Talk:Transportation in Canada

Requested move (2011) - Transport -> Transportation

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, so not moved. Good arguments were provided in support of both formats, and editors appear to agree that "transport" is the generally preferred term of federal govt, while "transportation" is preferred by provincial govts. Outside of official usage, there was no consensus about what the common usage is in Canada. The result is that there is no consensus for either option, with two editors appearing to be happy enough with either choice.
In the absence of a consensus, the default is to maintain the status quo by retaining the most recent stable name, which is "Transport in Canada". (The article was moved to that title in August 2010, and remained there until moved on 7 March 2011. That latter move was promptly reverted, leading to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Transport in Canada → Transportation in Canada —

• Move - Despite the fact the ministry is now "transport", transportation is common Canadian usage, and is even used by the federal government's own style guide, The Canadian Style, as in "4.14 Modes of transportation"[1] and "6.07 Modes of transportation"[2]. The previous change was made for spurious reasons, not in line with WP:common usage. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think COMMONNAME applies here. It should be inline with the federal agency, Transport Canada, and the minister's title, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. 117Avenue (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but why should we defer to the ministry, and why doesn't COMMONNAME apply? Is there a compelling reason? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have a strong preference but as I noted in a recent CfR, the federal minister's title is not necessarily a good yardstick for common usage in Canada. Every provincial ministry uses the term "transportation". Though I can't prove it, I suspect that the name "Transport Canada" was chosen in part because it's bilingual. Further note that Transportation Safety Board of Canada is also a federal agency. Pichpich (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Common. --Bejnar (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is no one standard used in Canada so there is no reason to move this article. Transport Canada and the Minister for Transport seem to add more weight to the transport side. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That reason is valid, however, this article was originally at transportation and was moved without discussion. If deferring to established practise is your argument, then your vote should be for transportation. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I don't think it really matters. This is a case where either could be acceptable, IMO, since both forms are commonly used in Canada. In a case such as this where there is no overwhelming favo(u)rite, I'm happy for the article to reflect the usage the federal government has probably arbitrarily selected. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral comparing with other cases on wikipedia (and in this case I believe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid for consistency sake), "Transport in" articles far outweigh "Transportation in" articles; however, both the United States and Mexico follow the "Transportation in" nomenclature.[3] While I'd like to see this inconsistency remedies, I think this is better done as a centralized discussion rather than as individual move requests. This article is not about Transport Canada, and that should have absolutely no bearing on the title of an article about transport(ation) in general. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved: per discussion Ground Zero | t 01:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Transport in Canada → Transportation in Canada – Opening a new discussion since the other ones are long in the coffin. I think that there is compelling evidence that the common English-language usage in Canada is in fact "transportation in ___" rather than "transport in ___." Previous commenters appear to have confused this with the fact that official government usage appears to be the latter, but that is independent of its usage in common parlance and literature. Even government bodies themselves, such as Stats Canada [4][5] and Citizenship and Immigration Canada[6] refer to "transportation." A Google search shows half the results for "transport in" than for "transportation in" on .ca domains. If you look at the former, it is populated by articles talking about technical things, such as "electron transport" in chemistry, or "calcium transport" in anatomy, not vehicular transportation. For this reason, I propose it be moved to "Transportation in Canada." Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC) - SweetNightmares 03:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nom. - SweetNightmares 03:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral per the last move request. The federal agency is called "Transport Canada"[7]; the Quebec one is "Transports Quebec"[8]; while the Ontario one is "Ministry of Transportation"[9]; and the federal "Transportation Safety Board"[10]; while the advocacy group is "Transport 2000"/"Transport Action Canada"[11]; -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: unless they have significantly changed the way Canadians speak English, the names of government agencies have no bearing on common Canadian usage of the word, and the Quebec agency even less, since it uses French. (Thank you for notifying the WP:CWNB!) - SweetNightmares 14:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The last close pointed out the previous moves. From that it appears that no case was made for not leaving this article at transportation. So moving it back there seems to be supported by the provincial governments usage and previous discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning oppose per my previous comments from (wow, time flies, eh?) years ago. While I agree that it is the best naming, I once again must insist that this discussion is best held in a more general situation. I have a hard-on for consistency, to put it modestly. I'd rather see all of them moved to "Transportation in foo": Transport is the noun, and as a category should be used exclusively for proper noun articles. However, since the category applies to all forms of transport, we should use the verb-noun as applied to the proper noun (in this case, the place). This applies to all dialects of English, and so there should be no reasonable objections to a site wide renaming of all "Transport in foo" categories to "Transportation in foo". Sorry if I makey no sense, I'm an engineer, not a linguist. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per common name. Red Slash 03:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, as "transportation" is more commonly used than "transport" as far as I have experienced. PKT(alk) 14:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Transportation in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051215145409/http://ogov.newswire.ca:80/ontario/GPOE/2004/09/21/c2149.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html to http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2004/09/21/c2149.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081004214148/http://www40.statcan.ca:80/l01/cst01/trad47a.htm to http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/trad47a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706203734/http://www41.statcan.ca/2006/4006/ceb4006_001_e.htm to http://www41.statcan.ca/2006/4006/ceb4006_001_e.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081219193825/http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/2006%5FNorth%5FAmerican%5FContainer%5FTraffic.pdf to http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/2006_North_American_Container_Traffic.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 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: not moved. Additionally, all pages moved by Tbf69 of the format "Transport in X" which cited the redirect page "Transport in Canada" will be reverted. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

---

• Transportation in Canada → Transport in Canada
• Transportation in Toronto → Transport in Toronto
• Public transportation in Toronto → Public transport in Toronto
• Transportation in Vancouver → Transport in Vancouver

– This is a controversial issue, hence the discussion here.
For some context, all the articles above use "Transportation in", and the articles below all use "Transport in".

• Transport in Calgary
• Transport in Edmonton
• Transport in Thunder Bay
• Transport in Vancouver
• Transport in Markham, Ontario
• Transport in Vaughan, Ontario
• Transport in Montreal
• Transport in Hamilton, Ontario
• Transport in Saskatchewan
• Royal and viceroyal transport in Canada
• Transport in Winnipeg
• Transport in Halifax, Nova Scotia
• Transport in Lethbridge
• Transport in Quebec City
• Rail transport in Canada

Now, my arguments for using "Transport in Xxx":

• "Transport" is more widely used in Canadian English, partially as Canadian English is generally closer to British English which uses "Transport in".
• The Canadian government uses "Transport", more, see Transport Canada.
• Using the "Transport in Xxx" for Canadian articles creates a nice balance between WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME, and precedent.
• More pages use "Transport in Xxx", hence it's easier to standardize on that, rather than changing all to "Transportation in".
• Searching for ["Transportation in" Canada] on Google gives 12,400,000 results, whereas ["Transport in" Canada] gives 17,500,000 results, indicating higher usage.
• Previous discussions focus on WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, making them somewhat invalid.
• Basically all other pages on Wikipedia use "Transport in", except for the USA and Phillipines. --- Tbf69 P • T 09:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support The rationale is convincing. Transport is less clumsy than Transportation. Garuda3 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment You, yourself, CREATED Transport in Quebec City at that title.

You MOVED, TWO DAYS AGO, Transportation in Halifax, Nova Scotia to "transport".

Just based on your complete disingenuousness I think this matter should be WP:SNOW closed.

Oh my god... it goes on. Guess who moved Transportation in Saskatchewan to "transport"? Let's check the others:

• Transportation in Hamilton, Ontario --> moved by Tbf69
• Transportation in Montreal --> moved by Tbf69
• Transportation in Vaughan --> moved by Tbf69
• Transportation in Markham, Ontario --> moved by Tbf69
• Transportation in Thunder Bay, Ontario --> moved by Tbf69
• Transportation in Edmonton --> moved by Tbf69
• Transportation in Calgary --> moved by Tbf69

This is such bad faith I'm like... stunned. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for not disclosing that I moved those ones, but, you will find that the others were NOT moved by me.

I however did not create Transport in Quebec City, it was created by @Jarble in November 2022, I simply WP:SPLIT the contents of the section on transport at Quebec City into the article, which was just a redirect. Further to this Transportation in Quebec City is a actually currently a red link --- Tbf69 P • T 08:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose somehow transportation sounds better and more idiomatic to my (Canadian) ears. More plain language. The fact that some official documents use Transport shouldn't have any relevance. Government departments may use an official or highly specific register of a language which does not necessarily determine how average people speak. I definitely think there is no difference in meaning so it comes down to a matter of taste and use of language. Dan Carkner (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, wouldn't that argument be invalid per WP:NOR? --- Tbf69 P • T 08:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  In what way is use of the word transportation original research ? These article title debates are always subjective and aimed at finding the most natural language that we are guessing people may expect and search for and which reasonably expresses the topic. If you disagree with my subjective feeling about which term is preferable that's your right. Dan Carkner (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Transportation" and "transport" are both used in Canadian English, and I think "transportation" is probably used more often in Canadian English. On the official Transport Canada website, they use the term "transportation" more often. I think it would be better to standardize the North American articles to use "transportation". Rreagan007 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Searching for ["Transportation in" Canada] on Google gives 12,400,000 results, whereas ["Transport in" Canada] gives 17,500,000 results, indicating higher usage. --- Tbf69 P • T 17:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

"Canadians use both transport and transportation, though the latter has the edge."[12] Using Google search results in the way you are doing isn't a reliable way to measure usage in Canadian English. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, "I think "transportation" is probably used more often in Canadian English" isn't reliable or verifiable --- Tbf69 P • T 18:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Which is why I provided a source that says "transportation" is used more than "transport" in Canadian English. Do you have a source that says otherwise? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes but the name of two government instutions (Transport Canada, Minister of Transport (Canada)), is more significant than some press release or website jargon. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Well if we had an article specifically on the government bodies that use the term "transport" in their name, then that is what we should use. But these articles are all on transportation in Canada more generally. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is the third discussion on the matter, and the first to be arguably unnecessary. Initial request move was inconclusive, while the second had consensus for Transportation in Canada.

As an example of which word is used more in Canadian English: the provincial and territorial ministries responsible for transportation in Canada all use "Minister of Transportation" in some form, except for Saskatchewan and the Yukon, where they have opted to use "highways" in place of "transportation". None of them use "transport" in their respective portfolio positions; it is only the federal entity that has chosen to use that word. That said, it was suggested in the previous request move that "the names of government agencies have no bearing on common Canadian usage of the word". I'm citing this information as a counter on this request move as it has been suggested that "the name[s] of two government institutions...is more significant than some press release or website jargon". —Northwest (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Aside from "Transport Canada", no provincial ministry uses "Transport" (Quebec being an exception, but that's French). The federal ministry is also part of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities portfolio. Finally, a well-oiled trout to Tbf69 for gaming the system (although I will assume good faith that it was not intentional). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and revert all of Tbf69's moves which cited "Transport in Canada" despite that not being the title of this article. Canadian English uses "Transportation" just fine. SnowFire (talk) 05:06, 21 February 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.