Talk:Telus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] TELUS in all-caps

Yes, TELUS' internal style guide requires that the corporate name always be spelled in "all capital letters". (I am a retiree from TELUS.) --BCRCornet 23:14, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Should the title be in all caps? Telus is not an acronym. Perhaps the company's internal style guide demands it be in all caps (for marketing reasons), but the rest of the world should be free follow normal English practice and write it Telus.--Indefatigable 20:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To the anon editor particularly: I, for one, fail to see why the title should not be in all caps. We call the article what the company is called, and the company is called capital-T capital-E capital-L capital-U capital-S. We don't use normal English practice for names, do we? I don't see anybody suggesting the article on MySQL be renamed to Mysql, or that phpMyAdmin be renamed to Phpmyadmin, although I note that the limitations of Wikipedia appear to prevent articles from starting with lowercase letters (is this correct?). Nor do I see anybody suggesting that John A. MacDonald be renamed to John A. Macdonald. So why should TELUS be treated any different? That's how the company wants to be called -- I suggest we call it that way. TheProject 04:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean "renamed to Macdonald"? That's how our first prime minister's name is spelled. "Sir John A. Macdonald". Steggall 13:33 20 Sept 2005 (UTC)
Whoops, I evidently picked a horrible example, as I didn't realize it was spelled with a lowercase d. Consider McDonald's then, another company. We still spell that one with a capital D though. Again I ask -- why should TELUS be any different? TheProject 05:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow, TheProject. You really are diligent upholding the standards you are appointed to uphold. It's reassuring to see that there are people who will fight tooth-and-nail for their beliefs like you do.
That being said, Telus is different here because of English. English mandates that capitalization be allowed only on distinct syllables of names. Individual letters do not need to be capitalized because they are not representative of syllables.
"TELUS" is really "Telus". It's only because Telus' internal docs mandate that Telus be spelled as "TELUS" that people started doing it here. English simply takes precedence over Telus internal policy.
I'm not really sure what I'm doing that's considered "fighting tooth-and-nail", but it would seem to me that if that's what the company calls itself, then we ought to call it that. I mean, k. d. lang doesn't exactly follow English rules for naming, but there's not much of a fuss about renaming that. :-) theProject 05:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
What are you still doing here?!? Talk about sick!... ;)
And you're still wrong! Any database would have it as "K. D. Lang" no matter what her album covers say!

[edit] "the future is friendly"?

Isn't "The future is friendly" a TELUS marketing tagline or slogan? Is it acceptable Wikipedia practice to post this? --BCRCornet 23:23, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I've put an explanation of "the future is firendly" in the Advertising section, I don't think it appears elsewhere in the article at this point, except in the logo image, the logo is increasingly including the slogan, and I don't think it is against Wikipedia practice to leave it there. Green1 05:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labour dispute

Methinks there should be something in here about the current labour disputes. The bargaining unit employees have been working without contract for almost 5 years, and the company and the union representing the employees (TWU) have had an acrimonious relationship that has recently culminated in a strike/lock-out (depending on your point of view).

There have been multiple partial lock out measures taken by the company. Freedom to contract "non-core" activities (i.e. vehicle repair, janitorial services) is part of the offer presented by TELUS.

Part of the inability to come to an agreement stems from the company's desire to eliminate or contract out certain non-core positions versus the union's insistence that these jobs be retained as internal positions. So, a lot of quesitions come down to whether a job should be guaranteed.

While it's great to have all this info on labour disputes here, isn't it a little odd that so much of the focus is on that current situation, and so little is on the company's products and services? --216.198.159.38 18:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's because it seems to be a topic of interest right now. The phone line cuts did make some major news, and the company didn't really make major news until this dispute boiled over into a picketing situation. I'm sure there's lots to say about the products and services the company offers, but I'm not up to speed on that. TheProject 05:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
While the dispute did generate a lot of interest, especially now that it is over I would recommend abbreviating that section a bit (could still have something about it, but that section is currently as long as everything else put together) also the services section could use signifigant expansion (I'm also not sure if listing clients is appropriate...) Green1 04:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picket lines

Now, I've been around wikipedia and I was unaware that comments on the discussion page could be considered vandalism. I think that personal comments should be allowable on the talk page. In keeping with my beliefs, I am putting my comment back on. Please don't delete it this time........

I have to say that any worker who crosses the picket line to back to work is a retard, lets face it. If those individuals can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning knowing that they have betrayed every union member on the face of the earth, then god help them. Those scabs are dispicable, considerably more dispicable then regular scabs, and an insult to the profession. The phone workers in atlantic canada fought for five months to get a fair contract and those jerks go back to work after a few days. To sum up, if those workers were any kind of people they'd support the union but I guess money is more important than honour these days. When the day comes that telus lays them off, I'll be laughing. --BoyoJonesJr 16:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I was wondering a bit about that revert as well, it seemed odd to me, but I'm new here. To respond to your point: something strikes me as odd about the union's position, which is that they're asking customers to *cancel* services with the company. Now, I understand the point is to hurt the company in the pocketbook, but if they start losing money, isn't it going to be the union members who lose their jobs? I just find it odd, considering your comment that "when ... Telus lays them off, I'll be laughing". If the union had its way, perhaps Telus might be laying their members off too. Then who will be laughing?
Just a thought -- I don't wish to start a flame war here, rhetoric on the article itself is already enough for me to handle. :-) TheProject 02:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
"If the union had its way, perhaps Telus might be laying their members off too. Then who will be laughing? "
Yeah that's it. Nothing annoys me more than people who constantly say the unions are the bad people. These big companies lay off and exploit workers, screw over their customers, its all take take take, but somehow the unions are the bad ones. I just don't get it. --BoyoJonesJr 14:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I never said the union was the bad party here. I only question the logic of the union's strategy of asking customers to cancel services with the company, as it would seem that customers cancelling services would lead to the company losing money, and while I realize that is the union's intention here, it would, as a side effect, lead to the company laying off its (presumably unionized) employees. It seems like a minor flaw in the union's logic, and that's all I'm wondering about. TheProject 01:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthrax and other events

There is a definite lack of sources for the events listed as associated with this strike. I have been unable to find any mention of an anthrax scare at a TELUS office, although there have been a few anthrax scares in B.C. Can anyone verify these events and add sources?

The was reported on several local newspapers as well as CKNW, a local radio station, but they all seem to have taken it off of their archives now (this did happen a couple months ago). I'll get you a link if I'm successful in searching it out. TheProject 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, the above comment was me. So far, I've only been able to find a link to a blog that wrote about the event, but it also references one of the major newspapers here in Vancouver, which did write about it. Considering papers are archived by libraries in particular, this should not present a problem. TheProject 05:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Labour dispute, again

blocking access to websites: TheProject removed "illegally posted pictures", and in comments said that no injunction was issued, from my understanding a court injuction WAS issued... (it was quoted many times in relation to the dispute) and it would seem to me that the site was in violation of said injunction. Green1 00:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, I looked up the order of events, the injunction did come after the site was blocked, but before the photographs were removed, clarified the post... once again though I'm seeing this section growing, when I feel that the labour dispute section should probably be shrinking again (the dispute is over, and while it's probably important to maintain some of this information, we may not need the level of detail we have here, another possibility is that the Union page may be a more appropriate place for it than the TELUS page?) Green1 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
My mistake then. I was under the impression that since there was no injunction, there was no determination of legality. Anyways, if you ask me, I think the information about the job action should remain (we do have a lot of timelines for different events) but perhaps a move to the union's page may be justified. TheProject 04:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
There was no injunction issued towards Dave (the owner of Voices for Change), however there was some kind of out-of-court agreement between him and TELUS. I could ask him exact details for Wikipedia if need be? PFAK 23:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Up to you, but make sure any information is readily sourced, or else it may be construed as original research. Green1, do you have a copy of said injunction available? TheProject 07:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot find the injunction anymore (I had copies during the dispute, but no longer) the injunction was not specifically against voices for change (although it was written as a direct result of that incident) instead the injunction barred anyone affiliated in any way with the union from posting photographs or other identifying information of people crossing the picket line on any website. (the injunction was written in such a way that the photographs could not simply be moved to a different site to get around the injunction)
As a result of the timing of the injunction, and the events that were unfolding at that time, I have to say that it was issued "towards Dave" even though he was not specifically mentioned in the injunction.
on an additional note, the out of court settlement required the owner of Voices For Change to not only take down all the photographs (and any other identifying information) but also to continually monitor the website forums to make sure no other ones were posted. Green1 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
either I'm just missing it or it should be added how Telus violated Net Neutrality principles when it blocked access to the site(s?) Deusfaux 11:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. If it's included, it needs to be done neutrally, and do keep in mind there's any official body that rules on net neutrality violations. (In fact, that last part may mean that including this information neutrally is impossible, as saying that "TELUS violated Net Neutrality" is a matter of opinion.) TheProject 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the term then - there is no matter of opinion regarding it. They blocked access to sites. Net neutrality is about providing free and unlimited access to all sites. Not blocking out ones that are voices of criticism. The incident is ON the wiki for net neutrality. Deusfaux 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The company contends that it was a matter of legality, not a matter of censorship. I'm not even sure if net neutrality is law in Canada. TheProject 18:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide reference or sources for this contention? I'd like to see on what grounds they could possibly think it was ok to do. Deusfaux 19:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The website was posting images of TELUS employees. It was an issue of privacy violation vs. censorship. I think I've figured out what the problem is -- seems the article's forgotten to explain the side of things accusing the company of censorship. I'll fix that in a moment. TheProject 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
If it was a legal issue in the vein of privacy - then that is a matter for the RCMP or police to handle - NOT telus - which is exactly the point of net neutrality. Telus as an ISP is supposed to be completely neutral, not take independant action against individual sites it does not like. Deusfaux 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
So critics claim censorship. I've added this to the article. TheProject 04:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
it should be noted that "net neutrality" is a completely arbitrary term with no legal backing in Canada (or for that matter, any other country I am aware of) in fact there are laws that REQUIRE service providers to block certain sites under some circumstances, and the terms and conditions of every ISP I have ever seen (including TELUS) state that they can block whatever they want, whenever they want. I am not saying that this is necesarrilly "morally" correct, however it is almost unquestionably legally correct. Green1 00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second-largest

Is Telus still the second-largest mobile carrier in Canada? After Rogers bought Fido, Rogers is the largest and Bell is the second. HUNING 16:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The article says "the country's second-largest telecommunications carrier" not second largest mobile carrier, TELUS is still the second largest telecommunications carrier (counting both landline and cellular) Green1 04:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ohh. My misunderstanding! Thanks Green1. HUNING 06:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TELUS Mobility

Is TELUS Mobility still a seperate company from TELUS, or is it just a division now? I remember it used to be called the TELE-MOBILE company on cellphone bills, but I also recall the company saying something about how it will fully merge into TELUS. 142.58.211.84 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just why did you edit the whole talk page? "Labour" is now "labor?" :: Colin Keigher 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising

Anyone care to explain why the recent subsection "Public Response" was deleted from the Advertising section (as "pov") while the irrelevant discussion about the pigs was left untouched?

Perhaps someone else could suggest a better way to add a "Public Response" subsection so it will meet everyone's approval?

The part about the pigs, I think, is at best not necessary. I wouldn't be particularly concerned if it was deleted. theProject 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't care if it stays. I'm more concerned about how to add a "Public Response" section. Any thoughts?
Needs to be sourced. Unless it's sourced, it'll get taken out pronto. Something tells me we've been through this before. theProject 20:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
We have been through this before. Apparently, you still don't see the double-standard at work here. The discussion about the pigs doesn't have a source, but it didn't get removed "pronto", did it? But that's okay. I'll get a source.
(Done. The "Public Response" section is now up to code. Thank you for NOT deleting it from now on!)
A blog that is started for the sake of sourcing a Wikipedia article is not a credible source. theProject 04:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
A blog is a suitable source when the statement being made is "the ads have been criticized". I don't have to be a print journalist to have an opinion.
See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. You don't have to be a print journalist to have an opinion, but you've gotta have some proof that your opinion is notable. theProject 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow. You can't even cite your own rules properly. It's not my opinion that should be substantial/relevant, it's the content I add to the article (which references my opinion) that should be substantial. And it is. You just don't seem to agree with it, so you delete it instead of revising it.
I still haven't seen any source that suggests that the content of the opinion is substantial (represents a non-fringe view). theProject 01:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you guys have an answer for everything. I'm a "fringe" view, am I? If so, then what's wrong with a "Fringe View" section on the Telus page? You just point out where I should put it, and then I'll fill it in.
The whole reason why I pointed out "undue weight" was that fringe views should not be given undue weight on Wikipedia. If there's evidence that said views aren't fringe, then I'm sure it would be welcomed. theProject 05:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah. Your obstinate adherence to policy is "fringe" behaviour. See what I wrote on your user talk page, because for every point of policy you raise, I have several counter-points owing to the fact that I actually believe in something.
(Let me qualify that by saying that I don't have to enforce what I believe with a "policy" either...)
Rest assured, that if you want to continue censoring me in the name of Wikipedia policy, you will win. I have never taken the time to learn how to report abuse in Wikipedia. If I did, my case would probably stand up now because - thanks to the diligent counter-efforts of Wikityrants such as yourself - I am dutifully aware of policy and have shaped my additions accordingly. I just don't want to waste my time. The fact that you "delete first, explain later" is your problem, not mine.
Do you know where subverting other peoples' views puts you on the totem pole of life? Not high.
I hope you realize I've taken a minimal revert approach to your edits to this page since you appeared on it. If you really wanted me to be a Wikityrant, I could do all sorts of other things (block, protect, etc.) instead. But I don't, so I'd ask you to be more considerate when you throw around a term like "Wikityrant". theProject 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
A "minimal revert approach". How is that different from "delete first, explain later"? Please show me.
Err, it's the exact opposite. Minimally reverting means I revert (delete) your edits as little as possible. Like, right now, your edit shows up at the top of the article, but I'm not reverting it. theProject 05:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
All I see are my edits going bye-bye. Am I supposed to be grateful?
All I'm saying is that I'm not the one reverting your edits. theProject 01:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you're not the Wikityrant then. You're just their spokesperson. My mistake.  :)

[edit] Pornography

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/29/028243 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9c00061e-4aec-4410-9dc5-4d69a8274215&k=60979 Considering the general controversial nature of pornography, it's probably best to mention this at some point, in a "controversies" section like a lot of other wiki articles have. 128.61.38.107

The Telus move was a first among North American cell phone service providers and, as such, takes it beyond the general scope of a discussion of pornography. James Warner-Smith 03:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is TELUS planning Caribbean/Barbados expansion?

Is TELUS planning an expansion into the English Speaking Caribbean??? I was looking over the Internet record for Barbados and it appears TELUS has a URL purchased in Barbados? Are they planning to expand into the Caribbean region???

The website in question: http://www.telus.bb/

If so. I hope they launch mobile phone services too. Currently there's only bmobile and Digicel (both are GSM providers) TELUS' MIKE services, and PCS offerings sure would shake up the Caribbean mobile market. CaribDigita 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dissolving of Stentor Alliance

I added the fact template to the statement that TELUS wishing to compete with Bell Canada caused the Stentor Alliance to dissolve. I do not beleive this to be accurate ( my sometimes shaky memory seems to remember Stentor disbanding in 1998 ). If I am mistaken and it is semi-accurate, it seems an overly broad statement to be making. nrw 03:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/l/Talk%7ETelus_e401.html"