Talk:Quebecor

Is the newspaper called "24 Hours" (Uppercase H) or "24 hours" (lowercase h) ?

For discussion, please go to Talk:24 Hours (newspaper)#Official name is (Uppercase) Hour or (lowercase) hour?. Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 06:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Quebecor Media?

There's an awful lot of overlap between this page and Quebecor Media. It seems (based on what's written at Quebecor) that the parent company's only asset is its 54% stake in Quebecor Media; the only difference I can discern is that the two organizations have some but not perfect overlap in the membership of their boards of directors. This prompts the question of whether Quebecor Inc. has any notability apart from its relationship to Quebecor Media. If not, it should be a section in the Quebecor Media page. It doesn't make sense to have two articles listing the exact same assets. As things change, editors will end up editing one page and not the other, resulting in an uneven portrait of Quebecor. Thoughts? _{```</sub> t o l l <sub>`</sub> b o o t h <sub>`</sub> w i l l i e <sub>``</sub> $1.25 PLEASE <sub>```} 03:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The parent company used to own Quebecor World as well, so there was a distinction. Now, I think we could probably just redirect Quebecor Media to Quebecor. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, there's no harm in leaving them distinct, because there is separate infobox information (founding dates, etc), but the list of assets and so forth should be under Quebecor and not duplicated. Theoretically, the assets belong to the subsidiary company, but under WP:COMMONNAMES it makes more sense to consolidate under the name Quebecor (the article is titled "Quebecor" and not "Quebecor Inc."). Users looking for information will look under the brand name "Quebecor" and we don't need to force them to navigate through the corporate structure and make extra clicks. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME doesn't enter into it, though. There is a company called Quebecor Inc., commonly called Quebecor; there is a company called Quebecor Media, commonly called by that name; and they are not the same company. If all these broadcasting and printing assets are directly owned by Quebecor Media, which is a joint venture of Quebecor Inc. and CDP Capital d'Amerique Investissements, then to list them on the Quebecor page (which does not show the 45 % ownership by Capital d'Amerique) is not accurate. In order to apply COMMONNAME, you'd have to say that Quebecor Inc. is nonnotable and the "common name" for Quebecor Media is Quebecor. As I think some more, I think Quebecor Inc., the parent company, probably is sufficiently WP:NOTABLE to merit a "stub"- or "start"-class article, briefly detailing the corporate history, including former ownership of Quebecor World, with a prominent statement that the company has just one current asset - a 54 % stake in Quebecor Media. Also the navbox should be retitled as "Quebecor Media", with Quebecor Inc. as the "see also", if it is mentioned at all, as the navbox describes the assets of the joint venture. _{```</sub> t o l l <sub>`</sub> b o o t h <sub>`</sub> w i l l i e <sub>``</sub> $1.25 PLEASE <sub>```} 03:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, "Quebecor Media" is not really known to the general public; they just know the brand name "Quebecor". Only investors bother to make the distinction. It is not uncommon for companies to have even highly convoluted corporate structures, for tax or regulatory reasons, with holding companies owning subsidiaries. If some well-known company nominally has its headquarters in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, or has put assets under the name of the subsidiary with the lowest tax burden, we don't really need to drill down into the corporate structure (which is liable to change at any time as the regulatory and tax winds change direction, in any case). We'd have a lot of articles to alter if we went that route, for not much real gain.

There is only one website, quebecor.com, that presents overall information and it rarely mentions "Quebecor Media" by name, except in the "at a glance" page and the investor centre pages. We should imitate that, in that most of the information should be in an article with the title Quebecor. It makes sense to have a separate Quebecor Media page, for the readers who make the distinction, but to create a separate Quebecor Inc. page seems like overkill; it seems more natural just to redirect it to the Quebecor page. For one thing, Quebecor Inc. is what's listed on the stock market, and we have its stock symbols in the navbox at Quebecor. We shouldn't force the reader to click to a separate page just to find those. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I definitely see your point on the naming, especially with there being only one "quebecor.com" website, but I still think it's misleading to have a Quebecor article that shows a board of directors list and stock symbol that belong to Quebecor Inc., but a list of assets that belong to Quebecor Media, which is only 54 % owned by Quebecor Inc. and has its own (different, albeit with some overlap) board of directors. I don't think two pages is overkill; it's accuracy. I don't have a problem with using "Quebecor" as the article for the company that's officially called Quebecor Media, but that joint venture company should be the sole or predominant focus of the article, with a separate "start"-length article on the publicly traded company Quebeceor Inc. _{```</sub> t o l l <sub>`</sub> b o o t h <sub>`</sub> w i l l i e <sub>``</sub> $1.25 PLEASE <sub>```} 14:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can fit both navboxes on the Quebecor page, after removing duplication. The Quebecor Inc. navbox could be truncated to just the stock symbols, founding year, revenues and profits. The Quebecor article really should combine information about both companies, just like the website quebecor.com is about both companies. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Quebecor → Québecor – There has been a couple of moves back and forth (including a copy-paste move, now repaired), with the last one allegedly requested here at WP:RM (according to the edit summary), but I can find no trace of that discussion. Nevertheless, there seems to be little doubt that the company is actually named Québecor, see their homepage. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:UCN/WP:ON, the common form in English does not include the accent. Further even on their webpage ((in English) the English version, not the French one), it is spelled without an accent. Quebecor is one of Canada's largest media companies. Quebecor inc. reports fourth quarter and full-year 2012 consolidated results Quebecor official media partner of La Québécoise and La Montréalaise @GPCQM cycling events -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  Comment: the logo – present also on the English-language section – verifies that the name is spelled with an é. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  The text of the English-language website does not contain accents, even when other terms contain accents, such as the example quoted "La Québécoise" which contains accents but in the same sentence "Quebecor" does not contain accents, so even on its own website, it does not use accents. The logo is an image, and is common between the English and French versions, so does not illustrate usage. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  See WP:COMMONNAME: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". There's no question that the accurate name is Québecor. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  There's no question that the company itself uses the unaccented form in English. It uses it even when it uses accents for other terms in the same sentence. This isn't an issue of dropping all accents, since the company uses accents for other entities in the same sentence where it refers to itself without accents. So this seems to be a WP:UE issue, and not what you're pointing out. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  Whether the company uses the unaccented form in English or not, there's still no question that the accurate name is Québecor. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  Then there are a boatload of Vietnamese and Japanese articles to rename to standard romanization or local language spelling, since they're using common English forms, as found at large or used by the entities themselves, instead of the "accurate" names. That we are arguing against usage at large or by the entities themselves shows something wrong with Wikipedia, since Wikipedis is supposed to follow what the world does, not lead the charge in changing how the world works. (Wikipedia aim is to become tertiary source, not a secondary or primary one) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Rename. My sense is that "Québecor" is correct, but that's mainly because I am most familiar with company logo. I admit that I don't know much about common usage, but English media in Canada do routinely omit accents on French words when discussing topics dealing with Quebec. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Restore to Québecor In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC) per logo which cannot insert into line of text, right:
  • Quebecor's own website doesn't use the accented form in its own English-language text. Why would use a form that Quebecor itself doesn't use in English? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Because we don't have to worry about the complicated inter-ethnic politics of language in Canada, we aren't scared of losing English-only customers, or a trade mark issue, who knows. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Because you don't like WP:TIES? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This article has strong ties to Quebec, an area where accents are used, even when writing in English. 117Avenue (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi 65.92.180.137, no if anything WP:TIES would support the accent given that 70-80% of the company's business is in the French-speaking zone. My comment above was due to the graphic on the article, plus like your esteemed self did a couple of days ago on another RM, I misread the edit history, easy to do, but having seen that I misread it I'm U-turning. I also did a bit more research, not googling html but looking at (1) newspaper reports - which I have added as footnotes, and (2) GB searches on typographically enabled sources since the name change in 2012:

Quebecor is the giant in Québec. It started first with popular newspapers (Le Journal de Montréal) and printing and then became one of the largest printersin the world. It then moved into cable (Vidéotron) and television (TVA), extended into ...Louisa S. Ha, Richard J. Ganahl Webcasting Worldwide: Business Models of an Emerging Global Medium 2013

So based on quality recent independent print sources since the name change I now Oppose the proposed move. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The company uses the unaccented form in English; it can be assumed that the unaccented version is their official (probably registered) English trade name. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. All incorporation documents use the accented form for French and unaccented form for English. See Quebecor Fund, Quebecor Media Printing Inc., and Quebecor Media Network Inc. at Industry Canada (see "Corporate Name" section, or scroll to "Corporate History" section of those respective pages). This means that the company has chosen to officially identify itself using the unaccented form in English. Mindmatrix 16:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The question should not be what can be found on company documentation, per WP:PRIMARY, but how others use it, per WP:COMMONNAME. 117Avenue (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

and MOS:CAFR. 117Avenue (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The company, nor any English media sources, employ the accent in English material. French sources are an entirely different story, but no accent in English. Even if we look at just Canadian sources (including the CBC which has the strongest bilingual arm) there is an overwhelming lack of accent in English [1].--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. As 117Avenue points out, we have MOS/naming convention guidance as to how Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be applied to French names in the Canadian context - MOS:CAFR. The common usage in English appears to be Quebecor without the accent. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments provided above. This is not French Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Note that Wikipedia does not have any requirement that we always defer to the "official" form of the name in its original language; rather, we use the form that is most commonly seen in English language sources, regardless of whether that conforms to the foreign language form or not. That does indeed result in some articles retaining their original spelling from the other language and others having an anglicized title instead — frex, the political party that currently governs Quebec is located at Parti Québécois, but the legislative body that they sit in is located at National Assembly of Quebec, and both titles are correct per actual Canadian English usage — but the question that determines this one way or the other is not "what's the official name?", but rather "what's the name that's most likely to be recognized by speakers of English as the usual form in actual English usage?" And, in this case, the answer to that question is "Quebecor" without the accent. And furthermore, what appears on the logo is irrelevant — lots of companies stylize their logos in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with the company's name — so the decision has to be based on what is or isn't seen in writing (corporate press releases, coverage in other media, etc.) rather than in graphics, and in this case the writing criterion clearly and unequivocally favours the unaccented form since even the company itself does not use the accent in its own written publications. Oppose. See WP:CANFRENCH if more clarification is needed. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quebecor. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120521183717/http://www.quebecor.com:80/en/content/board-directors to http://quebecor.com/en/content/board-directors

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) 16:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)