Talk:Sexual chat roleplay

This seems highly speculative. Is it based on serious research, or is it rumour or even fantasy itself? It may well be happening. But unless it's verifiable, it doesn't belong here. And that means verifiable by research, not just something that sounds credible and/or has similarly speculated elsewhere.

First step is to identify the sources of these claims, which may not be easy, as stories like this tend to have wings. Andrewa 13:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You can verify it by yourself by visiting #cybersex on Undernet or DALnet.


 * Thank you. But, if that's merely sites offering or displaying this sort of activity (and I'm guessing this is the case), then that's data for study but it's not the research itself, and as such wouldn't be verification for the claims made in the article. It would be verification if the article itself is original research (which this article may well be), but if so the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia.


 * I'm sure there are also sites describing and promoting this sort of activity. But the question is, should we repeat their claims in Wikipedia? Not without some further justification, IMO. Andrewa 20:21, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a teenage giggle-fest. As it stands, this page is an embarassment to the project. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:16, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a challenge. It's one of the many contributions of user:141. Now, sexology has been accepted by Wikipedia as a valid subject, and I think that's true. But so far, it has proved to be a problematic one. There was quite a battle over the Kinsey report article, which seems to have been worth it. But IMO most of the articles currently listed on List of sexology topics could be listed on cleanup as well, and very few of them would make it to Wikipedia 1.0 even with a lot of work.


 * Perhaps this is not surprising, and it probably doesn't matter. We can't expect to cover all fields equally well. If at present we cover this field badly, that just means that the contributors doing most of the work in the area don't have the resources to do better. And if you just ask yourself, who is going to spend time on this subject, compared to who is going to write about trilobites for example, well, you'd expect a difference I think. There's a certain amount of teen giggle factor in it, and a bit of dirty old man factor as well, and fixing it all takes time.


 * So we just do the best we can. I'll be interested to see what the result is for this article. I'm tempted to list it on VfD and may eventually, but I thought I'd try cleanup first. Andrewa 01:39, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If there's no further attempt to fix or justify this article, I'll eventually list it on VfD without further notice. Andrewa 16:24, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VfD
Article listed on Votes for deletion Apr 15 to Apr 20 2004; consensus was to delete however I redirected to Cybersex because of the number of other articles that link here. Discussion below pasted from vfd. -- Graham :) | Talk 23:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From Cleanup: Sexual chat roleplay probably original research and/or rumour, see its talk Andrewa
 * delete; just a jokeing vulgarity. no need to keep that; unless it is much more formal..
 * Merge with Cybersex. Exploding Boy 10:25, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, no improvement, don't pollute the cybersex article with this speculation. See talk:sexual chat roleplay. Andrewa 10:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutral on merging. Cribcage 16:23, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Either redirect ti cybersex, or delete. -Sean 21:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End pasted discussion.