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 both. — ξxplicit 04:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unrealistic and made up category. People in Nunavut tend to refer to themselves as Nunavummiut rather than Something-Nunavummiut. The category contained multiple people both Inuk and non-Inuk, most of which would be unlikely to call themselves by this particular designation, especially the Inuit. None of the people listed in the category were sourced as being Anglo-Nunavummiut making this a BLP violation as well. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 22:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this being created (as well as an earlier attempt to categorize people by the even more absurd neologism "Anglo-Nunavoian"), and considered it CFD bait as well — and thus I thank CBW for being on top of it. But I digress. We certainly don't need "People from individual Canadian province or territory intersected by language they speak" categories, as a rule — the only potential exceptions are where we can properly source a real article about that intersection as a community that people specifically identify with. That isn't the case here; the head article Anglo-Nunavoise, as written, is utter WP:NOR nonsense. ("In Nunavut, no one English in nunavut founded one plebeian of anglo-nunavoise flag, all as the francophones flag of everywhere en provincials and territory of Canada." Wha?) And that's aside from the fact that it's an invented term that has no actual sourced usage whatsoever. Delete as WP:NOR/WP:OCAT; the head article's been tagged for BLPprod as it contains a list of people, but given the sentence I highlighted here I'm pretty sure we can speedy it as nonsense. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Bearcat that this can be deleted as a neologism, if nothing else. It's nonsense. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this a language category? (as it is a Canadian category, "anglo" signifies English speaker) ... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only in constructions where the resulting word is actually seen in real-world usage. Not just in any random compound that people choose to create by affixing "anglo-" to their demonym of choice. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. And then a new username (though probable WP:SOCK) went and recreated Category:Anglo-Nunavois again. I've added that to this nomination; since it's really just a different invented neologism for the same WP:OR concept as this one, it really doesn't need a separate discussion. Delete both, obviously. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 30 April 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.
Delete—I am not sure why this category was created, and it seems like unnecessary racial profiling. It does not have a clear definition and it's not clear where it starts or stops. All Israeli localities have some people who are immigrants from North Africa or descended from such immigrants. In fact, some large cities were tagged with this category with unclear relevance. Ynhockey(Talk) 22:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it seems unlikely that any inclusion criteria could be formulated to establish whether or not a particular place is in this category. Also the name is grammatically incorrect and the parent categories are wrong (these are towns, not immigrants). Occuli (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in this way you can include all Israeli cities and vilages without any exception. Shmuliko (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only for the reasons above, but bad grammar as well. ("Israelis settlements"....?) - The Bushranger (talk) 01:43, 28 April 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: I'm open to other suggestions, but at the very least, the current title has bad capitalization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:14, 25 April 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:Keep. Apparently the terms aren't quite as synonymous as stated in the nomination. Jafeluv (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. According to MUD#Graphical MUDs, "Graphical MUDs" is just another term for MMORPGs. Since the two terms refer to the same concept, we should not have separate categories for each. PowersT 16:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The language in MUD, I would say, is more describing the emergence of the term MMORPG from "graphical MUD" than fully equating them. The content of the category reflects that, only including games which have seriously been referred to as graphical MUDs in their time, so excluding recent phenomena like World of Warcraft, Eve Online and Final Fantasy XI that have only ever been called MMORPGs and MMOGs. Wikipedia: WikiProject Video games/MUD#Notable MMO games also briefly discusses that orientation in terms of what's in-scope for the MUD task force. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between the terms is probably also demonstrated by the early graphical MUDs The Shadow of Yserbius and The Ruins of Cawdor; it would be a joke to call those MMOs. Given those, it seems like, if anything, the MUD article would be asserting that MMORPG is a subset of "graphical MUD". Which is actually supportable given definitions of MUD I could cite, but would make MMO people squawk like scalded chickens. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't see the distinction, really. The only reason EverQuest was once called a Graphical MUD and World of Warcraft never was is because the term fell out of use before WoW came on the scene. PowersT 17:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's true. There's also a cultural expertise influence; in the late 90s, before these games had much mass-market penetration, the experts and people most concerned with them were coming out of a MUD background, so a term conceived in reference to MUDs was relevant to them. Later games arrived to a culture made up of, in vast preponderance, people who had never heard of MUDs, only the distancing MMORPG coinage. To call something a graphical MUD that was never meaningfully discussed in those terms seems questionable to me. Another source of distinction is the "massively multiplayer" part of the acronym; surely a game has at least theoretically support some kind of "mass" player base before calling it an MMORPG is meaningful? I just don't see how Shadow of Yserbius and Ruins of Cawdor could be made to fit in that category. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several computer games that fall inbetween MUDs and MMORPGs. The inclusion of Everquest is questionable as graphical MUDs are typically mixtures of text and 2d graphics. To a degree the term MUD has become a synonym for a text based game, much like interactive fiction, so the term 'graphical MUD' is a bit of an oxymoron. --Scandum (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Less so than it was when all MUDs were text-only. That reading isn't supported by our sources on the topic, anyhow, starting with good ol' Bartle. It's also worth mentioning that, as one can see in its screenshots, EverQuest is a mixture of text and 3d graphics, just heavier on the graphics than previous hybrids. That, and we have its lead developer on record referring to it as a "graphical MUD", with no evidence that he believed the term to be oxymoronic. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the question, to my mind, is whether grouping early MMORPGs with more MUD-like games that happen to use graphics is a useful grouping. PowersT 00:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely an arguable point. I think it is useful, though. It fulfills what, IMO, should be the fundamental function of the category, which is to group things that have been significantly called by the term, and it also highlights a really very important transition point in the evolution of the genre and helps show where MMORPGs came from. The latter is kind of important, I think, because there's a lot of impetus in MMORPG-land to forget where they came from, I guess since MMORPG is the new, sexy term and MUD is old and clunky or whatever, and it's certainly not in an encyclopedia's interest to facilitate that sort of Ministry of Truth approach to history. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But neither should we be favoring a view point that does group them together unless it's widely accepted. Are we sure it's a grouping that applies today, or were early MMORPGs just called "graphical MUDs" because the term MMORPG hadn't been invented yet? PowersT 00:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. The trouble there is that it requires original research, where the approach I've been taking is sourcing-based -- including only games where I can find a reliable source speaking of them as a graphical MUD. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's another issue in that we're not just writing about how things are presently popularly conceptualized, but their history and significance. Which makes this grouping relevant on WP in a way that it wouldn't be on, say, a game review site. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I think we must be guided by different principles when categorizing versus writing. PowersT 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I could see an idea that categories should be more "present tense", but I'm not sure that's overwhelmingly obvious. If someone was notably a scuba diver, but later they stopped scuba diving entirely, we'd still put them in Category:Scuba divers (if we actually had such a thing), wouldn't we? So I dunno. Right now I am sorely tempted to subcat MMORPGs to graphical MUDs, referencing definitions of MUD as generic, which of course would mean EQ and M59 and whatnot would drop out of Category:Graphical MUDs because they should only be in the most specific category. I wonder how many people would scream for my head. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. It makes most sense to me to add a section about graphical MUDs to the History of MMORPGs, given you got secondary sources that address the naming issue, and remove articles of games that primarily use graphics and are widely considered to be MMORPGs. --Scandum (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be crazy or anything, but I mislike it because of the history-erasure aspect. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 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:delete. — ξxplicit 04:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Since 2006, this category consists of only a single article (Ranked Pairs). Markus Schulze 10:45, 25 April 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:delete. — ξxplicit 04:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is a collection of any film or TV show that has parodied Michael Jackson. This is not defining for the films and TV shows in question and therefore is not an appropriate way to categorize them. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Disaster Movie doesn't even mention any parody of MJ. Just imagine the clutter if the Simpsons (an episode of which did portray MJ) was categorised by anyone ever parodied. Occuli (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A category of nothing but trivia. Resolute 03:27, 27 April 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:keep. — ξxplicit 04:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as category creator. On the contrary, I believe there's plenty of room for growth here, with a small but rather active Acadian filmmaking scene. Herménégilde Chiasson is also notable as a documentary filmmaker and when I get a chance I'll try to reflect that in his article and subsequent film articles. Léonard Forest was the founder of the NFB's Acadia Studio in Moncton and has notable films to his name, too. The French Wikipedia's similar category is relatively well populated with filmmakers and films and its main article fr:Cinéma acadien gives an indication of the potential for growth here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 25 April 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.
