The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Recently created eponymous category. Unneeded as far as I can see and in terms of WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. These appear to be companies with ties to several countries. I suppose Category:Multinational joint-venture aircraft manufacturers 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? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename 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). East of Borschov 07:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename 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. They are thus multi-national, not international. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:A category for Equestrian masters who had great influence, good or bad, on modern riding. - I've no experience of the category system, but this seems a highly subjective subcategory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daytona2 (talk • contribs)
comment. 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 (Daytona2 ·Talk ·Contribs) 09:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Yes your suggestion sounds good to me. -- John (Daytona2 ·Talk ·Contribs) 09:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. 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 Category:Dressage masters 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 hope this explanation helps everyone figure out the direction we need to go. Montanabw(talk) 03:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. 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 (Daytona2 ·Talk ·Contribs) 21:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Montanabw(talk) 06:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as part of the 'by emirate' category structure and populate. Hmains (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename both. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 19:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The name of the portal is Portal:Poland. 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. 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 Category:Indo-Fijian people, which seems sufficient to categorize this ethnicity. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 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 who can comment? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Moved from speedy section. This same change was proposed in April 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with making the change, but I proposed it in CFD awhile ago and there was no consensus to change it. It requires a full discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 usually the result of some competition. Mildly support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is a subcategory of Category:Lists of awards by award winner and conforms with the titles of the other subcategories. Accolades is used in the subcategories because it includes nominations as well as awards. Category:Lists of awards by actor and the others use the simpler "awards and nominations" for their subcategories. Cjc13 (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Accolades" is a kind of uncommon, fancy word, but logically fits better. It feels like a contest between logic and WP:COMMONNAME. Category:Lists of awards and other accolades by film? Perhaps the awards (competitively won) and other accolades (lesser, courtesy awards) should be subdivided? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The actual lists appear to include only awards and nominations, eg academy and guild awards, rather than ratings fom reviewers etc. Cjc13 (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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", though. It seems like we should use whatever the articles use. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NBR website uses the term "awards", including the top ten list.[1] "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. Cjc13 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't editors get the article names changed first, then? Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if so, why doesn't anyone ever want to do this? Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted at 2010 NOV 5 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)