Talk:Odebrecht

message: * This article should have a fluent text structure, just adding time lines is too simple and there are missing references.--Cruks (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to text format?

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: move appears to have been made. Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did not catch you. Could you speak English with me instead of Chinese?--Cruks (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you've written your proposal, it looks like you want to rename the Odebrecht article to Odebrecht (disambiguation). This is clearly not what you intend - you presumably want to rename it to Odebrecht Organization or something (though I would have thought Odebrecht S.A. would be a better choice), and then rename the Odebrecht (disambiguation) page to Odebrecht. --Kotniski (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now I have understood. Odebrecht is a name for many people, like Norberto, Emil, and Emílio Odebrecht, also it is an organizations and a construction company, called Construtora Norberto Odebrecht. This is the holding company of Odebrecht Organization and Odebrecht Foundation. This should be understandable for everybody who is searching any article on en.WM on that subject.--Cruks (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I don't think this was a valid move discussion. The Brazilian conglomerate seems to be a clear primary topic (check Google news and the incoming links to this page). The existence of potentially ambiguous pages in other language wikipedias should have no bearing whatsoever on move discussions. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: Should we add a section on the 2015 corruption scandal involving Odebrecht? Mr Odebrecht was placed under preventive arrest on June 2015. Source: <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33697757>  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmore13 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, not here but on his page Marcelo Odebrecht. Cruks (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But the company itself (and a subsidiary) entered a guilty plea Elinruby (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption case 

message: No indication that Odebrecht involved, perhaps this should be moved to another article? It's true and the reference is good, however the relevance is unclear. Can return to article if Odebrecht involvement is referenced. Also have no objection to it moving to another article:
====Cuba====
The Worker's Party (PT) government of Dilma Rousseff was criticized during her reelection bid for heavily financing the proposed free enterprise zone at the  in Cuba.
====Reference====
 Elinruby (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuba 

message: Elinruby (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: the new name of the conglomerate is Novonor. --Rkt2312 (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Rolled back this undiscussed move. "Odebrecht" is still more common than the new name is.  Wikipedia goes by WP:COMMONNAME not WP:OFFICIALNAME. Especially in cases where a company's name change may be partly in order to whitewash previous negative publicity, any change to the Wikipedia article title should be carefully discussed first. See for example, NARTH, officially "ATCSI" for the last eight years, but commonly known by their previous name, "NARTH"; Wikipedia follows suit, and ignores the official name. Same thing here. If you disagree, please do a move request. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mathglot. Considering its history of scandal, I think the common name is more appropriate Elinruby (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novonor