Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Games"
(Created page with "I think this category should be renamed to "larps". There is no standard practice for how to refer to individual larps in the English-language Nordic litterature - but most of...") |
m (2 revisions) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I think this category should be renamed to "larps". There is no standard practice for how to refer to individual larps in the English-language Nordic litterature - but most of them are not referred to as "games" ("spill"/"spel") in their native language but rather "lajv"/"laiv"/"rollespill"/"larp", and using the English term "game" with its connotations of competitive play is misleading. If nothing else, calling the category for "larps" should be uncontroversial. --[[User:Efatland|Efatland]] 19:54, 29 April 2012 (CEST) | I think this category should be renamed to "larps". There is no standard practice for how to refer to individual larps in the English-language Nordic litterature - but most of them are not referred to as "games" ("spill"/"spel") in their native language but rather "lajv"/"laiv"/"rollespill"/"larp", and using the English term "game" with its connotations of competitive play is misleading. If nothing else, calling the category for "larps" should be uncontroversial. --[[User:Efatland|Efatland]] 19:54, 29 April 2012 (CEST) | ||
+ | |||
+ | That sounds reasonable, I'll go ahead and make the change. :) --[[User:Johannes Axner|Johannes Axner]] 10:00, 30 April 2012 (CEST) |
Latest revision as of 15:10, 10 October 2012
I think this category should be renamed to "larps". There is no standard practice for how to refer to individual larps in the English-language Nordic litterature - but most of them are not referred to as "games" ("spill"/"spel") in their native language but rather "lajv"/"laiv"/"rollespill"/"larp", and using the English term "game" with its connotations of competitive play is misleading. If nothing else, calling the category for "larps" should be uncontroversial. --Efatland 19:54, 29 April 2012 (CEST)
That sounds reasonable, I'll go ahead and make the change. :) --Johannes Axner 10:00, 30 April 2012 (CEST)