Talk:Playgirl
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Ambiguous External Link[edit]
At the bottom of the page there's a link to playgirl.com. However at that page it says the site is not in any way connected with Playgirl the magazine. This should be clarified. 71.129.57.170 (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress[edit]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Playgirl (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion was closed as no consensus to move the articles. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Centerfold list removed[edit]
All this was removed today by another editor, and I don't know if that was appropriate. Seems like an awful lot of verifiable info to be removed in one sweep without discussion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
list
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Back and forth with this. Removed again as "unsourced" - wouldn't it be obvious that the centerfold of each magazine is a reliable source? Removal seems unmotivated - I am restoring this this myself time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you feel like splitting this into a list article I wouldn't object, but it isn't really notable enough for such a huge list in the main article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand how it is non-notable here but would be notable in a list article. Nor do I intend to make any changes. I tend to appreciate when someone has done this much work to provide sourced info. That tends to inspire others to do so. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't mean notability as in WP:N, but more in terms of WP:SUMMARY. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- These kinds of lists seem common. List of Penthouse Pets of the Month. But it'd need sources, of course. Will Beback talk 05:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to me the magazine itself is the source, reliably published as it always has been. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose that's the case, though this publication may be difficult to verify due to the relative shortage of libraries which carry it.[1] The biggest concern with a list like this is that teen-aged vandals will add the names of their colleagues. Wikipedia:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. Will Beback talk 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Vandalism is vandalism no matter where. Semi-protect? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Vandalism is somewhat more common with articles like this. If it's practically impossible to verify the list then it's harder to spot and correct the vandalism. Has any active editor here actually verified the existing names on the list? Long-term semi-protection is undesirable, but if it were a standalone list the protection wouldn't impact the rest of the article. Will Beback talk 19:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Vandalism is vandalism no matter where. Semi-protect? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose that's the case, though this publication may be difficult to verify due to the relative shortage of libraries which carry it.[1] The biggest concern with a list like this is that teen-aged vandals will add the names of their colleagues. Wikipedia:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. Will Beback talk 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to me the magazine itself is the source, reliably published as it always has been. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- These kinds of lists seem common. List of Penthouse Pets of the Month. But it'd need sources, of course. Will Beback talk 05:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't mean notability as in WP:N, but more in terms of WP:SUMMARY. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand how it is non-notable here but would be notable in a list article. Nor do I intend to make any changes. I tend to appreciate when someone has done this much work to provide sourced info. That tends to inspire others to do so. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you feel like splitting this into a list article I wouldn't object, but it isn't really notable enough for such a huge list in the main article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Another concern with this list is making sure that linked entries go to the models and not to biographies of other people. For example, Bob Prince was born in 1916, so I doubt he was a model in 1975. Glenn Brown was born in 1966, but is he the person who appeared? Unless we learn more, it's impossible to say. Will Beback talk 19:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I've removed it again. If someone would like to create the standalone list article and verify the links, they should feel free to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Woops! Where did you find consensus to do that? I don't see it. But I'm not going to reverse you again, because this isn't important enough to me to edit war about. Seems to be of considerable importance to you to remove this list, and I doubt if you will be providing that extra article.
- I'm sorry to have to say, with all due respect, that I must find your actions here unreasonable and arbitrary and not in the best interest of WP, starting with your removing all that in the first place without a word on this talk page. In principle, I don't think such behavior is appropriate ever. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:BOLD supports my first actions here. Obviously I disagree that I've behaved unreasonably, but as you will. The list was problematic, as agreed by two editors here; if you feel otherwise, then by all means create the article for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I've removed it again. If someone would like to create the standalone list article and verify the links, they should feel free to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Another concern with this list is making sure that linked entries go to the models and not to biographies of other people. For example, Bob Prince was born in 1916, so I doubt he was a model in 1975. Glenn Brown was born in 1966, but is he the person who appeared? Unless we learn more, it's impossible to say. Will Beback talk 19:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed[edit]
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.academia.edu/531018/CONSUMING_LIBERATION_PLAYGIRL_AND_THE_STRATEGIC_RHETORIC_OF_SEX_MAGAZINES_FOR_WOMEN_1972-1985. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Celebrity Nudes[edit]
There was a list of celebrities who posed nude/semi-nude for the magazine which was deleted on April 11, 2014. That list was useful for something I'm writing and I just came back to double-check a name and discovered the whole section's been reduced to a single line about the magazine's monthly screen-cap column (and a single line thoroughly negates the need for an entire section) -- I contend that the list should be reinstated. A hell of a lot of celebrities have graced the cover, been interviewed and appeared in screen-caps from movies, but very few of them have actually posed for pictorials. VinnieRattolle (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, User:VinnieRattolle. While I'm not the person who removed the list, I noticed the removal and actually support it due to its inconsistencies with some of our core policies. Our policy on biographical material on living people requires high quality sources when discussing them. Sadly, there was not a single source to substantiate the inclusion of any individual on that list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Playgirl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008100051/http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/08/crescent.shtm to http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/08/crescent.shtm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Article needs to be updated[edit]
Playgirl was relaunched again in 2020. Article needs to be updated to reflect that. — I'ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 |📖📚) 03:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)