This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontrealWikipedia:WikiProject MontrealTemplate:WikiProject MontrealMontreal articles
Serious point of view and citation issues. Section shows NDP bias and is citing an explicitly political source (NDP website), no primary sources are cited here. This section needs to be updated with concrete plans from VIA/federal gov't rather than speculation (public-private partnership is distinct from full privatization). Raccoonny (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Itemized the whole redundant section. The issue is much better (that is NPOV and style fixes) in the paragraph immediately proceeding the section without the false assertion of privatization that is not in evidence. oknazevad (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proper way of writing VIA Rail
VIA rail shall always be written with the V, the I and the A in capital letters. 2607:FA49:B840:AA00:88C8:452A:CCFB:93C7 (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to MOS:TM, "exceptions may apply, but Wikipedia relies on sources to determine when an unusual name format has become conventional for a particular trademark; only names that are consistently styled a particular way by a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are styled that way in Wikipedia." A quick look at journalistic sources (IE: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/via-rail-bill-people-over-freight-1.7066700) shows that it is normally spelled Via outside of Via Rail's trademarking. 138.51.82.49 (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too Many Subsection Headers Box
The only issue I can see is the 'background' section not entirely needing a heading. Otherwise I think it is fine. Millsy0303 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]