Talk:Department of transportation

Worldwide view is irrelevant in this context
I am deleting the Globalize tag. The word "transportation" is unique to American English, which implies that only American governments have an agency called the Department of Transportation. --Coolcaesar 19:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But the idea of the word isn't unique. Think about it... the words "cloverleaf interchange" and "thruway" are Americanisms, but the UK has cloverleaves and Germany has long-distance autobahns. --Samuel 69105 12:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But the word used in British English and most other countries is Ministry of Transport or something which literally translates as such. In the French case, this is because "department" describes a geographical unit of government, not a structural one!  You really need to do some reading in comparative law.  It is better to keep the two concepts distinct rather than getting everything all confused.  And the two articles are already connected by See also links for those who are interested in what the rest of the world is doing.  --Coolcaesar 20:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts
Is MassHighway really the best Massachusetts equivalent? I think the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation may be the best equivalent to a Department of Transportation, though it doesn't use the name "Department". --71.124.173.134 21:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Article expansion
I expanded the article some and have more but wanted to add something at this time with references of which there were none. Otr500 (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume this article serves no actual purpose. I see now that there is a USDOT page and also see an editor deleted information I contributed. It may belong in a USDOT article but the article I read, this article, is about Department of Transportation. This means that for some reason, that seems to be justified as a disambiguation explanation page, a redundant page exists. Since an editor decided, on his or her on, without using this talk page, to automatically delete information, I will request a merge or deletion. It will be interesting to see how the reasoning to keep this page works out. Otr500 (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am still trying to figure this out so if someone will give me some help I will appreciate it. This appears to be an article on Department of Transportation but it is actually a list page, to "help" with disambiguation pages and seems to me to have the wrong lead. The lead introduces an article that gives information about department of transportation's in North America (the US and Canada) and tagged, This article is about North American Departments of Transportation. For other uses, see Department of Transport. It is obvious this is an article on Department of Transportation (North America) (but still a list article) and should be titled as such with the proper redirect pages. If we (Wikipedia) intend to follow, "...an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia.", then that is what should be done. Tagging an article to be within some scope of a project should follow that intent. There is a section on "Canadian provincial departments of transportation" but nothing in the lead. Since some editors do not wish to explain the "rules" on these talk pages just simply delete information, I want to see what 1)- the "actual purpose" or 2)- the intended purpose, of this "page" is about. Then we can all (those that wish to get involved) come to some conclusion and discussion as to what (if not merged, renamed, or deleted) is acceptable to be on the page. Otr500 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * None of your proposals or edits make any sense. First, Wikipedia article name policy is very strict on this: we DO NOT to insert unnecessary information in the article name UNLESS there is an actual risk of confusion.  You're clearly a very inexperienced editor (I just checked your contributions log) who's unaware that we recently concluded a massive four-year edit war and debate over this issue with regard to city names, involving literally tens of thousands of edits and over one hundred megabytes of argument and invective.  I was actually on the side favoring keeping states in the names of U.S. major city articles, but my side lost.  The term Department of Transportation is used ONLY in North America and does NOT need to be expressly indicated as such in the article title.  (Trust me, I already did the research for this article years ago; you will NOT find any such Departments outside of North America.) By way of contrast, the term Georgia IS used in multiple countries.
 * Anyway, the purpose of this page is to briefly explain the situation with the term Department of Transportation (i.e. that it is used primarily in North America, and that other places use terms like Department for Transport or Ministry of Transport) and direct users to more detailed articles. Simple, isn't it? --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and pointing out the obvious. I did miss the fact the there was a "recently concluded a massive four-year edit war and debate". If I read what you wrote correctly you were on the side that was for less confusion. This is a good thing for some of us that are "inexperienced", not as smart as some, or just average people, so thanks.

I am also glad you have "years" of experience so you can explain some things, with your infinite editing knowledge to someone that might be perceived as ignorant. Wait! Before you jump off the proverbial bridge, considering you "checked me out" (and I have yet to return the favor), you might have noticed on my user page I always WP:AGF. With this in mind I just assume that you are just being "very" informational by adding, "clearly a very" to inexperienced, in case I didn't know or forgot. I would like to point out that this "might" be a little unnecessary as it could be taken the wrong way. Even if I started editing yesterday this does not mean I should be ignored when I "might" have a point. I also realize I have a lot to learn and appreciate admonishment and direction.

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and experience is a lack of knowledge so considering this I probably fit the category. Along with my lack of editing knowledge I am also endowed with some common knowledge and common sense. This does not mean it is always 100% accurate, thus the need for accurate information availability. Your statement above, "(i.e. that it is used primarily in North America, and that other places use terms like Department for Transport or Ministry of Transport), might show some confusion. The Canadian government (North America) does not use "Department of Transportation" (that I can find) and has a Minister of Transport (Canada) (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) that oversees Transport Canada. There is one province, Department of Transportation (New Brunswick) that actually uses the name.

By including in the lead, "All U.S. states, Canadian provinces, and many local agencies also have similar organizations...", there is confusion. The fact that all but one province in Canada uses a terms that might be common in other countries, we (Wikipedia) have something that may not appear accurate and certainly confusing to the common reader, at least to this "clearly very" inexperienced editor. The sentence, "The term Department of Transportation is used ONLY in North America", may be true but adding "similar organizations means what? North America is not usually applied to all of the United States and one province in Canada. The term, "similar organizations" also includes organizations in other countries that function in the same capacity as the name used in the United States and maybe "one" (please show if there are more) province in Canada. This means, especially with the inclusion of the above, "similar organizations", that this would be considered an article with a definition "used in multiple countries" and of worldwide usage. Would not the German Ministry of Transportation (or others) be considered "similar organizations" to the Department of Transportation? It would also mean that the deleted "Globalize tag" that was removed was correct as it stands. There is my inexperience showing again so maybe you or some other clearly very experienced editor can explain this to me.

I am not trying to be argumentative or sway "years" of debate, wars, and mega tons of information but maybe the acronym, "KISS", might be appropriate. Either the article is about organizations that are predominately in the United States and one province in Canada or it is about organizations that serve the same functions as the name, "Department of Transportation", which "does" make the article about more than North America. I realize I have "inexperience" but surely my reasoning can not escape the Wikipedia guideline followers and all those that have contributed to the confusion.

If I am not clear on the perceived problem then, even though I am a new editor, I hope that I can use some form of verbiage to explain what I see as a problem. Maybe the statement; "None of your proposals or edits make any sense", can be explained better. Also, the sentence, "All U.S. states, Canadian provinces, and many local agencies", seems to my inexperience to be confusing. By placing "Canadian provinces" in between the other two it brings up the question of "which" many local agencies, and the potential of an appropriate tag.

Conclusion: I hope I have expounded on what I have seen as confusion enough so that all those that are less "clearly very inexperienced" can see what "might" be a problem. The above stated, "UNLESS there is an actual risk of confusion", is an exception of which I see in the article. That would be why I mentioned either the lead or the title in my "proposals or edits". How this is rectified is up to those that may like "wars" but again, to me, including "similar organizations" does in fact include highway departments in other countries. If Wikipedia is attempting to be less confusing then how does this article that has possibly erroneous information, or (I still submit) an inappropriate (with the information now included) title, but at the very least a lack of information, make things less confusing? I may be "clearly very inexperienced" but this does not mean I am unlearned. In fact, would it not be a little more in line with civility, when something "might" be misunderstood, to simply ask for clarification of what does not seem to make sense? Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ministry of Transport
two list articles on the same topic but geo split with no reason (the name is not relevant as it's the topic) Widefox ; talk 07:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support With every other government-office-type-article, there aren't these kinds of name-splits unless there is a significant practical difference between a group of jurisdictions' equivalent offices and everyone else's.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 22:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - why is Ministry of Transport being merged into Department of transportation when most countries around the world use Ministry, not Department?--Obi2canibe (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you asking why we group the same topic with different names? (as opposed to a WP:DICTIONARY) Widefox ; talk 12:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. I was asking why have the contents of Ministry of Transport been merged into Department of transportation as opposed to the contents of Department of transportation being merged into Ministry of Transport.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, which target to merge into. Well, I see they've been merged by User:2a02:c7d:b910:3d00:c5ec:7443:b167:4eaf. I don't have stats, and don't mind either way. Now that it has been merged, a separate move can be done if Ministry of Transport is a better target. Widefox ; talk 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I undid the merge because a change this massive needs a broad and clear consensus. The discussion so far has 3 participants, only 2 of whom can be said to be definetely in support. At the very least, the merge has to wait until the discussion is properly closed by an admin. Anyhow. Merging Ministry into Department is wrong because the former designation is incomparably more common. If there is going to be a merge it should be in the other direction. Widefox's proposed solution – "well, maybe someone does a move proposal at some point and maybe that ends up repairing the disimprovement the IP just made, in a month or so" – does not convince me. The fact that the damage can theoretically be undone is not a reason to do it in the first place. Damvile (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge, on the grounds that the topics are the same, even though the titles (semantics) might be different. On the procedural point, note that this doesn't seem to be a major merge proposal and nor does an admin have to close the discussion: any user may close the discussion. I agree that Ministry of Transport seems to be the better target on the grounds that it is more widely used internationally. Klbrain (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is a stale discussion, and an RFC on this problem at Talk:Ministry of Transport several months ago failed to reach a consensus. Triptothecottage (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt; sorry I hadn't noticed that the RfC was so closely related. I've removed the merge templates, which were still up. Klbrain (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC affecting this article
An RfC is underway at Talk:Ministry of Transport which affects this article. Please feel free to comment. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2020

 * 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. (closed by non-admin page mover)  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 09:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Department of transportation → Department of Transportation – This disambiguation-like list article is bizarrely titled as Department of transportation but Department of Transportation is a proper noun and Department of transportation should be retained as a redirect with the rcat R from other capitalization. Doug Mehus T · C  03:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The move back in 2015 made no sense.   --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2020 (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.

Requested move 30 March 2021

 * 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. Cutting the NAC debate off at the head, hopefully... (closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidalprophet 05:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Department of Transportation → Department of transportation – Article is about the generic institution Primergrey (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Polyamorph (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's uncontroversial given that the article is at its current location thanks to a formal RM at Talk:Department of Transportation -2pou (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2021 (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.
 * Support - The scope of this article is about all departments of transportation. Therefore, the term is generic and should be lower-case as per MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Primergrey (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support - The two titles are functionally identical but the proposed one is slightly clearer. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not functionally identical, or we would not have capitalization rules.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a common-noun phrase in this context. It is not about any specific entity named "Department of Transportation", and some of them are not named that. WP is using this as a descriptive phrase for a class, not a name for a member of a class – it is a WP:NDESC. The previous RM should never have been closed by a non-admin with only a single person's commentary; anyone experienced enough to close RMs should know by now that capitalization and other style changes are frequently hotly debated, and frequently overturned when a result conflicts with various guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
This move to a plural form (sans RM) violates MOS:PLURAL. That the article is about many departments of transportation does not mean the title ought to be plural. Our Bird article, for instance, begins "Birds are..." and, indeed, is about all kinds of birds. Yet the title remains singular. Primergrey (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur. It is clear that User:Firejuggler86 is unfamiliar with MOS:PLURAL. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that User:Buidhe has fixed the mess created by User:Firejuggler86. Thanks! --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)