Talk:RapeLay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.


Contents

[edit] Censorship issue

I think warning should be added at the top, censorship is not really necessary since other wikipedia pages do not have censorship containing sex organ (for example look up penis or vagina) The following pages do not have censorship either:

  1. Sexual intercourse
  2. List of sex positions
  3. Missionary position
  4. Nudity
  5. Toplessness
  6. Cartoon pornography

There are lots more but you get the idea. Thanks to user dreddnott for fixing up mistakes and grammar. If sys requirements are messsed up fix it.

"Remember Wikipedia is not censored" User:Kingstonjr


Cs_california

[edit] Quit Vandalizing!

Game play style was translated by Japanese translator. All information I added was translated from the game after completion. If you can't handle sexual material do not look it up. Wikipedia is used to provide information not to be bias so don't and game reviews. External links that are included should only reflect on game info and gameplay not ratings!.

Cs_california


[edit] English fixin' time

I think I can polish this article up a bit...my Japanese isn't the best but it's probably just as good as the page creator's English! dreddnott 16:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ============

Hey, some censor need to be put on images, there are little kids viewing wikipedia too. But hey, no vandalizing!

And system requirement part is messed up

Wikipedia is not censored.68.148.164.166 (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Issues

This game is banned in Iceland, and maybe some other countries. That should be added.

Banned in Iceland? Icelanders riot? Very hilarious. Icelanders either worshipped a hooker or insulted their ancestors' goddess as a hooker. They were the only people on earth who worshipped a HOOKER, and now they are scared of a hentai game? Read this Icelandic story if you don't know what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.138.77 (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

This article seems awash with original research, the gameplay section in particular. If that section (and other original research text) can't be sourced to secondary sources, which I'm betting it can't, it is not verifiable and should be removed. Neitherday 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, this is not an original research, don't warp the meaning of it. By your logic, tons of pages in wikipedia should then be edited since it is "original research". Take for example, Command & Conquer: Red Alert. I suggest you take down gameplay section, game balancing section and the units and structure section. All these, by your definition constitute " original research"

So what does constitute an original research? From the wiki page you provided above :

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

   * It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
   * It introduces original ideas;
   * It defines new terms;
   * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
   * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
   * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
   * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Nothing from the "rapelay" text does the above mentioned. Therefore in my opinion, your edit was unnecessary. I will undo the edit in 3 days after this post, if no one address what was just mentioned.Delzac 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is there a source for information on the game play? Playing the game, then writing about it is original research.
The request for sources has been up a long time and it is reasonable to assume at this point that there are no reliable sources for the game play. Whether or not you consider this original research, it is still not verifiable and therefore has no place on Wikipedia.
Also note WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you find content that has similar problems, by all means fix it. Neitherday 13:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Under which point does playing the game, then writing about it is an original research? Please quote the statement from any of the above point mentioned.

May i also refer you to When to cite, it states there that When a source may not be needed : Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions".

The same goes with this article. Anyone who played the game before will understand what it is all about, which includes the game play.

Also, Challenging another user's edits, there is a point on this.

Challenges should not be frivolous – Challenges should not be made frivolously or casually, and should never be made to be disruptive or as a WP:POINT. Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate.

I believe your edit falls under this point, there is no strong reason to believe than the material in question is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate.Delzac 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The material is inappropriate, it is gaming minutia and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Furthermore, if is impossible verify any of the information without playing the game, then for the purposes of Wikipedia it is neither Verifiable nor notable. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, it is verifiability and notability.
Your claim that anyone familiar with the subject has played the game assumes that no one can have an interest in the game but not a interest to play it. If that were true, it would be further evidence that the game is not notable outside of its fans. Neitherday 03:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that that asserting that the article is point number 2 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Plot summaries. The sad fact is that, what was written is all that is to it due to the nature of the game. Although there are simply a few lines written under one heading, they are not summaries.

As for verifiability, it is a Subject-specific common knowledge. This is the same with almost all the gaming article i went through.

For notability, it is a guideline not a policy. Even on the notable page itself, i told us treat it with common sense and the occasional exception. The purpose of this guideline, I believe is to prevent any tom dick harry to write their own biography on wikipedia.Delzac 08:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

At best, it is only readily known within the small handful of people who've actually played and completed the game and comes nowhere near to being "common knowledge". If the vast majority of editors, who have not played the game, have to rely on you to tell us its true – then even if it is true, it is not verifiable. If you want the information included in the article, please find a reliable source. Neitherday 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quit the charade

Neitherday, why don't you just adimit it... you have an agenda against this game because it is about rape. There are plenty of other gaming and movie articles which feature "original research." Lets see you try to delete the information in those articles and see how far you get. This game isn't any worse than Grand Theft Auto. Do you consider rape worse than murder? You probably do. But thats beside the point... why don't you just nominate this article for deletion and get it over with? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film. An exception to this rule may be films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources.

--ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:AGF. There is a lot of cruft in Wikipedia and this isn't the only place I've had issue with it.
Further, this isn't a film: playing a game requires skill which not everyone has. Neitherday (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I know its not a film, but this applies to films, tv, and games. You probably have issues with a lot of things that you don't agree with, this being one of them. Just because you don't like the game doesn't mean you have the right to delete relevant information from this article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:VG/GL#Sources:Gameplay sections should be sourced. This can be sourced using the user's manual for the game, in addition to reviews for the game and other reliable sources. Similarly, plot sections should also be sourced; again, the user's manual and reviews may help here, but one may also find sufficient information contained within strategy guides or FAQs.

This entire article could be sourced by using the user's manual, I just prefer to use websites because they are more accessible. I have sourced this article using FAQs and the publisher's website... which is written in Japanese... because that is the only language they publish in. There is no official translated version of this page, therefore I have no other choice but to cite it as is. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I know OTHERCRAPEXISTS, yeah I've read that one a million times. But I'd like to see you delete information from all the video game articles that have unsourced plot summaries and game mechanics and see how far you get without being accused of vandalism. Also, I see you talk a lot about secondary sources, but primary sources are allowed within Wikipedia. I quote WP:PSTS: "Examples of primary sources include ... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Plenty of other video game articles use the game itself as primary sources, often quoting characters from the game. It seems to me this article is of particular interest to you, and therefore I have no reason to assume good faith on your part. All I see here is you picking on this article because of its offensive nature... if I'm wrong, then I apologize. But you do not seem to indicate otherwise. You claim to be upholding Wikipedia's highest virtues (Verifiability and Notablity) but actually you're just trying to censor this page. I checked the edit history and read this entire talk page. If you think this game isn't notable, then I suggest you nominate it for deletion... instead of holding it hostage and conforming it to your POV. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary

I meant "level".68.148.164.166 (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)