Welcome to mapoid.com on July 11 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Talk:Quebec City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada / Quebec / Communities (Rated C-Class, High-importance)
Canada portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is also supported by WikiProject Quebec.
This article is also supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-Class, High-importance)
Geography portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it.
WikiProject World Heritage Sites (Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Quebec City:

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: More citations and references. So far there are only seven here...
  • Copyedit: The entire article for spelling, grammar, phrasing, etc.
  • Wikify: The article, and create new articles for noteworthy topics of interest that are currently red linked or link outside of wikipedia.
  • Split: Some of the history section into the History of Quebec City article
  • Verify: All unsourced statements
  • Cleanup: The entire article
  • Expand: All sections, especially Media section and sections appearing as lists
  • Update: Attractions section
  • Other: Transform all lists into prose style.
Priority 1 (top)
This article or section is missing information about: Cityscape, Economy, Culture..
This concern has been noted on the talk page where it may be discussed whether or not to include such information. (June 2008)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 3, 2004, July 3, 2005, July 3, 2006, and July 3, 2007.

Contents

[edit] Discussion from 2004 to early 2005

The population is incorrect, as it predates the 2002 anexation of many cities of the greater Quebec metropolitan

---

If the city's official name in English is Québec, shouldn't this article be at "Québec, Quebec" or similar? Marnanel 01:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Usual practice is to use the most common name. Most Anglophone Canadians know the city as Quebec City. However, we do have redirects from other variants such as Québec, Quebec and Quebec, Quebec. - Montréalais 03:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In the English part of the Quebec City city government website, the city is called "Québec City" in English, albeit unofficially. http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/en/accueil/index.shtml--Aquarius rising 04:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Quebec City is the English-language version, and should be used the same way that Wikipedia refers to Warsaw, Rome, Prague, etc., not Warszawa, Roma and Praha. And frankly, given that Quebec City is a completely English term, writing it as Québec City is ridiculous (amounts to simply insérting accénts éverywhéré without régard to contéxt). Skeezix1000 18:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Laval University is located in the western end of the city. Founded by the Jesuits one year before Harvard University, Laval was the first university in North America."

Laval University was founded in 1663, as read on the wiki entry. Harvard was founded in 1636, predating Laval University by 27 years

Peter Wye 01:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. If 1663 is the right date, then the line should be removed. Also, Laval University was actually founded as a university in 1852 out of a seminary founded in 1663. I presume Harvard was also a college at its foundation. I presume it was not founded as a university from day one.
I will try to find out if 1663 really is the foundation date of the Séminaire de Québec. The Jesuits founded the Collège de Québec sometime in 1635. This is probably where the confusion comes from. People think that Laval University started as the Collège de Québec rather than the Séminaire de Québec.

-- Mathieugp 12:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Collège de Québec is actually now Collège Saint-Charles-Garnier, and it doesn't appear to be a university (anymore anyway). ] I'm just going to delete the line about Laval University being the oldest to avoid any confusion. --JF

Shouldn't this article be at either Quebec, Quebec or at just Quebec City? It seems like we're disambiguating twice for no reason. john k 16:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(I'd prefer just "Quebec City", BTW). john k 16:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We're not using the word "City" to disambiguate; we're using it because that's what it's most frequently called: I'm going to Quebec City this week. We add the ", Quebec" to follow the usual form for Canadian city articles. - Montréalais

[edit] Map

Please do not keep changing the map. The one you stole from the Quebec government is POV, because of its border with Labrador. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is a disaster.

Indeed. Any suggestions? I'm going to do something about that 2008 section, which is very distracting at the moment. Jkelly 03:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to see the events sections moved to a separate page or removed altogether. I also find the "Le Québec/Au Québec" discussion too prominent in the summary and of little interest to native English speakers interested in Quebec City, not French grammar. -Jeromeg 11:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The article would be improved in my eyes if it had a map in the upper right-hand corner which would place the city within the province and within the state (the way it is shown for most American towns and cities). Whichiswhich (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] population

I reverted this change to the population figures because the user who made it has done nothing but change numbers without edit summaries or sources, and in one case did so in a way that directly contradicted a cited, reliable source. However, there's no source for the population number that's there now either, and the 2001 census gives the population as 169,076. This needs fixing. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure where to write this, but I'm challenging the fact that Quebec City is the second largest city in Quebec after Montreal.

It is second in importance, true, but population wise, it is fourth after Laval and Longueuil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir John Falstaff (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at List_of_the_100_largest_municipalities_in_Canada_by_population. Quebec City is number two in Quebec in raw numbers, city only. Maybe if Laval includes its "suburbs" (Montreal's "North crown", i.e. including the surrounding North shore) and if Longueuil includes its "suburbs" (the entire South Shore: Brossard (or is it part of Longueuil now?), Châteaugay, St-Basile-le-Grand... depends how far you want to go...), then each may be larger than Quebec City (plus its suburbs). Montreal itself has 1.6 million, the island 1.8, and the "metropolitan area" something like 3.5-3.6 millions, which equates roughly to about a million each for extended definitions of "Laval" and "Longueuil". But without including suburbs in population counts, Quebec City is indeed the second largest city in Quebec.--Boffob (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


That's right. It depends on whether you look at the data for the "city" or the "census metropolitan area". However, I think that Quebec is the 2nd largest city including suburbs, as Laval and Longeuil would be counted as part of Montreal.
Census data for 2006 is available: Statistics Canada: 2006 Community Profiles. Whatever the ranking of Quebec City, I think it's time to update the data to 2006 figures.
LK (t|c) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move

  • Support. The word "City" is good enough to distinguish it from the province of Quebec, and is already unambiguous. What advantage besides consistency with U.S. cities besides New York City (which is titled as such, not as "New York City, New York") does the province name as an additional suffix have?? Georgia guy 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: move would depart from the standard for Canadian cities. Jonathunder 03:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "City, Province" is not the standard for notable Canadian cities. Therefore, the proposed move would be consistent with the standard. Skeezix1000 18:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Contravenes the common naming convention: Quebec City is sufficiently distinct without subjugating a user to type additional text, and a redirect to the alternate term is redundant. And what standard? Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa et al. aren't so entitled ... and recent attempts to do so again for Hogtown were again nixed when a consensus of editors there didn't support it. Moreover, as I contend, this standard – where Canadian cities are unnecessarily rolled in with American ones – was adopted for Canadian cities (methinks) without an appropriate consensus anyway and a separate proposal is forthcoming. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support I think there's not much to say against the statu quo. Circeus 04:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support -- I know the Americans are really wedded to the "city, state" format, but other notable Canadian cities do not follow that form. Skeezix1000 18:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose. Darkildor 17:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC) - Consensus was reached 4 months ago. To raise the issue again, please follow the process in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks.--Skeezix1000 17:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 08:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Quebec City article created

In case anyone would be interested.... Juppiter 05:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Québec City page will change...

It's so boring to read this page vs the french page. So, I will add things for to be fun to read. This page will be seeing by a lot of people in the near future... so... need change.

MaThQc 21:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolis?

I removed the reference to Quebec City being "the metropolis of the east" because that is incorrect. Montreal is the metropolis of the Province of Quebec, while Quebec is the capital (such as is the case of many American states).Archiesteel 17:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see someone put "Metropolis of the East" back...I'd be curious to hear the reasoning behind this. Among Quebecois, the "Métropole" is Montreal and the "Capitale" (or even "Capital Nationale", which is a bit more controversial) is Quebec City. I'm applying the change again unless a good rationale can be given here for keeping the "Metropolis of the East" reference.Archiesteel 17:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The ONU qualify Metropolis has a city with 8 millions people, but Montréal don't have 8 millions people or Metropolis is a city with a power in a particular region. Here, in Quebec City, in the medias, we named Québec has a Metropolis like Montréal, Toronto or Vancouver. That's why we name Québec City metropolitan area. So, I will changed your modify. Next time, go here and we will talk. MaThQc 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry, I had written this on your talk page instead - I'm re-writing it here...) Salut MaThQc...j'imagine que tu parle français puisque tu as écrit "ONU" plutôt que "UN" ;-)... À propos du mot "Métropole"...en général, on l'oppose à celui de "Capitale," la métropole étant un centre d'affaires, à vocation économique, tandis que la capitale représente une fonction gouvernementale (c'est le siège du pouvoir). Parfois, les deux villes sont la même (comme pour Paris en France, et Londres en Angleterre). Parfois, elles sont distinctes (ex. New York et Albany, Dallas et Houston, Los Angeles et Sacramento). C'est le cas pour la province de Québec: Montréal est la métropole, Québec la capitale, ce qui va dans le même sens que l'usage courant au Québec (on a qu'à se souvenir de Télé-Métropole et Télé-Capitale). Le sens du mot étant sensiblement le même en anglais, je crois que l'on devrait donc s'abstenir d'affubler Québec de cet attribut...de plus, l'usage de l'adjectif "métropolitain" (metropolitan) ne signifie pas nécessairement qu'il s'agisse d'une Métropole. Archiesteel 20:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Quebec City is not really a metropolis in the English-language sense of the word. The Quebec City metropolitan area is the city itself with all surrounding municipalities that have a high degree of social and economic integration with the core city. And Quebec City is part of a census metropolitan area. Skeezix1000 21:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Skeezix, and while I appreciate the response MaThQc gave me on my talk page, I still think the use of the word here is too controversial, and should be removed.Archiesteel 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Je t,ai répondu hier soir sur ta page de discussion. MaThQc 02:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many images.

way too many images in the start of this article IMO.

[edit] moving

I am moving Quebec City to Quebec City capital. --Elmo125.467/891.011.121.415.164.057.984.887.982.481.215.470.890.199.919.652.468.Yay 01:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second oldest?

Quebec City is the second-oldest existing European settlement in Canada (after Saint John, New Brunswick)

Are we sure? Saint John is the oldest "incorporated" city, but Quebec is the oldest permanent settlement.

http://www.cityofsaintjohn.com/2.cfm?PageID=3-4-40#sjincorp (On St. John the Baptist Day, June 24, 1604, French explorer Samuel de Champlain landed at the mouth of a mighty river which he named St. John in honour of the day. Nearly thirty years later, Charles de LaTour, self-appointed Governor of Acadia, settled at the mouth of the St. John River.)--BarLaf 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Quebec City is not the oldest settlement in Canada; Port Royal, Nova Scotia, St. John's) and Tadoussac, Quebec were all created earlier. However Quebec city is the first to have been founded with the explicit goal of receiving permanent settlement and not as a commercial outpost, and therefore is often considered to be the first city in Canada."
That's what I learned from my history lessons anyway. St-John's was a harbour with no permanent inhabitants, while Tadoussac was a trading station for fur exchanges. They only grew into cities later. UnHoly 05:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
User 134.153.130.143 changed the sentence to "only Port-Royal, St-John's and Tadoussac were created earlier". Can we get a source for this? UnHoly 12:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highest falls?

"Quebec City has... Highest falls in Canada, the Chutes Montmorency"

I believe Della Falls in B.C. is the highest at 440m.

http://mapx.map.vgd.gov.lv/geo3/Ukr/Pamatlapas_Slices/Arzemes_E/Pasaules%20augstakie_E.htm

--64.42.209.81 17:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I removed that claim. Other claims in that sections are dubious but I can't check their veracity so I'll leave them for now. Someone should look into it.--70.81.13.192 23:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The Atlas of Canada has a listing of all important falls, coast to coast:
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/facts/waterfalls.html/document_view
The Chutes Montmorency rank 8th. Niagara falls rank 12th/13th. -- Mathieugp 00:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highest proportion of freeway in the world?

There is a claim at the end which states that Quebec City has "The highest proportion of freeway by inhabitant in the world"....I had heard that amongst the metropolitan areas in Canada, Quebec did have the highest proportion of freeway (which i can't confirm anywhere anyway)...but the highest proportion in the world? For some reason i highly doubt that...can anyone confirm? User:fcsk 04 July 2006

[edit] Cathedral

Corrected and clarified information relating to the Cathedral-Basilica. It isn't the first Cathedral in the New World (that's in Santa Domingo, built in 1503). The term "see" was used incorrectly to refer to the building; "see" refers to a diocese. Changed the pipe of primate church to primatial, to make it grammatically correct.--Cantabwarrior 13:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major edits

Alright, to the best of my ability I cleaned up the page, added a new page on Notre Dame Des Victoires, and removed a ton of red links. Hopefully we can get some residents of Quebec to fill in the blanks that I removed - I'd rather see blue than black! Synthetic 13:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wall of Quebec

Why isn't there anything about the wall of Quebec?

Add it! Find a good source and add the detail. I thought the wall was really neat, but do not know enough about the city to add the info. Fundamentaldan 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Arrangement

Under the municipal government section, I changed the pictures to side-by-side instead of both on the right side following each other. That gave too much of a gap of white space, in my mind. If anyone does not like this arrangement, just let me know. Fundamentaldan 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Museums

Added links to official websites of museums listed on the page. I attempted to link directly to the English index page if the main index page did not offer a prominent choice between English and French.

Cantabwarrior 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest hospital

Hôtel Dieu de Québec is indeed the oldest hospital in North America, as it says on their website here: http://www.chuq.qc.ca/fr/le_chuq/nos_etablissements/hdq/

However the citation is in French... can we add that as a source in the English Wikipedia?

 The Hospital de Jesus Nazareno is older (1524) according to their web site: http://www.hospitaldejesus.com.mx/
 Fixed the entry..

[edit] WE NEED A PIC FOR QUEBEC CITY

Can someone add this pic for Quebec Citys main picture? http://www.gonomad.com/destinations/0205/Quebec/quebecriver2.gif

[edit] Weird sentence

"The chief of Parliament, the National Assembly of Quebec (provincial parliament) ... [and some other things that aren't relevant] ... are found within or near Vieux-Québec."

I'm puzzled by the phrase "chief of Parliament". What is this supposed to mean? Has a word dropped out, like "seat"? (I.e. the main Parliament building is located in the old city, but it sometimes meets elsewhere). Also, the phrase "provincial parliament" in parentheses afterwords seems superfluous. --Jfruh (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] == Quebec City has... ==

This section was removed a short while ago. It may well be too messy for the article in its present form, but there is probably a lot of good information that should be incorporated into the body of the article. I've copied it here so that the notes aren't lost. --Ckatzchatspy 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quebec City has...

For the record, the first point was added because the article (now deleted) was an orphan. That building IS NOT a UNESCO site. It's the historic district in which it is located that is. Circeus 22:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The asteroid and the phonetic letter seem to refer to the province rather than the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.100 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Quebec City natives and residents

Mario Lemieux (born in Montreal), Martin Brodeur (also born in Montreal) and Martin St. Louis (born in Laval) are Quebec residents? I've never heard of that before. Anyone can confirm this?

[edit] To CKatz

It is a lie to pretend that no people from quebec took part to the attack on the american side. It is also a point of view to pretend it was futile.

If you remove it again I will have to put a official complain to the administrator for this British point of view. If they talk about Isaak Brook in relation to a french city it is certainly normal to talk about the people in Quebec who try to liberate their own city from the invader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republique2007 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To CKAtz # 2

It's too bad wikipedia article seems to be British Imperialist slur Beause this is the anniversary of the French City

Apparently we can talk about the city being invaded but not that it was successufully defended by Frontenac in 1690 English don't seems to like their lost

Apparently you don't beleive either me when I say that People from Quebec were with the american in 1775 300 french Quebeckers and many more in parish around the city were fighting for the liberation of Quebec Most of the tools for the siege came from Saint-Maurice ironworks In the picture on the link you can see a third blue dot That is James Livingston and his Quebecois à Saint-John Gates That reality is unknown because british try to erase it very badly And the lies continue on Wikipedia... While apparently Brock is important to quebec city (?)

http://www.britishbattles.com/battle-of-quebec-1775.htm http://www.grimshaworigin.org/WebPages/WilmRev1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republique2007 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somebody messed

With this page , tgis morning a perv pic was shown when you clicked this article bah.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.96.171 (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Quebec3DMural.jpg

Image:Quebec3DMural.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 10:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics Discrepency

Why is the population for the administrative area (local government) city given at 528,595 earlier in the page, and then given at 683,000 in the demographics section? This page is about the city administrative area not the metro and the demographic number should reflect the city and not the metro. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] national capital

I put in the article the fact that the city is called the capital national, as the governments do in both provincial and city level. Wassup54

It seems that some federalist or english canadian is against this idea, too bad that the city is OFFICIALY named that way, so please stop editing the national capital mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.229.16 (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that some Separatist or French Canadian has a POV problem. Quebec City is clearly the capital city of the province of Quebec. "National" capital is obviously a POV and there could possibly have a section discussing that but not in the introduction. I've added the fact that it is within the Capitale-Nationale region of Quebec, so perhaps that will assuage you. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to mention that "National Capital" is not separatism. It refers to the idea that Quebec is a nation within Canada, as it was recognize by the federal government not so long ago. Therefore, Quebec is the capital of the Quebec nation. Quebec is refered to as the National Capital by the provincial government of Quebec, both by separatist and non-separatist government. "National Capital" is worth of mention in the introduction, as much as the nicknames of New York City are used in the introduction of the article. I will wait for further comments before changing the article, in order not to have a stupid edit war. S23678 02:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not as straight-forward as you represent and therefore should not be simply stated as a fact in the introduction. The exact meaning of the Québécois nation motion is unclear but it definitely recognised the Québécois people (whatever that means) and not the province as a nation. As I said, a section discussing it would be possible. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DoubleBlue. Referring to it as a "national" capital is extremely POV, as it is only a provincial capital, and has no status outside of that. GreenJoe 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Calling Quebec related things using the word "national" or "nationale" is not a recent thing, but actually goes back to the days of the Union Nationale, long before the Parti Québécois. Whether some Wikipedians disagree with it or not, when it comes to official names of administrative regions and other things, it's not POV, it's what they're called. See the naming conventions.--Boffob (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
GreenJoe: Yes, Quebec City IS a provincial capital. The name "National Capital" is not a status, it's a nickname, just as New York City is refered as "The Big Apple"; That doesn't mean that New York City is an apple... But, Quebec City is refered as "Capitale Nationale" in french (maybe the article should use the french version). If not, why would it be in the administrative region called Capitale-Nationale, as mentionned by User DoubleBlue.
DoubleBlue: I realise that Quebec City may not be called at all "National Capital" in English medias, therefore reducing the importance of the term. I would agree to refer to "National Capital" somewhere else in the text. S23678 06:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources that use the term "National Capital" (not Capitale-Nationale) to describe Quebec City? DigitalC (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it mention "National Capital" as a nickname, there are only mentions of Capitale-Nationale as the administrative region, so no sources are needed. The most common nickname used for Québec, as far as I know, at least in French, is "la vieille capitale" (capitalization of Vieille and Capitale may vary). That one is in the infobox, and unsourced, but google "vieille capitale" and there are plenty of choices to prove the existence of that nickname if necessary.--Boffob (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it CURRENTLY mention "National Capital" as a nickname, or definition. However, others have argued for that. Without sources that use it in that context, it should not be used as such. DigitalC (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've contacted the toponymy section of Quebec City and "Capitale Nationale" is being used officially by the city sometimes. I've had this response by phone, I will ask for an answer by e-mail, and I'll post it here. S23678 16:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, are there reliable sources that use the term "National Capital" (not Capitale-Nationale) to describe Quebec City? DigitalC (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As currently written, this article describes Quebec City as the capital of Quebec, and then goes on to mention Capitale-Nationale later in the same paragraph. I don't see why this needs to be handled any differently than that. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the nickname "National Capital" is not the same as the Capitale-Nationale region, just as New York City is not the same as New York State...! Also, the other provincial capitals don't have the nickname "National Capital". If you look at the articles about Winnipeg and Toronto and look on the infobox at their nicknames, there's some non-official names that are commonly accepted as their nickname. I'll remind that I'm waiting for an answer from Quebec City on the status of "National Capital" as a name or a nickname for the city, without editing anything for now. Your Personal feelings about if Quebec City should or should not be called National Capital or not has nothing to do with that discussion, and should not be influenced by any federalist or separatist affiliation. S23678 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is if it should be called that, the issue is how it should be listed as such on the page. No one has disputed that it is called that either offically or as a nickname. -Djsasso (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I think you're conflating two different things. Nobody's disputing that Quebec City is located in an administrative region whose official name is Capitale-Nationale, but it's far from clear that this makes "National Capital" a generally-used nickname for the city in the sense that "Hogtown" or "The Big Smoke" exist as nicknames for Toronto. The fact that Toronto is located within the Greater Toronto Area doesn't make "Greater Toronto Area" a nickname for the city of Toronto. And even if it does exist as a nickname, that still doesn't justify changing the basic description of the city from "capital of Quebec" to "national capital of Quebec" in the very first line of the article's body text, because in English that construction only means capital of an independent country. And I'll thank you to stop making assumptions about my personal motivations here — I'm certain that you think you know my personal feelings about Quebec sovereignty, but I can virtually guarantee you that your assumptions are wrong. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
And "Big Apple" only means an apple? It's a nickname... it's not the REAL NAME, but anyway, I'm not going to post anything more until I've have an official answer. Let's just wait for the answer, which I'll post as soon as I have it. S23678 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What you tried to do here is not akin to saying "New York City is nicknamed The Big Apple"; it's akin to using the phrase "Big Apple" to replace the primary description of New York City's fundamental characteristics. The equivalent edit to New York City's article would have said "New York City is the Big Apple of the United States" instead of "New York City, nicknamed The Big Apple, is the largest city in the United States". The article as currently written takes the correct approach to this issue: Quebec City... is the capital of the Canadian province of Quebec and is located within the Capitale-Nationale region. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of a statement that QC is often refered to as Capitale-National, because it was unsourced. Furthermore, who is it often refered to as Nationale-Capitale by? This is not as bad as saying it is refered to as National Capital, but any contentious addition to the article should be sourced. DigitalC (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
A number of POV edits re Quebec based articles have been done recently from the IP 65.94.163.84 and those in the 65.94.xx.xx range. This was but one of many. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I did put the source like you wanted me to do. I hope it solves everything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.167.251 (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First off I would, and I think everyone else would, appreciate it 65.94.xx.xx if you would either sign in or create an account. The larger issue though is should this be in the English wikipedia? It seems to take a long explanation, and is currently quite confusing. Plus, 'capitale nationale' is not English, so I am wondering if a non English nickname is even relevant here, especially one that confuses and must be explained. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the statement. For one thing, the "capitale nationale" as a nickname is dubious (it's more of a description). I know some people consider Québec City to be a national capital (this is a political/cultural issue), but it's not the expression they use as a nickname for the city (that would be "la vieille capitale"). Second, the source has no "official value" and does not address any nickname issue. The whole Québec is a nation and Québec City is its capital debate, I believe, should be left out of this article. It's a can of worms that'll only bring confusion and edit wars. Québec City is in the administrative region (division) called Capitale-Nationale. That's all we can say that is relevant.--Boffob (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that Quebec City is by law the national capital of Quebec:
http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/c-33.1/20080515/whole.html
as Ottawa is by law the national capital of Canada:
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/N-4
Quebecers, through their representatives in the National Assembly of Quebec, voted Quebec City, a provincial captital, as their national capital, as Canadians, through their representatives in the Parliament of Canada, voted Ottawa, a federal capital, as their national capital. It seems rather futile to deny such a plain statement of easily verifiable evidence. -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make it a nickname. And the technical/legal ramifications of the rest are not really useful to the article now, are they? If one starts writing "Québec is a nation", a significant number of people will read it as "country", so to avoid confusion you'll need a lengthy discussion of the differences between the notions of "nation" and "country", what the provincial government says, what the federal government said (Québécois form a nation, which is not the same thing...), read through lengthy bills and laws, filled with legalese that'll be just as confusing if not more than the original short statement. That's not improvement.--Boffob (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to violate any 3rr stuff, but again this has been changed by 65.94.xx.xx. On my talk page he/she claims that the talk page says that everyone agrees with him or her. I leave it to other editors to deal with this, as, apparently, 65 thinks the talk page supports his or her idea. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about it being a "nickname". That would be rather odd if it were so. Nicknames tend to be, well, not formal-sounding like Capitale nationale du Québec. ;-) I was referring to the status conferred to the city by the law of Quebec. It certainly is worthy of mention that in virtue of the law of the Parliament of Quebec, Québec City is the national capital of Québec and that a Commission, consisting of a 13-member board of directors, is responsible for the development, improvement and preservation of its institutions, sites and monuments. -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mathieugp has already provided the source which is: http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/c-33.1/20080515/whole.html which is clear that Quebec city is considered as the capital national of Quebec. Now maybe we should work on how to write it on the capital section. Can I count on your collaboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.163.111 (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For all I know 65, you are Mathieugp, or Wassup54 (who started all of this) because you never sign in. There is not, from my reading of this talk page, general agreement or consensus. The law quoted above would be a translation of a French language law. In French, Capitale Nationale is used now and then Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, as a Quebecer, I agree. "Capitale Nationale" is a moniker that first made appearance on highway road-signs outside Quebec City several years ago. It's regional and provincial marketing pap. Just like any City may have a moniker like "Where Inovation Thrives". this isn't indicative of common usage. I believe that it's a stretch, and mistake, to confuse a marketing slogan invented for socio-political purposes with saying it's "commonly used". It's not commonly used. It's occasionally used, mostly on some highway road signs, far from Quebec City itself. StevenBlack (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Dbrodbeck, there is no need for the IP user to create an account if they do not have one, however they should sign their posts. We still have not seen a source that shows that "Capitale Nationale" is commonly used as a nickname for the city. DigitalC (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
While it is true that highway road signs is one of the visible results of the government's action in this regard, the mission of the Commission de la capitale nationale du Québec is not limited to this. There is a whole list of the Commission's past accomplishments to prove it here: [1] -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
However, that still says nothing about the issue at hand.Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing sections

We need some sections about the Cityscape (architecture, neighbourhoods, sights, etc.), Culture (including tourism, media and sports), and Economy (there isn't a huge amount to say but we need a good paragraph nonetheless.) MTLskyline (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page improvements

Due to some necessary page formatting changes, I'm temporarily removing the following photo from the article: Image:VieuxQuebec 2003-0427 VueDeLaVieilleVilleEtDeLaCitadelle.jpg (pipetext "|center|600px|Old Quebec, the walled city.") It is being listed here so that it can be reintegrated, if appropriate, when a more suitable location for it can be found in the article. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "StatCan1" :
    • [http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=2423027&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&Data=Count&SearchText=Quebec&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom= Statistics Canada.] 2006 Community Profiles - Census Subdivision - Quebec City
    • .
  • "StatCan2" :
    • [http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMA&Code1=421__&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&Data=Count&SearchText=Quebec&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom= Statistics Canada.] 2006 Community Profiles - Census Metropolitan Area - Quebec City
    • .

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Earthquakes

Why should earthquakes be listed under the history section insted of the geography section? Earthquakes are geography-related. Black Tusk (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No context was established in your addition that would indicate that. Since it was an historic event, it goes in the history section. However, you may also add it to the Geography section if you accompany it with an explanation of the factors that make Quebec City prone to earthquakes. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem if it's in the geography or history section. I didn't indicate it because Quebec City is mentioned in the 1925 Charlevoix-Kamouraska earthquake article as one of the three damaged areas. Quebec City seems to lie in the Saint Lawrence rift system which is a seismically active zone parallel with the Saint Lawrence River. Black Tusk (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English name of city

This article gives the misleading impression that the name of the city in English is Quebec City in preference to Quebec. The "City" part is used primarily for disambiguation purposes; when there is no danger of confusion, the name Quebec is perfectly acceptable in English, and I would even say preferable.

Here's how the "Geographical Names" section of Merriam-Webster's Tenth Collegiate Dictionary lists four well-known cities:

Quebec or Québec 1 province E Canada [...] 2 city & port, its ∗ [...]

New York 1 state NE U.S. [...] 2 or New York City city & port SE N.Y.[...]

Oklahoma City city ∗ of Okla. [...]

Panama or Sp Panamá 1 country S Central America [...] 2 or Panama City city & port, its ∗ [...]

(Panama City 1 city & port NW Fla. [...] 2 — see PANAMA)

The name "Quebec City" is not even mentioned. Note the very different treatment of Oklahoma City, which I think we all agree is never called "Oklahoma".

To illustrate the difference, one hears only "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma", but usually "New York, New York". I don't know if "Quebec City, Quebec" is correct, but it sounds terrible.

I think this article should at a minimum give Quebec as the first name listed. The article should probably also be edited to remove the word "City" where it is not necessary.

Also, Québec, in addition to being the French name, is an acceptable alternative in English. The article currently makes it seem as if the name Québec were not used in English, which is simply not true, as both the dictionary and my experience tell me. Quebec differs in this respect from Panama City or, say, Moscow, whose Russian name is not used in English. (The same dictionary says "or Russ Moskva".) 67.150.244.113 (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your post.

First, with all due respect to the folks at Merriam-Webster who publish good reference books, they are hardly an authoritative source for Canadian location names. I would turn to the Canadian Oxford first, which states the exact opposite of Merriam-Webster on this issue.

Just on an anecdotal basis (as you have also done), I would have to say Quebec City is the far more usual term in English, otherwise there is confusion with the province. I think the fact that Quebec City is the most prelevant term in English is shown by the use by some government agencies and some advertisers (all worried about making a wrong step in the linguistic minefield that is Canada) of the appalling term "Québec City" (sic). If Quebec or Québec were the usual name in English, they wouldn't need to resort to such a Frenglish oddity. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with your comparisons with Oklahoma City and New York City, but in any event I am not too sure how relevant they are as comparables as usage various across regions and countries.

Obviously, Québec/Quebec are sometimes used in English texts as the name of the city, usually where the context makes clear that the subject is the city not the province, and especially so because Quebec City is not the official name of the city. However, naming conventions on Wikipedia are pretty clear that, as an English-language encyclopedia, we use the term that an English speaker would most likely recognize as the usual name of the subject in actual usage -- see WP:CANSTYLE and WP:NCGN. And the consensus is that Quebec City is the most prelevant term in English - a consensus with which I would have to agree.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Skeezix1000. Generally English Canadians use "Quebec City" unless it's clear from the context that one is speaking of the city and not the province. I also agree that the Canadian Oxford is a reliable source; their word choices are done with studies of how Canadians actually use the words which is the way we title articles at Wikipedia as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The point I was making with "Oklahoma City" is that the intent of the dictionary entry is clear: the name of the city is Quebec. If the name had been Quebec City, they would have said so, since they do that for Oklahoma City and New York City.
You've conceded at least that Quebec/Québec is also used as the name of the city in English, so this name should be listed in the article, which it is not. Also, Québec should not be presented as being only the French name. I presume your disagreement centres on the name that should be used in the body of the article.
I don't dispute that Quebec City is a commonly used name. It may be most appropriate in passing references to the city, to avoid ambiguity. However, I'm not sure that "Quebec City" is the most common name in contexts in which the name of the city is used over and over. Press style guides deal primarily with what one might find in a newspaper article, where there's a high likelihood that the name will be used only once or twice.
You refer to consensus on the issue, but I haven't found a significant amount of past discussion here or on the pages you mentioned, except on the issue of accents.
I'm afraid I don't have the Canadian Oxford available. Could you quote the relevant portion please? 67.150.247.61 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
If we are looking for consensus put my check mark beside "Quebec City". I speak both of Canada's official languages, and in English we most always say Quebec City. Every map I have says "Quebec City" as well. Plus, I would go with what the Canadian Oxford says. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I generally concur with reflecting the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, with embellishment. While it is a reputable source it isn't the only one, including the various levels of government. As such, I've added/restored alternate renditions in the lead, including simply Québec (which is reflected on federal government maps [2][3], and is the official English name of the city indicated by the federal government [4]) and that of the 'Frenglish' Québec City (which may abhor some but is not uncommon, e.g., see Québec City website, Québec City Jean Lesage International Airport). However, for clarity (to easily distinguish the city from province), Quebec City should be used throughout the article. And, if Quebec (meaning the city) must be listed, it should be upfront and only the once. Thoughts? Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that your findings go along with the fact that, although the official name is Québec, the common English usage is Quebec City, except when the context is very clear that one is referring to the city anyway. The Québec City construction is indeed an odd-looking one but goes along with the somewhat increasing bilingual usage in Canada, especially in officialdom. It's reasonable to note the common usages at the beginning and, for the most part, I agree with using Quebec City throughout the article but I would still not object to leaving off the "City" disambiguator when, and only when, the context makes it exceedingly clear that we are referring to the city. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the lead is probably fine now as is. Otherwise, this sounds fine to me. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead currently says:

  • Quebec or Quebec City, also Québec or Québec City

I don't think Québec is much less common than Quebec and Quebec City, so I'm not sure it should be listed after "also". Joeldl (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The current version seems equitable. An inspection of other publications and their entries for the city is in order; thus:
  • Canadian Oxford Dictionary: Quebec City the capital city of Quebec ... official name of Québec is noted at end of entry. Also note that, for the Quebec (province) entry, the accented version is not listed at all, though they are for related articles (e.g., Québécois).
  • New Oxford Dictionary of English: Quebec entry indicates French variant at end of 1st sense; for 2nd sense, Quebec City, with no French variant.
  • Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.: Quebec or Québec 1 province E Canada [...] 2 city & port, its ∗ [...]
  • Merriam-Websters Geographic Dictionary, 3rd edition: Quebec City. City, * of Quebec prov., Canada ... listed as 3rd sense under entry Quebec \ kwi 'bek \ or Fr. Québec \ kā-'bek / ... (similar to New Oxf Dict)
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica: Quebec; Quebec, Canada; French Québec: city and port, seat of Québec region and capital of Quebec province, Canada
  • Microsoft Encarta: Québec (city), capital of the province of Québec, Canada, in Québec County, ...
  • Canadian Encyclopedia: Québec City, the capital of the province of Québec, is located on the north shore of the St Lawrence River ...
The above sources reflect common usage. I don't believe your 1st edit, whereby all are listed in sequence without any qualification, nor the 2nd (where Quebec was highlighted first, with others in parentheses) are correct, since -- as demonstrated -- all things are not equal. Note that Québec is listed as a typically French variant, secondary (save Encarta), or not at all, whereas we list it twice, both as an English and French variant per the federal government. Québec City was included by me per the municipal website, and is noted once above. Thus, I believe the current version is fine and more equitable than alternates, as it gives primacy to English versions above others as demonstrated. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the research. I think Québec is relatively common in English. The fact that two of the sources you gave above list it as a primary name is evidence that it shouldn't be treated as a minor variant. The fact that it's the official name also matters. Joeldl (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the above indicates that the English variants are even more common: while one source indicates Québec (the federal government notwithstanding) and another Québec City (the municipal government notwithstanding) as primary, the other five do not (with two not even mentioning them), and I think the lead harks of that. The French variants are not diminished currently, as they are in the lead and are iterated: if they were deprecated, they'd be qualified, suppressed, or excluded from the lead ... as was the case for some other variants previously. In sum, placing arguably undue emphasis on French variants deprecates English ones. The official name Ville de Québec (in French) is in the infobox, but it may warrant additional notation in the lead. Perhaps a footnote should be added to the lead (see note for 'Quebec')? Bosonic dressing (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it's useful, but I just read on the Commission de la typonymie du Québec's website (commission that is responsible for the names of cities in Québec) that we usually cannot translate Québec cities names. They say: "Then, in an English text, we must write “in the city of Québec” and not “in Québec City”, not “in Quebec City”, not “in Quebec”, not “in the city of Quebec”" (this is my own translation, official text here). So, according to that, shouldn't we move this article to "Québec (city)" or "Quebec (city)" (same disambiguation as on the French-language Wikipedia)? Sincerely, Jimmy Lavoietalk 15:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the "language police" of a French speaking government can dictate how the rest of the English speaking world should use their own language. Let English speaking people decide how to use English, and let French speaking people decide how to use French. All languages evolve over time, and no authority can really regulate what people think, say or write. A standard for what is considered correct can be established, but when it really comes down to it, it's the people who use the language that decide what is the norm. Language is influenced by many factors, one of them is proximity to another language, and Quebec English uses a lot of French spelling, grammar, and expressions, and as such is not widely understood outside of Quebec, it does not make that language incorrect, but it does not make it the norm of English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.179.1 (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation note

I've copied the first part of the discussion below from User talk:Skeezix1000. Joeldl (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I changed the hatnote, which read "This article is about the Canadian city. For the Canadian province, see Quebec. For other uses, see Quebec (disambiguation)." My objection was that given that the article is called "Quebec City" and not "Quebec", "for the Canadian province" doesn't make sense. The purpose of the hatnote is to distinguish between two things called "Quebec", and its purpose isn't clear if the name "Quebec" isn't mentioned. Joeldl (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I support Skeezix1000. Indicating 'city of Quebec' is awkward and redundant with the article title immediately above, and noting in the hatnote that there are a Canadian city and province so named makes it crystal clear as to the topic in question. Also see 'Quebec (disambiguation). Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is one of style, I suppose. Say a person reads "This article is about the Canadian city. For the Canadian province..." At this point, since the title of the article is "Quebec City" and not "Quebec", the phrase "the Canadian province" doesn't make a lot of sense. Certainly, everybody will understand what's meant, but the wording is illogical since "Quebec" hasn't been mentioned (except within the name "Quebec City"). I think a good number of readers are likely to notice this inconsistency. Joeldl (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm reading it within the lens of the article title upfront. Starting off with 'Quebec City', the hatnote then iterates that it is about the 'city in Canada', and then proceeds to note the province so named. I believe that saying the article is about the 'city of Quebec' just after the title clearly indicates 'Quebec City' is redundant. I suppose an alternate, less wordy, hatnote is possible: compare with New York City/New York; thus:
or, getting rid of the 2nd sentence entirely, though I don't prefer that due to the notability of the topic. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article New York City has the following disambiguation note:

This article is about the city. For other uses, see New York City (disambiguation). "New York, New York" and "NYC" redirect here. For other uses, see New York, New York (disambiguation) and NYC (disambiguation).

It does say "this article is about the city", but it says this to differentiate the city from other uses of "New York City", not from other uses of "New York". Actually, even though New York City can also be called "New York", the disambiguation note doesn't even refer to the state or to other things called "New York". Perhaps the best choice for Quebec City is no disambiguation note at all, since the only things that need to be disambiguated are called "Quebec", not "Quebec City". Joeldl (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm open to alternate wording for the disambiguation, I totally disagree with not including one, as that implies no possibility of error or confusion. It is still often referred to as just Quebec (or Québec): also, many common publications (e.g., the aforementioned Merriam-Websiter dictionary) includes both in one entry. Perhaps a variant of one of the simpler suggestions above is warranted. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The only things it can be confused with are called "Quebec". It's hard to imagine how a person looking for something else could land at "Quebec City". If a disambiguation note is included, the wording should reflect that the things we're disambiguating the city from are called "Quebec" and not "Quebec City". Maybe before going further we should get some more opinions here on whether it's appropriate to have a disambiguation note at all. Joeldl (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Everything Joeldl wrote is pure logic. It would be a pity if the disambiguation banner of this page was somehow itself "ambiguous", whether for reasons of syntax or semantics. The only thing that needs disambiguation is the word Québec (or anglicized as Quebec) because it can refer either to the city or the province. The expression "Quebec City" is, as far as I know, not ambiguous at all. -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The most common thing people assume is that they know everything. Yes the most common city named Quebec is in Canada's province of Quebec, so falling on this article is appropriate, but because there are other cities in the world that have the same name, a disambiguition is necessary. There are other usages of the word Quebec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.179.1 (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] National Capital

I have removed some unsourced comments about who thinks what about whether Quebec City is/is not or should/should not be called the 'National Capital' and added sources from the legislation passed by the AN indicating that the administrative region is called "La capital nationale" and that indeed there is a statutory reference applying that term to Quebec City itself. Whether Quebec should or should not call its capital 'capitale nationale' is not the question (at least not for this article unless there's a verifiable controversy); the fact is that the city is being referred to by this terminology, at the very least by its government. I think it is important to the article that this be noted. How could it not be pertinent? Whether lots of francophones now refer to Quebec City as 'la capitale nationale' or not I don't know, and until I get a source that says that lots do, or most don't or whatever I will leave that issue alone. If there is a constitutional scholar or a noted political scientist or journalist who has raised an issue about the correctness of this, then a reference to that 'controversy' might be added. As for the POV stuff, please, (begin rant) fellow Canadians --particularly of the English speaking persuasion -- the Parliament of Canada has recognized the Québécois as a nation (etc...). As a nation, the Québécois will have 'national' institutions of their choosing, including a 'national' capital. It is very mean-spirited and petty to gripe about what francophone Quebecers wish to call their seat of government, or to quibble about their right to think of themselves as a nation. Sir John A Macdonald said of the French Canadians in 1856: "Treat them as a nation and they will act as a free people generally do – generously. Call them a faction and they become factious." It is also clear that the 'official' terminology doesn't always match the labels our governments actually use. For many years Canada called itself the 'Dominion of Canada'. Maybe that was legally correct; and maybe it wasn't. But it's what was done; it's what people felt comfortable with and must have made a great many people feel part of something meaningful. Now we don't use the term 'dominion' anymore, because people in English speaking Canada, for the most part, don't need that terminology to feel pride in their country. Things change; even terminology used for things that we think are carved into constitutional stone. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council told us in 1929 that our Constitution was a 'living tree' and extended to women the right to be considered for Senate appointments as 'persons' that our own Supreme Court would have denied because it wasn't 'correct' according to the black letter of the constitution. Our common genius is that we can change to accommodate the evolving needs of the people. (end rant) Corlyon (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To my previous discussion I would add the following quote I have just come across from our English Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson : "While Quebec is a province in the national confederation, it is more than a province because it is the heartland of a people: in a very real sense it is a nation within a nation."[5] quoted from a 1963 meeting of the Canadian French-Language Weekly Newspapers Association, at Murray Bay Quebec. Corlyon (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the usage of national capital is not used by English speaking people, I am not talking about French speaking people who speak English, but native English speaking people. We speak of national things that are Canadian, and Ottawa is the national capital, French speaking people use national in French in a different way, and Quebec is "La Capitale Nationale" and translate it into English as National Capital. It is like the "Prime-Minister" of Québec, instead of Premier. There is no French equivalent for the english term Premier, which is in fact a french word.--76.234.135.47 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good comment. I think the article mentions that the region is referred to as "La capitale nationale" which is obviously a reference to how it is called (by some) in French. It also mentions that there is at least one statute that refers to Quebec City as the national capital, which is also correct, since the statute exists in its English translation. I don't belief that the article suggests that English speaking people in Quebec or outside of it refer to Quebec City, in English, as the 'national capital'. My above 'rant' was an expression of frustration with those who would suppress any mention of the fact that the Government of Quebec has designated the City as the 'capitale nationale' because of an ideological viewpoint that it 'shouldn't' or 'can't' be a national capital. I think that information of what it is called in some contexts (even French language ones) is pertinent to English speaking Canadians (and other English speaking people) consulting the article and should be included. I would however object to referring to Quebec City as 'the national capital' generally in the English article if that is not a term commonly used in English. Corlyon (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, it is simply a matter of legislation. Quebec has a legislation on its capital, in fact, just like Canada has one for Ottawa. To my knowledge, Quebec copied Canada in this case.
1. National Capital Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-4 (Ottawa)
2. An Act respecting the National capital commission, R.S.Q. c. C-33.1 (Quebec)
For sure many people in Quebec are not comfortable with the federal Parliament of Canada labelling its institutions as "national", just like many people in the ROC are not comfortable with the provincial Parliament of Quebec labelling its institutions "national" too. That is unfortunate, but it remains, in both cases, the will of the majority through their elected representatives. Both legislations have the same character of officiality and should be respected by people who respect democracy and law. (End of sermon ;-)-- Mathieugp (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There is some background info here: [6]
It would seem the government of Quebec answered a proposal of the City of Quebec to create the commission. --Mathieugp (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] name

an IP has just added the name "City of Quebec" using the office of the french language as a reference. I ahve never heard this usage, and I question as to whether the office of the French language is a reliable source for usage of English. What do others think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The OQLF is the Language Police of the province of Quebec. They dictate how language is to be used in Quebec. If a publication is distributed in the province it is required by law to follow the rules established, subject to fines and possible business shutdowns. As far as including it, it is the official name according to the government, so yes it should be included. It does not matter if people actually use the name. Having a French language authority telling English speaking people how to use English is completely silly to me, but the fact is that it is a fact and needs to be included. --76.226.179.1 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the Montreal Gazette, for example, call it the City of Quebec? The OQLF do not dictate how people speak or write. I am no fan of theirs, but you are overstating their role. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not have access to the Montreal Gazette, or any Quebec printed periodicals, but could find out if it really is necessary. I am also not a fan, but the facts are the facts, and it is a correct variation on the name regardless, but I think it is appropriate to show where the variation comes from. And not for any political reasons, just that it is not necessarily used but that it is the "official" english name. BTW they also specify that the accent is required.--76.226.179.1 (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
A quick web search of the archives shows the usage. [7] I used "city of Québec" as the search criteria obtained 83 results in the past 3 years, but am unwilling to pay 4.95$ per article.--76.226.179.1 (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the Commission de la toponymie du Québec's website (commission that is responsible for the names of cities in Québec), we cannot translate cities names in Québec. They say: "Then, in an English text, we must write “in the city of Québec” and not “in Québec City”, not “in Quebec City”, not “in Quebec” (note: here, they pretend that "Quebec" needs an accent), not “in the city of Quebec”" (this is my own translation; official text is here). The person who added that on the article didn't correctly understand the rule. You can say "it arrived in the city of Québec", but "city of" doesn't belong to the official name. It's only a disambiguation. The title of the article should follow the same rule than the other Wikipedias: using "Québec (city)" or "Quebec (city)". By the way, it has NOTHING to do with the "language police" (Office québécois de la langue française), it's the commission who "chooses" the official names. And usually, we cannot translate official names. Sincerely, Jimmy Lavoietalk 22:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes; as such, I've removed this 'variant' from the lead. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion here. First of all, there is no "Language Police" in Quebec or anywhere in Canada. Quebec has a language policy like the majority of States in the world, including the federal State of Canada. Among the things which the policy of Quebec addresses is place names and other names in everything over which the government of Quebec has responsibility or influence. Obviously, inside Wikipedia, which has its own rules and guidelines, the policy of Quebec does not apply. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions instead. If anyone does not agree with the common sense guidelines found in these, then this is where they should be arguing, not here :-)

One thing that is maybe not (yet) properly addressed is how to deal with official and unofficial naming of things in Quebec. For a lot of things, only French is official. Quebec City for example, is how English-speaking people generally name the city which only exists officially in law as Ville de Québec. Maybe we ought to precise that somehow in the article, all the while respecting Wikipedia's naming convention to prefer the name by which English speakers will tend to recognize the city. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If this needs to be dealt with additionally, perhaps the footnote specifically dealing with the numerous variations is as good a place as any? Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, a footnote ought to do it. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article does not matter in this particular discussion. But all "Villes" in the province of Quebec include ville as their official name, and the Quebec language police dictate that in English French names have to contain that same wording. Yes the OQLF is a language police, they can shut down businesses who do not follow their language rules, they can fine people and business for not following their rules, they have agents that go around and make sure that businesses follow the rules. That is what a police force does, it makes sure people follow the rules. People who speak French as a primary language, and only use English as a business language are not qualified to come and tell English people how to use English. The article it's self should follow Wikipedia naming conventions. But the "Official" English name according to the government where the city is needs to be listed, whether I agree with the government or not, whether I agree with the policy or not. It is what it is. The link "showing" the justification for removing the official name was in French and therefore had no bearing on English naming of a city. IP Comment.

Side not to the Lavoie guy, if you aren't supposed to translate a name like they say then why should you remove the accent? If you are not supposed to translate a name then you don't translate the name. Removing the accent would be translating. --76.234.135.47 (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is no dictation in Québec, neither in Canada and in North America. There is no language police. There are laws, but all of them have been voted in a democratic way. Second, you're right: you should not remove the accent from Québec (personally, I don't), but it seems popular in English (as accents are not always easy to be find on a keyboard). For example, René Lévesque becomes, a lot of time, “Rene Levesque”, etc. But you're wrong on the other subject: according to Québec's government, the official name of “Quebec City” - in English - is Québec. So, the article's name should be "Québec (city)" (as on other Wikipedias) — or, at least, "Quebec (city)". But there are rules in EN Wikipedia that say that the most common English term should be used as title. So, we have to accept that name. But officially, Québec City is, in French and in English: Québec. (P.S. "Ville de Québec" refers - in proper French and English - to the city's administration (the mayor and his team). It should not be used to refer to the city itself. Jimmy Lavoietalk 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you talking about the title of the article when what is being discussed here is the content of the article. It is very common to have and list alternate names in the lead section. According to the province of Quebec government the English name is City of Québec, that is what is being stated in the lead section that keeps getting removed. You could call the article Capitol of Quebec as all I care, that is not what is being discussed in this section. Yes the OQLF is a language police, do some research. No the laws have not been voted in a democratic way, if they were voted in a democratic way, than there would have been a referendum throughout the province. Laws are passed in a chamber and voted on by elected officials, the only thing that the citizens vote on is who they want to represent them in the legislature. The provincial assembly is a republican (not the political party) type of government, if it were a democracy then we the citizens would vote on every bill ourselves. Please do not confuse one with the other. The choice to secede is the only thing in recent history that has been voted on in a democratic way, as you say.

I do not see the problem with specifying that there is another way of translating something, and it is actually the official way. But maybe that goes against the propaganda that is shoveled out by the Quebec government?

Before reverting an article and removing factual and sourced information, perhaps it should be discussed? --76.234.135.47 (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

76.234, before adding something perhaps it ought to be discussed. There is no consensus for the change, there is you. (You might consider signing up for an account by the way). The 'language police' discussion and the rant about referenda/secession has nothing to do with improving this article, this is not a forum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you even read things before you contribute? Or are you one of those wikinatsis that believe that your way is the only way. I have provided a source for the material that I have added. I quote from Wikipedia : "You do not have to log in to read Wikipedia. You do not have to log in even to edit articles on Wikipedia — almost anyone can edit almost any article at any given time, even without logging in, and many long-time contributors do not log in.", So why are you suggesting that I do differently than I have for over two years? I was simply answering the Lavoie guys post. I am sorry that you do not believe in the free flow of ideas and thoughts. So why not criticize him for bringing the subject up,oh no that would not be a good idea to criticize people who are of the same mentality as you. And yes I have signed every post I have put up, if the FLQ really needs to come and censure me they know where to find me.--76.234.135.47 (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

please be civil. I suggested signing up for an account so we editors know who says what. IPs change, and it may be that the IP that changed the page today is the same user as the (differetn) IP that did the change a week or so ago. There is no way to tell. I will not get in to a 3RR situation here, and will leave it to other editors. The question here, is, is this a reliable source for English usage. This has been pointed out above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am being civil, I did not vandalize anything, I did not abuse anyone, I did not claim anything that is untrue. I did not know that the government of the land where this city is located was a questionable source for facts. We do not put things in articles only if they are used by a large number of the population, we put facts. Or are we supposed to dumb everything down to a 4th grade level like US newspapers? An encyclopedia tends to give information about the subject at hand, and this is information about this subject. I personally think that the OQLF should worry about French and leave English to English speaking people, but after having been fined 7,000$ because my English signs were .01% too big in comparison to my French signs I have learned to make sure I know every small rule pertaining to the Language Police Rule book.--76.234.135.47 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. First of all, you say "According to the OQLF...", but the reference you bring is from the Commission de la topographie. Second, they do NOT say that the official English name is "City of Québec", they say it's incorrect. See above, I've already explained what they meant. Stop adding controversial content, and discuss here. I repeat that there is NO language police in Québec and that the government is elected in a democratic way. There is no dictation. Stop trying to bring false facts like those ones, it does not help your cause... Jimmy Lavoietalk 06:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
In sum, we have one user (it seems, the IP range is similar, as is the writing style, hard to tell without a person signing up for an account) misunderstanding a reference and consistently adding the same material. We have the other editors happy with a footnote. 76.234, please read WP:CON and WP:SOAP Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I added a precision in a ref. You may correct it. Sincerely, Jimmy Lavoietalk 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry perhaps my French is not that good it says on the website: "on doit écrire « in the city of Québec »" which is translated as: we must write « in the city of Québec », then it goes on to say not as Quebec city, nor as city of Quebec etc... But I don't know maybe you can explain your interpretation of the French language. I stand by the fact that the Quebec government states that the city name must be in English as City of Québec. Please enlighten me as to where this is wrong?--76.234.135.47 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Quote from the law creating the city:"A city is hereby constituted under the name “Ville de Québec”." That tells me that the official name of the city is Ville de Québec, and not just Québec.--76.234.135.47 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the hypocrisy demonstrated by the French Québécois contributors here. Stop trying to hide facts that put your government in a bad light. The facts are what they are, the laws are what they are, and saying that it is a law of a democratically elected government has nothing to do with the fact that it is still the law. There is never any justification for discrimination, and just because a lawfully elected parliament creates laws that discriminate does not make those laws any less justified. Wikipedia is supposed to show all information about a subject, and by hiding (deleting) the facts that one group feels might be bad for their image it is the same thing as having a bias.--76.234.135.47 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you here to contribute to Wikipedia or to do politics? You seem to be here, in the talkpage, only to show how much you hate Québec government. You contradict yourself: “"on doit écrire « in the city of Québec »" which is translated as: we must write « in the city of Québec » [...] I stand by the fact that [...] the city name must be in English as City of Québec.”
Yes, you read on the page that we say "in the city of Québec" when we want to precise that we're talking about Québec (the city). But where did you got the "City of Québec" (as you change "city of Québec" → "City of Québec" and it's not the same thing)?. They never said it. What the page says is that: we cannot translate city names and that if we want to talk precisely about the city of Québec, we can say, for example, "it happened in the city of Québec" as we do in French "c'est arrivé dans la ville de Québec". But here, "city of" does NOT belong to the official name as "City of" would. The terms "Ville" (administration of the city) and "ville" (generality) are not the same thing, as "City of" and "city of" are not the same thing. You are trying to falsely interpret what they say. I'm not here to do politics, so stop telling things like "Québec gov. is..." or "OQLF is..." or "French Québécois are..." like you do for each of your intervention. I'm here to contribute to Wikipedia, so do the same. By the way, if you go to Québec (the city) one day, check when you'll arrive for a sign saying: "Bienvenue à Québec! / Welcome to Québec! / <Japanese-language welcome message>". Your hate messages tarnish your contributions, as you seem here to do some politics and not contribute neutrally to the encyclopedia. Jimmy Lavoietalk 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
76, contributors' ethnic backgrounds are immaterial. How do you even know the background of each of us? Please take your discussions of politics elsewhere. This page is for improving the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The IP user has been blocked by an administration for 24h due to his repetitive wrong edits. Sincerely, Jimmy Lavoietalk 18:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So what you are all saying is that we are to ignore the law that states that the city is "Ville de Québec" and ville de "Québec", and the we are supposed to ignore the laws that say it must be said City of, or city of Québec. So we are to ignore laws made by the democratically elected parliament that specify that the city name is in french "Ville de Québec", this fact and reference was brought by one of you, yet you chose to not put it in the article. Mr Lavoie, you even stated it yourself that it is city of Québec, (officialy City of Québec when translated corectly), but then go and contradict yourself and say that the governmengt is wrong in saying to use the accent. The only other people that are contibuting here are two sepratist Québécois, (Mr Lavoie, and mt Matieugp, whose personal pages even show that they are québécois seperatists. Mr Lavoie claims to speak English at a professional or near native, yet can't grasp simple English grammar and imposes french grammar onto his articles, yes I looked at your edit history), and one English Canadian. Do not include the whole history of the article to try and justify your suppression of the facts.

Fact: The law that created the City of Québec states that it is called "Ville de Québec", which is the cities name, and has nothing to do with the mayor and city council and any of that other unrelated nonsense that you try to push mr Lavoie. Fact: The law states that in Québec French language Grammar has to be used in English, there fore the legal City of Québec has to be used, and in referring to the city in conversation city of Québec has to be used.

Those are the facts. Therefore it needs to be included in the article, regardless if you think people use that or not.

If you argue that the legal name of the city does not belong in the article than why are aticles like Cuba contain the legal name of the country [Republic of Cuba]]. I do not need to spend time teaching English to Mr. Lavoie, as he does not want to learn it.

What a welcome sign at the boudries of a city is not relevant to what the legal name of the city is. There are signs at the border to the US, they say Welcome to the US, not welcome to the United States of America, so I do not see what relevance a welcome sign has to do with the legal name of the City of Québec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.245.235 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop censuring facts just because you do not want outsiders to see what is really going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.245.235 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

you said 'Fact: The law that created the City of Québec states that it is called "Ville de Québec", which is the cities name, and has nothing to do with the mayor and city council and any of that other unrelated nonsense that you try to push mr Lavoie. Fact: The law states that in Québec French language Grammar has to be used in English, there fore the legal City of Québec has to be used, and in referring to the city in conversation city of Québec has to be used.' This, to me, is WP:SYN, as well please check out WP:SOAP and WP:CON. Finally, I implore you, take the politics elsewhere, it is immaterial and not appropriate for this page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
And, here we go again.... user UnQuébécois just changed it to City of Quebec without any discussion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
user UnQuébécois cited http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/toponymie_expliquee/regles_8.html as "legally" enforcing "City of Québec" as the English translation but, leaving aside the province of Québec's or anyone's ability to make English words legal, the page actually says the translation is "Québec" and should be referred in text as "the city of Québec". DoubleBlue (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's also arrogant of French Speaking people and government agencies to impose rules of speech/writing on English. But the OQLF will, and has, fined people and organizations for not using "correct" "frenchisized" terms, even in English. DoubleBlue seems to have a better grasp on what the Québec Government website says than any other "opponent" of including the official and legal translation, which states "city of Québec". I do not see why contreversial, yet accurate, information is being left out. It does not degrade the quality of the article, it simply states a fact, that the Québec government agency that deals with names of places, says that in English you are supposed to refer to the Quebec city in English as such, but as the city of Québec. I am sorry that it shows to everyone in the world how English people are really treated in the Province of Québec, but it is a correct and accurate fact, and Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial, and show all information without prejudice. Comments follow-> I have heard all the arguments from the French that seem to think that they treat their minorities better than anyone else in the world, and in my experience that is completely untrue, it resembles more the situation of an abusive husband who tells his wife that he treats her better than she deserves. --UnQuébécois (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Still arguin' on that? First of all, why are you always talking about the Office québécois de la langue française? I mean, the source stated above is the Commission de la toponymie du Québec which has nothing to do with the OQLF. It's normal for a government to make rules for their cities' name. I think you should try to avoid contributing to this article as you are really not neutral on the subject. You seem here only to seek revenge at Québec rules and Québécois people. Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of things. Do not interpret rules if you're not a judge, only state what the rules say. So if your only goal in contributing on this page is to (I cite yourself) “show to everyone in the world how English people are really treated in the Province of Québec”, please do not edit this page anymore. If you continue in that way, you may hit a block for using Wikipedia as a tool for militating on a personal cause. Sincerely, Jimmytalk 03:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy is correct. This is not a directive from OQLF, it is a style guide on translating place names by the Commission de la toponymie du Québec. The Wikipedia rule is the English rule: we reflect how English is actually used by English speakers. Secondly, the style guide does not even say what you allege it says. It says: generally, do not translate place names. Québec should be translated as Québec; in context of the text one would write "in the city of Québec". Notice the lowercase "c". Except, of course, that English-speakers and writers do not speak and write "city of Québec", they say Quebec City. At any rate, this article is about Quebec City not the name. If more detail about the name and its translation is to be written about, it should be at the Name of Quebec City article not here. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What Mr Jimmy does not seem to realize realize is that the OQLF is the language police of Québec, and they will and have gone around and fined and closed businesses who do not follow the rules of the language, and that includes the rules set fort by the Commission de la toponymie du Québec and any other government agency that decides that some or other language issue should be one way or the other. Wikipedia is supposed to be true to the facts, and the fact is that the Québec government says that in English we need to say "City of Québec" or "city of Québec". The city is the city, and it's name as legally translated by the government. In wikipedia it is customary to show all variations of a name, and not just the ones that aren't objected by people that make them look silly. I am and always will be a Québécois (or Québecois, or Quebecois, however you feel you want to spell it, as they are all equally acceptable) and am proud to speak both languages, to live here, and to call it my home. --UnQuébécois (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

1. This article is about the city not about the OQLF or provincial politics or your personal history with unfair fines. 2. The Commission de la toponymie page is hardly authoritative and, regardless, what it does say is the translation of "Québec" is "Québec", which is already the first word in the article. The Quebec toponymy commission uses an example for people to follow the style of on that webpage (i.e., saying the "city of Québec" in a sentence, to match the French construction of "ville de Québec") but I see no evidence that English people say that or that the OQLF is harassing those who do not. The article on Quebec City should not be overburdened with discussion of its name. There is an article for it: Name of Quebec City DoubleBlue (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
We have (what looks like) one editor (one username, and the IP, who seem pretty much to be one and the same editor) that keeps doing this, until others come around to this way of thinking, it strikes me that this discussion ought to end. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Article about the name is to demonstrate the difference between the province and the city, and how one can tell which one is being talked about. Has nothing to do with this. I gave Dbrodbeck the usage examples he wanted to justify the use, but he refuses to acknowledge, and Lavoie can not be trusted as a source, as he does not want his people to be viewed in a bad light, he has also very often mist-translated things in the past. The use of City of Québec or city of Québec needs to be in the article as it is an alternate and correct variation on the name.--UnQuébécois (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It already does say that the name of the city is "Québec". The page you cite does not claim that "city of Québec" is a correct variation of the name. It asks that in a sentence you phrase it that way rather than as Quebec City; i.e. the name is "Québec". DoubleBlue (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] City of Québec

After reading the whole Charter of the city in both languages, it does state that the city is incorporated as "Ville de Québec", it does not make the distinction between Québec City, like mentioned above, it simply states that the city is incorporated as "Ville de Québec". To state that "Ville de Québec" is the administration of the city and not the city is incorrect. --76.249.45.196 (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quebec_City"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs