Talk:Swedish Ombudsman against Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this page should be moved to Ombudsman against Discrimination on grounds of Sexual Orientation, which is the full translation of HomO used on the English home page and in the article Government Agencies in Sweden. Also, the Swedish Wikipedia has placed the article under the full name, sv:Ombudsmannen mot diskriminering på grund av sexuell läggning. Of course the article should still mention the "HomO" short form and its allusions. Alarm 00:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ouch.. my first article! And created because I thought the name was cool, yet. No, but I agree. Only, are you sure we should have that capitalization of the new name? Government Agencies in Sweden ought itself to be moved, to lowercase "agencies", so I don't think it was created by a real capitalization expert (and incidentally it uses the form "Swedish Ombudsman against Discrimination because of Sexual Orientation", not quite the same). The English HomO homepage is of course the authority on the official English translation, but they're by no means authorities on English capitalization, and I think the most correct thing there would be to ferret out wiki caps policy for such titles. But you're welcome to move it, as far as I'm concerned. The edits not made by me are exceedingly minor. The disambig page for Homo ought to be changed, too. Thanks. Bishonen | Talk 01:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a capitalization expert either. But after having looked at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I think the name of a government agency could be regarded as a proper noun, and thus capitalized. Have a look at Ombudsman#United_Kingdom for examples with Ombudsman in a native English use. Also, all U.S. government agencies seem to be capitalized - for example Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Archives and Records Administration and all the rest in List of United States federal agencies. But even if we go for caps we still need to decide whether to use "on Grounds" or "on grounds"...

Oh, and I didn't really notice that Government Agencies in Sweden uses "because of" instead of "on grounds of", but just as you point out the form used on the HomO home page should be used (and it sounds better, too). A more relevant question might be if "Ombudsman..." should be preceded by "Swedish" as it is in Government Agencies in Sweden. This leaves us with at least 7 viable alternatives:

1. Ombudsman against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation

2. Ombudsman against Discrimination on grounds of Sexual Orientation

3. Ombudsman against Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation

4. Swedish ombudsman against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation

5. Swedish Ombudsman against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation

6. Swedish Ombudsman against Discrimination on grounds of Sexual Orientation

7. Swedish Ombudsman against Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation

Phew! I lean towards #7, but I would be grateful for your thoughts on this.

BTW, I agree that Government Agencies in Sweden would probably sit better at Government agencies in Sweden - or even List of Swedish government agencies. I'll take that to its talk page. Alarm 16:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... see how the category is Category:Swedish government agencies? Oh, sheesh, look at all those pages linking to Government Agencies in Sweden! I had a feeling there might be quite a few. A person could spend a really, really dull afternoon fixing all the links and redirects after a move of that page. :-( Rather than take it on, people seem to have used capitalized "Agencies" in the headings inside the article, too, where it looks even weirder. And inside the articles for the separate agencies too, going by my sampling.

I also prefer no. 7, on Grounds of Logic and Consistency ;-) . That's a very good point you make about the capitalization of the British ombudsmen and the American govt agencies. Thanks, Alarm. Bishonen | Talk 18:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring article

This article was turned into a redirect to Gay rights in Sweden without prior discussion. Most of the content was pasted into that article. While gay rights certainly is the main subject of interest for HomO, I find the restructuring somewhat problematic for several reasons. One is that it could be argued that HomO's area of responsibility is somewhat bigger than simply "gay rights". Another is that HomO is a government agency and some information about its structure, administration, and budget seems out of place in a "Gay rights" article. Also, placing Gay rights in Sweden in Category:Swedish government agencies is outright wrong and simply confusing. Upholding the difference between the office/agency and the rights they supervise will make categorizing much easier. Alarm 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)