Talk:Canadian Pacific Kansas City

Requested move 14 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Canadian Pacific Kansas City. Per the consensus found at other RMs, and the rough consensus at this discussion, Canadian Pacific Kansas City seems to be the most appropriate title for now. Since the company merge happened recently, it's too early to judge what the WP:COMMONNAME is. As such, another user can come later and open another move request, if necessary. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 20:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

---

CPKC Railway → ? – Nowhere on the company website does it call itself "CPKC Railway." It's legal name is "Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited" but everywhere online the company is simply calling itself "CPKC." RickyCourtney (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think the article should renamed to "Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited". I guess it's kind of like CSX, as CSX's legal name is CSX Transportation. In this case, Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited is the legal name while CPKC is the informal name. Traintrak (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m going for the full name. Abbreviations can be a sub name. Davidng913 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The preference on Wikipedia is the common name of the company, the legal/informal name is less important. For example, the legal name of the Canadian Pacific Railway was Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, yet the page name omits "Limited" because it's not the common name. A quick look around the internet shows most articles calling the combined company "CPKC" supporting my thinking that it will become the common name. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean. However, most articles online also refer to other railroad companies (CSX Transportation, Canadian National Railway, and BNSF Railway) by their abbreviated names (CSX, CN, and BNSF). I think when it comes to the CPKC, it's a special case because based on their website, neither the common name (CPKC) nor the legal name (Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited) have the term "railway", "railroad", etc. (the term railway was implied when this article was created because of the predecessor, Canadian Pacific Railway, and because of this tweet by the CPKC). Now, though, for the rename, I think it should be more than just "CPKC" for the name because it sounds a bit vague, despite it being the "common name". This might be a special case where the term "Limited" or "Ltd." could come in handy after the company name; that way, it can be clear to the reader what this is. Traintrak (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Traintrak @RickyCourtney The website https://www.cpkcr.com/en has r in the URL - railway. 90.252.54.59 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

...or railroad, or railways, or simply rail. Just cause there's an R doesn't mean for certain that it stands for railway. --- RickyCourtney (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Traintrak: Recent consensus is against moving railroad article titles to just acronyms or abbreviations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Support move to "CPKC" I considered CPKC (railroad) but the parentheses/disambiguator would be unnecessary. I also considered the full name "Canadian Pacific Kansas City" but the company is barely using that in their promotional materials, so I have a feeling that like BNSF, that won't end up being the common name.

I agree with CPKC for the article title. For now, that's the common name and it's unambiguous. If it ever becomes ambiguous, "Canadian Pacific Kansas City" and "CPKC Ltd." would both be good options. BLAIXX 12:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

BNSF is different - the company's name is actually BNSF Railway, it's no longer short for Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

With BNSF and CSX, neither "Burlington Northern Santa Fe" or "Chessie Seaboard" are the legal names of either company, while CPKC is legally shorthand for "Canadian Pacific Kansas City". BNSF changed its name to its initials formally in 2005, while CSX has been simply "CSX" since inception. The full name is therefore more appropriate in this case, unless CPKC chooses to make the initials the proper name. Pokemonred200 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

An article title should not necessarily match the legal name of a company (see WP:COMMONNAME). Microsoft is legally known as "Microsoft Corporation" but that is not the name of the article per the article titling policy. Regardless of what the "proper name" is, the title should be the one that is most commonly used which appears to be "CPKC" in the early days of this entity. BLAIXX 03:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Use the full name which has been longstanding convention for U.S. railroads and especially class 1s, all of which you will find don't just use a jumble of letters: Canadian National Railway, CSX Transportation, BNSF Railway, Union Pacific Railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway, Kansas City Southern Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway. "CPKC" is ambiguous, Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway is clear. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway per consistency. Cards84664 19:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  Too long. Keep current title. 90.252.54.59 (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Under no circumstances should "Railway" (capitalized) be part of the title. It is not part of the legal name or the common name. BLAIXX 03:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Move for consistency. As mentioned above, other Class I railway pages have the full name, and BNSF/CSX have their names abbreviated as that goes by the respective companies' identities. Canadian Pacific Kansas City does not formally go by CPKC. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Move to Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited as this is the full name of the company. Pokemonred200 (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Use the full name --"Canadian Pacific Kansas City"-- as per standard practice for other Class I North American railroads. TH1980 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Canadian Pacific Kansas City To anyone uninitiated, "CPKC" is a bunch of random letters which would necessitate "(railway)" stuck on the end, which is dumb. The title must also not include "Limited" as that is not at all the common name and would be inconsistently verbose. Ironmatic1 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited is the holding company formerly known as Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Kansas City Southern Railway are both subsidiaries of Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited both doing business as CPKC Railway.Granthew (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Move to CPKC, organization's website indicates it is trading by its initialized, rather than full, name, its home page stating CPKC is the combination of two historic railways – Canadian Pacific (CP) and Kansas City Southern (KCS). Today, we are CPKC... with the use of CPKC consistent across the site. Thus per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should reflect in the same way that the BP, CNN, IBM, KPMG etc articles do. Foralou77 (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Did you actually read COMMONNAME, specifically Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)? We don't decide on an organization's name based solely on what they refer to themselves as. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

Importing current locomotive fleet

The following discussion 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.

---

The current locomotive fleet for CPKC is most likely the the former fleet CP and KCS fleet combined. This should be added. Traintrak (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. This information feels like fan cruft which is hard to verify, hard to keep updated, and frankly, better handled on fan websites. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, then, maybe at least some general information about the rolling stock and nothing too in-depth could work. Traintrak (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please no. This is the bane of many a railroad article. There is absolutely no way to accurately list these kinds of things as they're not usually reported by the companies or reliable sources and end up being based on things like railfan forum threads. Just look at the locomotive list on the CP article, what a disaster, and the UP one is almost as bad. We have an amazing opportunity here to create a railroad article with a smart appearance that's not full of original research nonsense. Ironmatic1 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

Company status

I take issue with large portions of both this article and the Canadian Pacific Railway article. Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited is not the railroad; it is the parent company, formerly known as Canadian Pacific Railway Limited. The railroad is Canadian Pacific Railway, whose name has not even officially changed. The CPKC reporting mark hasn't even been approved yet. See [[1]]. We talk about the railway in past tense like it doesn't exist anymore, when it reality it is still operating and hasn't even changed its name. CPKCer (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough to change. If the reporting mark ever changes, then update it accordingly. Seeing the new locomotive livery now may eventually mean the two railroads will eventually become one. Davidng913 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)