Category talk:Prime ministers of Australia

Proposed move to Category:Prime ministers of Australia (proposed by User:Foroa)

•  Oppose : Here in Australia, the custom is to refer to Prime Minister when you're referring to the office and/or its holder : See http://www.nma.gov.au/education/school_resources/websites_and_interactives/primeministers/ . Secondly, I refer to Wikipedia's own rules on captalising compound nouns : both parts or neither. See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters) . Yes, when used at the start of a sentence is mentioned as an exception. But - we are not talking about use at the start of sentences here, we are talking about use as Category names, which reflect the formal title of an incumbent : i.e. "This is a category containing media about people who have held the formal title "Prime Minister of Australia". The only correct use of the term prime minister would be in a sentence referring to the general role, not a specific person : e..g. "In the past, a prime minister would blah blah..." you would never write "In the past, a Prime minister would...". We could say "Prime ministers in the past ...." because we are referring to prime ministers in a general sense and the first word is capitalised only because it begins a sentence. To extend this very limited rule to category names, which by definition refer to a formal title and its incumbents, of which there is only a single incumbent at any time, is invalid. It is also invalid to use the existing incorrect use of Category:Prime ministers of Xyz to justify its perpetuation for Australia. It would be more correct to change all categories to Category:Prime Ministers of Xyz. However, even if the existing parent category remains Category:Prime ministers by country, I strongly oppose reversion of this category to Prime ministers of Australia : there never has been such a thing as a Prime minister of Australia. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As explained in en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Titles_of_people it is stated:

• "Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore start with a capital letter only when followed by a person's name", which is not the case for prime ministers of Australia.
• "In the case of a compound word such as "prime minister" or "chief executive officer", either all parts begin with a capital letter or none (except, obviously, at the beginning of a sentence)", which is the case here.

 Support We are coherent with en:Prime minister and partly with the body of en:Prime Minister of Australia. see Category talk:Prime ministers too. --Foroa (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose This is a category of people who have been of Prime Minister of Australia, this is not prose nor is it part of a sentence. What each use of the category in the subcategories is saying "Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister of Australia", which is correct use according to en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Titles_of_people consistant with en:category:Prime Ministers of Australia from which the en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Titles_of_people is being quoted. Gnangarra 03:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not familiar with this particular instance, but the proposer has a history of making unhelpful category renames and then using Multichill's bot to enforce them against consensus (see e.g. Category talk:Piranga and Category talk:Sylvia) - MPF (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• • MPF, please concentrate on the matter at hand, not on the person who proposed it. Ingolfson (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose goes against common usage - per comment by Gnangarra SatuSuro (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)