Talk:Canadian Pacific Railway

Sulfur or sulphur?
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)
 * I am quite surprised that Manual of Style/Spelling lists sulfur as acceptable in the Canadian column. In my experience, Canadians strongly prefer sulphur, so much so that whenever I see sulfur, I have to pause for a second before remembering that is how they spell it some other countries. The Oxford Canadian Dictionary uses sulphur as the primary entry, and sulfur as "var. of sulphur". And the CPR itself uses sulphur:.
 * Fascinating, I had not known that two variants were in use. I would expect that common usage is the correct one to use here, so what does Google say? sulfur turns up 32,500,000 results, sulphur turns up 36,600,000 results, so either seem reasonably in use equally. For what it's worth. Damotclese (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
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.

Split proposal
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)


 * Support - The section is huge and would work well being split. Lewcm Talk to me! 16:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I do think it's a good idea to have a separate article dedicated solely to the history. Riad Salih (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Canadian_Pacific_Kansas_City
Please see this discussion concerning both this article and the Canadian Pacific Kansas City one. CPKCer (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)