![]() | Canadian Pacific Railway is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 23, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this versionofCanadian Pacific Railway was copied or moved into History of the Canadian Pacific Railway with this edit on 27 December 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | The contents of the Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. page were merged into Canadian Pacific Railway on April 13, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
![]() |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling seems to indicate that "sulfur" is the preferred spelling in Canadian English. WP:ALUM also recommends this spelling, as do all modern chemistry style guides. Is there a reason to prefer the archaic spelling here? --John (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further examination of the article allows me to make the determination that the article was written with an encyclopedic viewpoint in mind. There is little to no evidence of bias or problematic content in the article. Instead, the article is told as if one was reading from an encyclopedia in a library. Interestingly, one portion of the article covers the use of Chinese workers in the building of the railway's main lines and branches, which is a potentially troublesome topic for some. However, those who wrote out this article have clearly refined the article to the point that there is no evidence of racism or bias to one side of the conflict. It would be very easy for an individual to navigate to this particular page and input some choice comments about the labour that the Chinese immigrant workers in British Columbia partook in. However, there is no evidence of untoward content whether that is defined as racism or as bias. Some may argue that the article reads a little bit too much into the government and corporate sector of the company - there are plenty of references to the government proceedings and corporate dealings that led to the creation of the railway. However, the argument can be made that it is extremely important to ensure that all of the relevant dealings that took place in the lead up to the creation of the idea of a Pacific railway system that linked the Western half of Canada with the Eastern portions of the country. James.Gough.93 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Please note that this is only a partial evaulation of the article, a full evaluation is posted on my Sandbox page.[reply]
I propose that the History section be split into a separate page called History of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The article has exceeded 150kb, and this section is large and well-sourced enough to make its own page. RetroCosmos (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see this discussion concerning both this article and the Canadian Pacific Kansas City one. CPKCer (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]