this effort would be appreciated. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree with the proposal above by Primefac. Quite a nifty suggestion! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies for the delay, things are a bit hectic at the moment, not having much Wiki time. I don't see anything wrong with the template but Primefac's option 2 looks good and which would address nom's issue.  I was looking at the Communications section which is made up of Mobility and Entertainment, Business, and Technology and Operations — having looked at the articles listed, some are generic links such as Ethernet and some are different names that link to a page already listed such as AT&T Voice for Business to AT&T U-verse — Wikipedia doesn't have articles on every service AT&T offers (the same for other companies). I think it would be a good idea to get rid of all these and the dropdown sections, and group the communications section as one, what you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplifying following TfD 

message: In light of WarnerMedia’s recent reshuffle, I’ve managed to transfer most, if not all of the WB properties onto the main AT&T navbox. This in turn renders the standalone Warner Bros. navbox, with all due respect, a bit unnecessary to keep. - BiggieSMLZ (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted this pending the outcome of this discussion. The AT&T template before your edits has the Warner Bros. template embedded as a child template which makes things easier to edit — an editor simply has to click on the "E" to edit that template separately. If we were to merge the Warner Bros. template, we would end up with a huge list when editing the main template as you can see in your version. The other thing, if you look on WarnerMedia's Business Units page, it says "WarnerMedia is made up of the following business units: WarnerMedia Entertainment, WarnerMedia News & Sports, Warner Bros. and WarnerMedia Sales & International" which is how the WarnerMedia section of the template is organised. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've just checked back at WarnerMedia's page, and the changes have indeed taken effect. The businesses are now as follows: HBO Max, WarnerMedia Commercial, WarnerMedia News & Sports, WarnerMedia Studios & Networks, and WarnerMedia International. Hopefully, this should serve as enough evidence to safely integrate this in navbox form. - BiggieSMLZ (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Template:Warner Bros.]] into Template:AT&T