Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 27

584:. You are correct that everyone on the list was a Dressage rider/trainer/instructor. The current category is an awkward term, (though that is how a lot of them referred to their predecessors, so it's more archaic than incorrect) so I would support renaming over deletion. Also, simply moving to Dressage riders doesn't quite fit, as most of these individuals were the "masters" of their field. (Several there are past directors of the Spanish Riding School, for example). "Dressage trainers" also doesn't quite convey the right status either, it would be like calling Horowitz a "classical piano player." I'd propose 649:

that of any other master artisan. (Some were also members of the nobility) The original category comment "good or bad" simply reflects that while most advocated humane treatment of horses, a few of them recommended some training methods that today we'd classify as horribly abusive, though in other respects they had good ideas...sort of like how Machiavelli contributed to Political Science. These guys were, if you will, the philosophers and teacher types...hope this helps.

715: 611:. It's the degree of subjectivity which is the issue. Horowitz is indeed categorised as a classical piano player, he is also categorised under the notable industry recognition awards (eg Grammy) he has won and the levels of memberships of notable institutions (eg fellow, honorary) - can the same not be be done here ? What do the policies/guidelines say about it ? -- John 1069:

as nom. If I rember correctly there are so many Indo-Fijians that the native Fijians are a minority in theri own country, leading to political instability. Whehter they are 1st generation immigrants or later generation descendants does not sound significant to me. So we have any Fijian Wikipedians

338:

as nom -- Having checked a sample, most are entities created by areospace companies from two European countries to collaborate in the producation of certain aircraft. A few are franchises to build in a recipient country (e.g. Mexico or Pakistan) aircraft according to the design of a foreign country.

648:

Well, here's what you need for cooking up a title. These people on the list were mostly noted as teachers, many wrote books, they are the folks who explained and defined the art of horsemanship. The ones in the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods would have been called "Masters" in a way akin to

588:

or something similar -- a word that doesn't just mean "trainer" or "rider," but conveys that these are the people that the rest of us study, they wrote books, they had significant accomplishments, they trained outstanding riders and horses, etc... I'm not super hung up on the semantic details, but I

1383:

The NBR top ten list seems to be more like an "accolade" in this respect. However, it could probably be called an "award" since they give specific awards and include the top ten list in their list of "awards". I'm still not convinced that "awards and nominations" is somehow better than "accolades",

1246:

Odd. A quick look reveals that the membership all contain "accolade" in their titles, but the content of the articles barely ever repeat the word, but "award" occurs extensively. Accolade is more generic, first recorded uses referring to kisses to a newly bestowed (awarded) knight. Awards are

1351:

An "accolade" can be neither an award nor an nomination for an award. For instance, being added to some publication's "recommended viewing" list; getting 5 stars from a movie reviewer; or getting two thumbs up from Ebert and his partner. Are these "awards"? Kind of, but not really.

305:

might be an even better option. Also the current name is somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean companies that build aircraft in different countries or companies that market aircraft in different countries or aircraft companies with ownership ties from multiple countries?

325:

as proposed, please no joint ventures. "Joint venture" status is ambiguous (lawyers and accountants use it differently) and ephemeral: shareholders come and go, the company remains. A multinational is not necessarily a J.V. (whatever definition you choose).

1289:. As SJ points out, what is clear is that "accolade" is a broader term than "award". What's not clear to me is why we would use the more narrow term when the contents of the category clearly contains material that conforms to the broader definition. 1177:(by me) but there was no consensus for it. I still think that on balance it's a good idea to make the change, though I'm not super enthusiastic for it. I opposed this change being made speedily, but ultimately I think I mildly support the change. 209:

as a Prime Minister, the subject is no doubt notable. The problem is there is really nothing to categorise but the main article. The template appears to contain nothing but a list of elections (though I did not dig deeply).

1400:"Awards and nominations" is the more common and precise term than "accolades" in regard to films. "Accolades" seems too vague and could lead to trivial comments about the films being included in the articles. 1324:

would seem reasonable, possibly with renames for the subcategories to "awards and nominations for" in place of "accolades received by". (Note: there was a discussion for a name change for the subcats, see

1051:. Place of birth is generally not defining and we don't usually categorize by it. I don't see how being born in India is significant enough to differentiate these people from the parent category of 1133: 723: 402: 42: 37: 1225: 1174: 1326: 919: 290: 21: 522:. Thanks for putting my request into standard format. The link from the CFD banner didn't do it and offered no clues as to how to format it. -- John 1330: 1265: 1268:

and conforms with the titles of the other subcategories. Accolades is used in the subcategories because it includes nominations as well as awards.

777:. Single entry category and I don't consider this as a part of a series since there are only two other categories. Article has ample categories. 302: 17: 191: 1299: 1204: 1158: 1321: 1298:"Accolades" is a kind of uncommon, fancy word, but logically fits better. It feels like a contest between logic and WP:COMMONNAME. 1365:

The actual lists appear to include only awards and nominations, eg academy and guild awards, rather than ratings fom reviewers etc.

286: 746: 961: 626: 565: 537: 476: 194:

should not have been categorized in this category in the first place, which would make it a single page category if removed.

915: 754: 113: 934:. This was named by a user who has not been active since 2005, so I'm guessing it just flew under the radar since then.-- 737: 1465: 1435: 1422: 1409: 1388: 1374: 1356: 1342: 1311: 1293: 1281: 1269: 1256: 1232: 1216: 1181: 1146: 1119: 1095: 1079: 1059: 1036: 1028: 1006: 982: 966: 943: 895: 873: 849: 832: 805: 786: 731: 701: 677: 655: 631: 595: 570: 542: 514: 415: 388: 364: 348: 330: 315: 278: 259: 235: 219: 201: 152: 98: 74: 1200: 1154: 1052: 1040: 121: 104: 1212: 511: 507: 327: 430: 1302:? Perhaps the awards (competitively won) and other accolades (lesser, courtesy awards) should be subdivided? -- 1464:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1094:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

981:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

903: 848:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

676:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

363:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

234:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1118: