I would oppose any move to transport bicycles. After all, all bicycles are used for transport, normally of people. A freight bicycle makes it explicit that the bicycles are not used to transport people but goods, whilst such an ambiguity would remain with transport bicycle. What is the rationale to make such a move? why would transport bicycle be a better category name than freight bicycle.
Googling "transport bicycle" (with quotation marks) produces 16,900 ghits in general of which no articles in the first page were appropriate for this topic, a search in google images produced 2,280 ghits, of which 2 on the first page of hits are of images similar to the ones for which this category is intended. The results for "freight bicycle" were 2,760 in general of which 10 out of 10 articles in the first page of hits were relevant to this category however this may be because the en:wikipedia article for this topic is calledw:Freight bicycle, 99 images were returned in Google images of which 10 images on the front page are of images for which this cat is intended.The results for "cargo bicycle" were 5,550, 10/10, 575 and 16.
My analysis of this is "transport bicycles" is far too general a term, if a rename was needed it should be to "cargo bicycles", but that we shouldn't rename as the existing category name here is in harmony with the existing en wiki article.KTo288 (talk)15:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems from the discussion to merge freight bicyle to work bicycle (or vice versa) on en wiki, that "freight bicycle" is not strictly a term for a bicycle used to transport freight, but a bicycle modified or built to transport freight, (but which In Holland could be used to transport children). I like analogies and the one that springs to mind is pickup truck, which describes a particular type of truck, which may or may not be used to pickup but should not be used as a generic term for truck.
My own mental image of bicycle used to transport freight is of normal bicycles with goods strapped to the handle bars and tied to the frame. However such a bicycle would be dismissed as a utility bike by at least one editor at the en wiki discussion. So in order to include such usage the suggested "Transport bicycle" category seems now to be a good suggestion. However the current freight bicycle category has a precision and value for most of the images in the category. A suggested compromise is to prune the current freight bicycle category to bicycles especially constructed for freight. This category can then become a subcategory of a new transport bicycles category, to which the pictures of utility bicycles being used to transport freight can be moved. The transport bicycle category would be to categorise how bicycles are used, the freight bicycle category would be used to categorise how the bicycles are constructed.KTo288 (talk)08:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Lots of the vehicles in this category have three instead of two wheels, so I think they are actuallytricycles and nobicycles. Shouldn't the category be moved to a generic term that contains both types of vehicles? Or is the termbicycle commonly used for three-wheeled vehicles as well? --Mätes II. (talk)22:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)