Talk:2024 Canada railway dispute
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 August 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Should be 2024 Canada railway shutdown
editI think the page should be re-named to "2024 Canada railway shutdown". "Railway" is the more common term in Canada. For instance, CN's full-name is Canadian National Railway; CPKC was Canadian Pacific Railway prior to the merger. Canadian news items on the stoppage generally use "railway":
- https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cn-railway-cpkc-lockout-job-action-negotiations-1.7301419
- https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/railway-work-stoppage-could-spark-new-boil-water-advisories-within-days-industry-spokesperson-says-1.7010323
- https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/trudeau-says-feds-on-it-as-canada-s-biggest-railways-grind-to-a-halt-vows-more-to-say-shortly-1.7010508
- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-who-to-blame-for-the-railway-labour-dispute-ottawa-but-not-why-you/
- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-cn-cpkc-lock-out-employees-after-failed-negotiations-with-union/
As well, the Canadian Transportation Agency uses "rail" and "railway", not "railroad":
According to the CPKC wikipedia article, the Canadian portion of their system is still known as the "Canadian Pacific Railway".
ETA: Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed.) defines "railway" as particularly Canadian and British usage; "railroad" as N. American.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Renaming makes sense to me.--User:Namiba 17:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I moved the article based on the research above.--User:Namiba 17:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Pertinent Questions?
editSome questions regarding the rail lockout:
1) What are the new Canadian federal standards on fatigue for rail employees and how do the CN and CPKC proposals differ from those new standards?
2) How would the CN and CPKC proposals shift from mile-based and time limited work to time-based work, and are there other options or transitional approaches?
3) What are the CN and CPKC proposals about employee relocation or temporary assignments?
4) What are the Teamster proposals or counter-proposals?
5) How do the various proposals compare to provisions and standards for American rail workers serving similar goods and passengers?
6) What else can Canada do to support a vibrant rail industry, both freight and passenger, to compete effectively with air, pipelines, and roads in the complex and connected economy that now exists?
2601:645:4300:A990:CDCC:2802:74D0:BEF (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Those are interesting questions, but unless there are reliable sources discussing them, they will have to wait. Wikipedia is not a forum for research or new discussions: WP:FORUM. If you can find reliable sources discussing those points, please feel free to add them to the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Renaming
editThis article should be renamed to 2024 Canadian railway dispute to reflect the conflict between workers and employers while demephasizing a specific action (the shutdown, which was very brief and relatively inconsequential). Thoughts?--User:Namiba 14:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Once the AfD discussion ends and a result of kept has been achieved, the article can be moved, but until then I do not believe the page can be moved. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 02:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tagging those who wanted to keep the article to weigh in here. User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, User:CFA, User:Moxy, User:Earl Andrew, User:TheTrolleyPole, User:AndrewPNJJJ, User:Novem Linguae--User:Namiba 13:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Deletion review, DR is to evaluate whether the consensus for delete/retain was correctly made from a procedural point of view. DR arguments should exclude any disagreements with the deletion discussion's outcome from the point of view of interpreting editorial standards. It appears that the proponents of DR are objecting due to disagreements with others over the interpretation of editorial standards which should not be part of a DR according to Wikipedia:Deletion review. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Deletion Review has now closed with the Keep decision being upheld, so we can talk about this issue. I would be fine with the proposed re-naming. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Deletion review, DR is to evaluate whether the consensus for delete/retain was correctly made from a procedural point of view. DR arguments should exclude any disagreements with the deletion discussion's outcome from the point of view of interpreting editorial standards. It appears that the proponents of DR are objecting due to disagreements with others over the interpretation of editorial standards which should not be part of a DR according to Wikipedia:Deletion review. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Tagging those who wanted to keep the article to weigh in here. User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, User:CFA, User:Moxy, User:Earl Andrew, User:TheTrolleyPole, User:AndrewPNJJJ, User:Novem Linguae--User:Namiba 13:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)