The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment. I generally prefer standardising categories rather than using local variants, so I wouldn't be sorry to see this one stay as "transport" ... but there is usually a strong principle of naming categories to match the head article. May I suggest that someone open a requested move discussion of Transportation in Canada to Transport in Canada, and that the category names shoud follow the outcome of that process? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How far up do you want to take this? The topic article, portal and wikiproject are all at 'transport', but the top category is at 'transportation'. Down the line, transport and transportation intertwine, with the preference of whoever created it being used. Transport is far dominant throughout the categories, but certain (both geographic and topical) areas are dominated by either one. If you look at the 'transportation in Canada' category, it is a mix of 'transport' and 'transportation'. For consistence and giving a professional impression of Wikipedia, all categories should be renamed 'transport' (I use US spelling, so I can make such a claim), but attempts at this have previously failed at CfD. I would support any mass-move of content from 'transport' to 'transportation', but a sufficient number of people here at CfD fell ENGVAR trumps both consistency and professionalism, and therefore we have the mess we have today; this is further burdened with the consensus-principle which essentially favors inconsistency as long as a small minority insist on it. Arsenikk(talk) 16:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- while both "transport" and "transportation" are used in Canada, "transport" is less common, the government ministry notwithstanding (in this case "transport" was chosen because it means the same in English and French [see official bilingualism in Canada and Federal Identity Program]). Furthermore "transportation" is more general, covering all forms of travel, while "transport" has a connotation of mass transit (probably borrowed from Britain). And yes, ENGVAR applies, as it should. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 11:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. As long as the parent article and parent category use "transport", it makes sense to me to use "transport" for the sake of consistency there. Otherwise the Canadian tree becomes an unpredictable mish-mash. Yes, either could be used—but let's just make it one of the other for each country's tree. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Entirely subjective. I mean, Don Rickles and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog? Yes. Triumph even has Insult in his name. But the rest are entirely subjective, with little to no mention of insults in their articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly subjective; uncategorizable. Arsenikk(talk) 23:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Global ACI-ICAO Airport Management Professional Accreditation Programme (AMPAP)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I am uncertain what the scope of the category is trying to catch. There is no top-level article on the program. The two articles in the category seem to be large, international aviation organizations, for whom neither this category is a defining aspect. Arsenikk(talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it appears that the category only links the two organizations that sponsor the AMPAP program, which itself has no article. This does not serve as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is attempting to be an article (but with no text) lodging in Category Space. ICAO is presumably International Civil Aviation Organization, one of the categorised organisations; ACI is presumably the other. My "guess" is that this is a professional qualification awarded jointly by the two. If there were any text, I would say articlise, but there is not, so that I am left with my guess. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Snowball keep. As mentioned below, this was just renamed a few days ago along with most of the related categories. It is simply too soon to discussion again unless there is a good reason put forward for consensus to change in a few days. In anyone wants to follow up on the mass nomination, there are still a few left in the parent category which do not follow the convention of most of these. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tighter --KungDekZa (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The convention is to use "in Foo" for this sort of article, and in general this is a more accurate way of stating things. The nominators rationale is pretty fuzzy, since a "tighter" or shorter category name is not always the most accurate or best-formulated. Arsenikk(talk) 14:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed because this was just discussed last week, and placed at this title; moved from the proposed title in this nomination. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support per parent, even though the name is clunky, especially considering there is another such team and article could (fairly easily?) be written about. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. But a terrible name... Debresser (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator, albeit reluctantly, because as others have noted it really is deeply horrible name. Unfortunately, we don't yet have a policy of deleting things with stupid or horrible names, so we'll have to stick to the convention of aligning category names with the head article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)