Jump to content

Talk:CP Ships

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canadian Pacific Steamships

[edit]

This was the 19th Century name of the initial shipping company, which ran the Bombay-Calcutta-Singapore-Hong Kong-Tokyo to Vancouver transpacific routes; I would imagine also Montreal-Bristol/Southhampton but I'm not sure. Their liners were famous - the "Empress" line - Empress of India, Empress of Japan etc. I've only briefly perused the article overleaf and was wondering how to fit this in; I'd imagine as a separate article, given the different name (and logo, which I'll have to find); ties into a lot of British Columbia/Vancouver historical articles, such as the old B-C Pier (now Canada Place/Pan Pacific Hotel Vancouver/Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre...its piers/piles anyway). Many of the ships have histories of their own, too....Skookum1 18:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

further to previous, does anyone here know if the lake steamers in BC which were operated by CP were under Canadian Pacific Shipping, under the railway directly, or was there another subsidiary company which operated them? This relates to Template:Columbia River Steamboats where there's a section for operating companies, in the case of tributaries being the steamboats on Okanagan, Kootenay and the Arrow Lakes.Skookum1 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first section is unintelligible nonsense. Some of the information seems to be duplicated (service between Vancouver and Hong Kong). For example, did a ship sailing between Vancouver and Hong Kong really make stops in Hawaii, Japan, China, Manila, each way? If you look at a map, Northern Japan is about the same latitude as Vancouver and Manila seems to be out of the way - that seems to be a lot of zigzagging before reaching Hong Kong or did the ships stop at some locations traveling from Vancouver to Hong Kong and then stop at other ports on the return journey? Does anyone know the actual itinerary? Jtyroler (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ship's most notable incarnation

[edit]
Copied from User talk:Kjet#Ship's most notable incarnation ... --Tenmei (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kjet -- Please help me understand why your recent edit presents a better and more useful title than "SS Empress of Japan (1930)" -- not that I dispute that your edit is correct, not at all. In this query, I'm hoping you'll help me re-think the ramifications which play out in terms of other vessels in Canadian Pacific's "Empress fleet" -- see CP Ships#History.

In List of ocean liners, the only vessels without prefixes are the "Empress fleet;" and if RMS is the better choice for the Empress of Japan, then it follows that the other Canadian Pacific (CP) ships are best identified in a similar manner.

Unquestionably, the CP trans-Pacific fleet was created because the company gained the mail franchise, and each ship flew the Royal Mail pennant; however, the RMS article explains that, technically, a ship would use the prefix only while contracted to carry mail, and would revert at other times to a standard type designation such as "SS". The brief exchange at Talk:RMS suggests that this minor point should not be too quickly marginalized in terms of our discussion about the proper prefix for each of the Wikipedia articles about the "Empress fleet" ships.

I'm also persuaded that the exchange of views at Talk:RMS Empress of Japan (1930)#Name logic deserves our attention.

Yesterday, I changed RMS Empress of Australia (1922) to SS Empress of Australia (1922) because I'd been convinced that the Wikipedia articles actually do (or should) describe the vessel from launch to dismantling for scrap -- including the linked changes of name. If we construe the article in this way, there would be an appropriate place within one article which somehow links the article about a ship designed to be the Kaiser's toy with that ocean liner which became famous in the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. Do you see my point?

The question becomes not so much one of right or wrong, but rather an issue of how best to construe each of the Wikipedia articles about steamships. For example, the maiden voyage of a famously unsinkable White Star vessel in 1912 was tragically cut short, and no one would suggest that SS Titanic is better than RMS Titanic. However, I would have thought the issues we need to parse would play out differently in terms of that single ship which was RMS Empress of Australia in 1922 ... and also RMS Empress of China in 1921 ... and, before that a German ship named Tirptiz in 1914 ... and before that was built as the Admiral von Tirpitz ....[1]

You see that I have tried to parse the issues in a reasonable way, but maybe I'm missing something which has an over-riding importance.

In the same way that former Presidents of the United States are still called "Mr. President" after their terms of office have ended, for example, maybe it makes better sense to apply the RMS to articles about ships because the prefix represents the vessel at the apex of its career?

So, as I see it, the range of issues devolves into one of deciding how to proceed from this point. I look forward to reading your response to the rather open-ended set of questions I'm trying to suggest are relevant here.

In this context, please review John Wallace Thomas. The text now reads:

Born in the British Colony of Newfoundland, Captain Thomas commanded the 26,000-ton Empress of Scotland (originally named the Empress of Japan) throughout the Second World War.

In terms of the range of issues I'm trying to bring out here, how would you re-write this sentence to adequately and appropriately reflect that "RMS" designation? --Tenmei (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't have the time to reply properly to you right now, so just brief pointers: During wartime the Empress of Japan / Scotland would be referred to with the SS prefix as she did not carry mail during war service. During the vast majority of her existence as Empress of Japan she was in commercial service as a mailship, therefore it is appropriate to refer to her under the RMS prefix rather than SS. By the naming convention, an article on a ship should be named after the most notable incarnation of the ship - if that incarnation was known with an RMS prefix, then the article should have one in it's name. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful feedback and explanation. No need to write more. Your succinct response resolves my lingering questions well enough. I'm going to copy this exchange at Talk:RMS Empress of Japan (1930)#Ship's most notable incarnation where it may prove useful to other editors. --Tenmei (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining RMS

[edit]
Copied from User talk:Tenmei ... --Tenmei (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei -- Hello. As you may have noticed, I've been keeping an eye on your edits on the Canadian Pacific ships. It's great to see those articles improved, so good work. However, I'm not sure about the "Royal Mail Ship" section that you've added to most (all?) of the Empress articles. The articles don't really need such highly detailed explanations on the meanings of the abbreviations RMS and SS - the general practice has been simply to place a link to the relevant articles. It might also be prudent to mention somewhere that the prefix differed during peace- and wartime service (although this is explained in the Royal Mail Ship article). Similarly, apart from the 1890/1891 Empresses, there's no need to explain how Canadian Pacific came to recieve the Royal Mail contract—it is not really relevant information on ships that came into service during a time when CP had already held the contract for some time.

Also a note on disambiguating ships with the same name on article texts: you should not use names like RMS Empress of Japan II, since the ship's official name was simply Empress of Japan. Instead, the year the ship entered service should be used to tell the ships apart (as in article names), hence RMS Empress of Japan (1891) and RMS Empress of Japan (1930), not RMS Empress of Japan and RMS Empress of Japan II. (Personally I've left off the year from the displayed text if only one ship with the name is linked from an article—I'm not sure what the official wiki policy is in this, if there is one).

Apart from that small criticism, keep up the good work! -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CP Ships

[edit]
Copied from User talk:Kjet#CP Ships ... --Tenmei (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kjet -- Thanks again for the feedback. My tentative work-plan is laid out at CP Ships#Canadian Pacific Steamships. I see a number of advantages in disfavoring the launch date for purposes of disambiguation, but it will take a little bit of work to bring the "Empress fleet" ships into conformity with what I take to be a Wikipedia convention.

Now that you force me to parse the issues more carefully, I do see that it does make sense to emphasize the date when any ship actually comes into service (rather than merely the launch date). It looks as if this Wikipedia convention turns out to be helpful in resolving how to mitigate any confusion which results from the fact that there are three Canadian Pacific ships named Empress of China.

Please scan what I'm proposing to do; and if you have constructive comments, I'll welcome them.

(1) As for that questionable "Royal Mail Ship" section, I'm of two minds. On one hand, I might propose restoring two or three sentences in the introductory section (without creating a distinct "Royal Mail Ship" section) -- perhaps something like the following:
This Empress enjoyed the "RMS", meaning "Royal Mail Ship." This is the ship prefix still in use today by seagoing vessels which carry mail under contract by Royal Mail. Technically, a ship would use the prefix only while contracted to carry mail, and would revert at other times to a standard type designation such as "SS", meaning "Steam Ship" or "Steamer Ship." During wartime, for example, the RMS Empress of Japan would have been identified as the SS Empress of Japan.
On the other hand, each of the articles having to do with "Empress fleet" ships could be renamed "SS" rather than "RMS." There are good and sufficient reasons for keeping that RMS. However, if ships were merely distinguished by "SS," all other issues would become moot. I'm not arguing that "SS" is preferable, only that it does remain an option to be considered.
(2) As for that questionable use of numerals to distinguish vessels with the same name, your position is again correct.
In this Wikipedia context, we must bear in mind that the ship-naming conventions of the 21st century are different than those of the last century; but at the same time, we have no choice but to be mindful that Wikipedia users have been influenced by Cunard's advertising. Many, if not most users will have no trouble whatsoever in distinguishing "QEII" and "QM2," for example. In my view, at least one or two sentences are necessary to acknowledge today's shorthand way of identifying ships. That having been said, I propose using your own words as an in-line citation -- see CP Ships#Notes at n.2 -- perhaps something like the following:
A note on disambiguating ships with the same name on article texts: Although conventionally used today, unofficial names or sobriquets like RMS Empress of Japan II are not used here, since the ship's official name was simply Empress of Japan. Instead, the year the ship entered service is used to tell the ships apart when names are repeated (as in article names), hence RMS Empress of Japan (1891) and RMS Empress of Japan (1930), not RMS Empress of Japan and RMS Empress of Japan II.

This task is turning out to be a little more time-consuming than I'd originally anticipated; but there you have it. It is very clear that your feedback (and the modest "extra" work you encourage me to invest) have no object other than to burnish the quality of Wikipedia and to enhance its plausible usefulness.--Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^_^ Now you're making me feel bad for putting you through the extra trouble. If I can do anything to help, just mention it and I'll see what I can do. Then to pointers:
RMS: Personally I would perfer doing this along the lines of my edit to RMS Empress of Japan (1930), with the line "Due to being a part of Canadian Pacific's service carrying Royal Mail, the Empress of Japan carried the RMS (Royal Mail Ship) prefix in front of her name while in commercial service with Canadian Pacific." This should perhaps be expanded to include a second sentence explaining she carried the SS prefix while in troopship service. Whatever the final formatting, I would rather like this information to be incorporated into one of the other sections, rather than have it under it's own section.
RMS versus SS: ...I'm actually not quite sure if I udnerstood you correctly on this one. But presuming I did; in my experience the RMS prefix, if used, supersedes all others. For instance, no-one talk about GTS Queen Mary 2, even though she could also carry that prefix instead of RMS.
Distiguishing different ships with the same name: Since the year-of-construction-as-distiguisher -policy is a Wikipedia standard, I'm nore sure if it is truly nescessary to separately define it. In the case of the CP Ships fleet list, people will automatically see that there were several ships with that name, and in individual ship articles it might be more stylish to mention "Xth ship to bear the name" in the lead section or body text.
Relatedly to the previous, the list on CP Ships would perhaps be more informative if the ships were in chronological order instead of alphabetical? Also, I'm not sure about the term "Empress fleet", as it excludes the non-empresses. This is particularly problematic as RMS Empress of France (1928) and RMS Empress of Canada (1928) begun live as SS Duchess of Bedford and SS Duchess of Richmond (respectively) - as Empresses they should be included on the list, but their sisters SS Duchess of Atholl and SS Duchess of York would be excluded. Related to those ships, as a point on naming and notability, I'm not sure if the RMS Empress of France (1928) and RMS Empress of Canada (1928) should be referred to under those names - both enjoyed longer careers under their original names... although the conversation about the names of these ships should probably be carried out on the talk pages of the individual ships or the CP Ships article and not here.
That's it for now I guess. I'll head to bed and probably have more to say in the morning... -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisment/graphic art

[edit]

Although illustrative images of advertisements, brochures, etc. and other graphic art do enhance the quality of this article, I would construe photographs as more "encyclopedic." In due course, I would like to see graphic art relegated to a gallery at the bottom of the page because a superior array of photographs has been uploaded. Until then, the artwork remains a good step in a constructive direction.

I wonder if other editors share this view? --Tenmei (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know from an antiquarian book/art show I worked as security at that Canadian Pacific pioneered many forms and styles of tourism-promotion art work; a certain taste in angular art-deco....so if commented upon properly, images of old promo posters for say the Empress of Japan etc....aren't clutter, they're illustration of an aspect/influence of the compnay's operations.Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kudo

[edit]

Love the information on the CP ships page. I am working on a 'potted history' for my father who was an engineer on a number of CP ships. I can only see from the 1971 onwards list that there are three ships, the Trader, Discoverer (his first CP ship and one that I also sailed upon) and Voyageur. May I ask where all the other ships from that era are listed? Ianheadland (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fleet list below help? --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CPR Lake and River Service

[edit]

I haven't started this yet but it's sorely needed; there were 330 vessels of this line on BC's Interior lakes (Okanagan, Arrow Lakes, Kootenay Lake, Shuswap Lake/Thompson River/Kamloops Lake), not part of CP Ships but a subsidiary of the railway. Not sure if the article title should be Canadian Pacific Railway Lake and River Service or use the acronym as in the section heading. Seeking input and any known sources.Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware of Commons:Category:CPR Princess steamships? of Commons:Category:Canadian Pacific Navigation Company?
Does the fleet list below help? You may notice that the registered owner of the Otter is Canadian Pacific Navigation Company.
I hope this will be helpful? --Tenmei (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, the current version of Canadian Pacific Steamships focuses primarily on the trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific fleets. The proposed article fills an important void. A quick Google books search revealed:
Either of the names you propose are good descriptive titles. You might also consider British Columbia Lake and River Service as a redirect. Whatever you choose will be a good start in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Pacific fleet

[edit]

Miramar Ship Index identifies Canadian Pacific as the registered owner of 165 ships. This is a good start, but I did notice a few anomalies as I added links to articles about specific ships. There are also links to images which have been uploaded to Commons. --Tenmei (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
Notes
  1. ^ The Ships List: "Ship Descriptions-E," CP Empresses
  2. ^ a b c Mansfield, John Brandt. (1899). History of the Great Lakes, p. 471., p. 471, at Google Books
  3. ^ Miramar Ship Index: SS Alberta, ID #1085765.
  4. ^ Miramar Ship Index: SS Athabasca, ID #192875.
  5. ^ Mansfield, pp. 471-472., p. 471, at Google Books
  6. ^ Miramar Ship Index: SS Manitoba, ID #1094879.
  7. ^ Miramar Ship Index: SS Assiniboia, ID #5027326.
  8. ^ Maritime History of the Great Lakes, "Towing the stern of a new CPR ship."
  9. ^ Miramar Ship Index: SS Keewatin (1907), ID #5518453.
  10. ^ Miramar Ship Index: SS Okanagan, ID #1122378.
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Fournier, Leslie Thomas. (1981). Railway Nationalization in Canada: the Problem of the Canadian National Railways, p. 203., p. 203, at Google Books

That source is incomplete, then, and makes no distinguishment between CP Ships and the CPR Lake and River Service e.g. the Okanagan, Sicamous etc - surely this isn't a list of current CP Ships - ?? According to the Penticton Museum, there were 330 vessels in the Lake and River Service, far more than the number given here.Skookum1 (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this partial list of the historical fleet is only one part of a larger puzzle, only a small step in the context of other sources which are yet to be identified, e.g., SS Ilander; SS Princess May; SS Princess Victoria; SS Princess Charlotte; ss Princess Sophia and MV Princess of Vancouver (1955). My guess is that Miramar Ship Index was developed from a range of sources, primarily the records of shipbuilders. --Tenmei (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, speaking of google, I found this which is a good quick summary of CPR Lake and River Service dates and routes - and also has info on their flag, which wasn't, like the white ensign flying above the stern of the Sicamous here in Penticton, but a white-and-red checkerboard, like a race flag. Huh; will look more closely at BC Archives photos now. As I find out more, I'll add to the list; and wondering that maybe "list of CP ships" should have separate subpages for the CP Navigation Company and the CP Lake and River Service -which as noted will have 330 entries eventually, once I have my day in the Penticton Archives/Museum I guess...I think the Vancouver-Nanaimo and Vancouver-Victoria ferry runs might have been "CP Ferries" or "CPR Ferry Corporation" (I've ridden on the Nanaimo route a number of times, before it was discontinued).Skookum1 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this gallery of major steamboats serving Kootenay Lake; not all of them are CP though, I think.Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A helpful sentence from the third paragraph at The Rise and Fall of Steam Transportation on Kootenay Lake is: "The Canadian Pacific Railway bought the Columbia and Kootenay Steam Navigation Company in 1897, forming the BC Lakes and River Service." Regardless of the name you select for the regional article, I would guess that this suggests an arguable redirect. --Tenmei (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you mean that Columbia and Kootenay Steam Navigation Company should redirect to CPR Lake and River Service/Canadian Pacific Railway Service....though your redlinking of BC Lakes and River Service seems to suggest you think that should be the target, or the redirect....if you mean the Lake and River Service should be redirected somewhere, rather than be a standalone article (as I think it should), then the redirect should be to Canadian Pacific Railway in British Columbia, since that service was highly BC-specific and a mainstay of the railway's history/operations in BC. Various absorbed railways redirect to Kettle Valley Railway but IMO they should eventually be separate, as until merger they had separate corporate histories; I think also perhaps that article is written to include the British Columbia Southern Railway, which was the CPR entity from Lethbridge to Nelson; combined the two formed the Southern Mainline of the CPR, which if that's bluelink is probably a redirect to the KVR article (NB the BC Southern Railway is not the same as the current Southern Railway of British Columbia, which is the privatized decedent of the BCER.Skookum1 (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum1 --Sorry for the diplomatic vagueness.

I was trying to hold back while following your lead.

I would argue that the article title should be Canadian Pacific lake and river service, which is a descriptive title rather than the name of a specific corporate entity. For redundant emphasis, the name of this article is only an open-ended generality.

Despite corporate mergers and re-structuring -- and official name changes -- the general subject of this article is anticipated to be as broadly inclusive as possible, which is the arguably good reason for a descriptive title rather than a specific one. I would anticipate several re-directs, e.g.,

In this context, see my recent edits at CP Ships and Canadian Pacific Railway. An arguable useful template for a stub beginning for the article you want to develop is at Canadian Pacific coastal service.

I propose to modify this format to create a corollary stub about Canadian Pacific upper lake service (with a redirect from Canadian Pacific Upper Lake Service. The article name without capital letters is merely descriptive, and the one with capital letters describes a specific corporate division within Canadian Pacific Railways in the early years of the 20th century.

Frankly, I'm not primarily interested in the corporate history of CPR; however, the process of working through these related articles about Canadian Pacific Steamships does help very much as a process which informs my judgment in other contexts. In the process of working with you, we are indirectly discussing how to develop the pre-war history sections of articles about Nippon Yusen Kaisha and Mitsui OSK, which are Japanese shipping conglomerates like CPR.

In other words, this has my full attention; but I didn't want to overwhelm the collaborative editing opportunity by pushing forward too assertively. --Tenmei (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the title you've suggested is "Wiki lower case-ism" and there's no need - nor guideline - calling for changing company names to lower-case, nor is there a precedent; an equivalent would be Canadian Pacific railway or CP ships. The formal name, as displayed on the side of the Sicamous, is Canadian Pacific Railway Lake and River Service, though the short form CPR Lake and River Service could be acceptable; not "CP Lake and River Service]]. Historical accuracy is more important than usages/variations, though fine as a redirect, likewise BC Lake and River Service and variations; but really as a title would imply other non-CP vesels, such as those run by the BX Express on the Upper Fraser or those on Harrison Lake and the lower Fraser.Skookum1 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are on the same page. I accept each of the points you make. Yes, as I understand it, each of these related articles are only about CPR-related entities; but I am uncertain about how to encompass the range of corporate names.

For example, CP Ships includes a number of distinct corporate entities. From studying this article, I concluded that it focuses on the fleet, the routes, the infrastructure and the personnel of serial corporate entities. The objective in general descriptive names was to follow a similar line of reasoning.

In other words, are we agreed that the article -- whatever its name -- will focus on the the fleet, the routes, the infrastructure and the personnel of the predecessor and successors of Canadian Pacific Railway Lake and River Service and also Canadian Pacific Railway Lake and River Service. Do you see my point?
Also, please note that I have provided citation support for British Columbia Lake and River Service and BC Lake and River Service, which justifies these as "official" names for our article. In other words, this is what it was officially named in the first decade of the 20th century. Again, do you see my point?

Bottom line: I am not opposed or in favor of any one name or another. I am only trying to work with you in a process of deciding collaboratively.

Question: What is the subject of each article? --Tenmei (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Lake and River Service was a direct subsidiary of the railway itself, not a subsidiary of CP Ships....I'll make a point of going to the museum this week and discussing that with the curator, and get what resources I can to launch the article and a full list of their ships (it's a very good museum). Some nice day I'll also make a point of taking pictures of the Naramata and another tug/freight vessel, still on the water, moored next to it; there's also the stern first-class saloon of the Okanagan there, which I'll take a picture of (maybe having a picture of that will help them raise teh funds to restore it, which is the plan, according to a sign at the site). And while citations exist for "BC Lake and River Service", those are only "also known as", and the company name is written in stone and must be the official title, even if in shortened form, i.e. CPR Lake and River Service. A title saying "BC Lake and River Service" would necessarily, as already noted, imply inclusion of vessels operated by other companies in BC; it's not the company name, nor is it CP-specific (as the name very pointedly is).Skookum1 (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of this disucssion thread, it is easy to agree with you. A consensus of two exists in support of moving the titles of two related articles, yes?
I will do nothing more until you have a chance to express your preference on this matter.

Please consider File:BC Coast Steamships logo.jpg. In this and many other contexts, "Canadian Pacific" is used as a shorthand to describe the Canadian Pacific Railway as a corporate entity which encompasses all of its ancillary activities. This was the usage I had in mind when I created the article titles which you do not accept. My reasoning may not be the best choice, but it was not careless or thoughtless or uninformed. Perhaps this uploaded logo will suggest a better name for the article, perhaps an alternative to Canadian Pacific Railway Lake and River Service?

IMO, the act of naming an article requires fuzzy logic rather than binary logic.--Tenmei (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the basis of WP:MOSNAME, the first one MUST be changed to the capitalized version; your creation of it was in error; in fact I'll do it right now once I've posted this. As for the second, I'm not sure of the formal name of the coastal operation, though to me the latter looks correct; I don't have any coastal histories handy. But I'm sure about the Lake and River Service. Note the lake article titles linked, many still red, on {{British Columbia Steamboats}}. As for fuzzy logic vs "binary logic", see company-name guidelines on WP:Companies and WP:MOSNAME; "fuzzy logic" only applies when there is no clear-cut proper name; in this case there IS.Skookum1 (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We agree. --Tenmei (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found another usage here - "inland lake and river service", which I've heard before; I've seen "CPR Lake & River Service" (not teh ampersand) I think in other books on that same site, but I have to go to dinner now; I found that book by an exact search for "lake and river service" no ampersand.Skookum1 (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was down by the boats last night and what's there is different from the long form I've been citing; though I know that's more correct and must be what I saw at the museum itself. The flank of the Sicamous has only "Canadian Pacific", while the sign says "British Columbia CP Lake and River Service" (that might be "British Columbia CPR Lake and River Service", I'll re-check next time. I've seen in one of the older sources online I use for other stuff, "CPR Lake and River Service". I don't know if anyone's around the museum this week but I'll try and make a point of getting up there (I'm a late riser and have busy afternoons, usually, and on foot).Skookum1 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CPR family tree

[edit]

The purpose of this family tree is to highlight a potential flaw in the unfolding strategies for further development of CPR-related articles.

This family tree represents an attempt to describe the historical changes in the ancillary businesses of CPR. In the 1880s, the company established several subsidiary units which functioned as feeders for the trans-Canadian railroad system. In other words, a traveler from Tokyo could transfer from a CPR ship in Vancouver and then travel by train to Montreal where it was possible to board another CPR ship for a trans-Atlantic voyage to London. The trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic services were conceived as supporting the core trans-Canadian business model.

In the graphic below, this integrated transportation network is indicated by broken lines.

Thus far, CPR corporate history has been deconstructed in a series of focal points about subsidiary corporate entities ... plus the persisting nature of the ancillary network of CPR linkages. For example, CPR's Pacific service was (a) established in 1887; (b) reorganized as Canadian Pacific Steamship Company (CPSC) in 1891; (c) reorganized as Canadian Pacific Steamships Ocean Services in 1915; (c) reorganzied as CP Ships in 1971; and (d) merged with Hapag-Lloyd in 2005. The graph attempts to reflect this chronology ... plus the "feeder" networks which exist literally "outisde the box".

IMO, the current version of the related articles does not adequately acknowledge or explain the network of intra-company routes and connections which persisted despite changes in corporate structures and despite changes in the passenger and cargo transport markets.

In the thread above, there was discussion but not disagreement about article names. Among the projected consequence of our naming policies could be that the articles will only encompass a narrative of corporate development.

IMO, there is insufficient attention given to the significance of CPR transportation networks which were established in the 1880s and refined in the early part of the 20th century. In other words, I wonder if our editing strategies are likely to not see the forest for the trees?

Despite any failings of this graphic, I hope it illustrates something "more than the sum of its parts"? Comments? Suggestions? --Tenmei (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2010

This is the rough draft of a possible template for CPR corporate history articles? --Tenmei (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up Suggestions

[edit]

Nice to see an article about an important piece of Canadian history. Here are some ideas I would like people's comments on. 1. Eliminate the CPR section. Say its part of CPR but it doesn't seem relevant to this shipping article. 2. Put the Canadian Pacific Steamship Fleet in a separate list. The article is getting long, and it is distracting to have such a large chart in the article. 3. It is part of the Train Project. I don't think that is appropriate. CPR should be but not a seperate shipping company they happen to own. 4. Have a section for Empress of Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varaldarade (talk • contribs) 23:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a massive number of changes to this article. There was great information in the article, I just tried to clean it up for easier readability. I did delete some information that seemed irrelevant to me after looking at similar pages. I can see that some people have spent untold hours inputting some of this information like the list of ships. I modelled some of the changes on White Star Line which is frankly a much easier read. The amazing list of CP Ships is still around, but it one its own page, referenced under "See Also" along with the long list of "Princess Fleet ships". I suggest these two lists be merged. Also someone should rename the list of CP ships I created as I cannot come up with a good one. Thanks for everyone who contributed, my grandmother came to Canada on the Empress of Ireland. If you disagree with my changes please speak up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varaldarade (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in CP Ships

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of CP Ships's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sl1":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nice old image of CP Ships./Docks in Vancouver

[edit]

This is from the British Library collection just added to the Commons, all ships depicted, and docks, were part of CP....

. The year is 1920. This would be better with more contrast, I'll download this high-res version and maybe take off the handwriting and stamp, too.Skookum1 (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CP Ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CP Ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CP_Ships&oldid=1228437567"