Talk:Playboy: Difference between revisions
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
Calm down. No one is implying that the game is a major part of Playboy's history, because it is not. I am the author of that line, and whereas I agree it is not a major part of the history it was not written in that context and you are overreacting. It ''should'' have a place in the article though, as should the other merchandise - although maybe not in the place that it is currently. |
Calm down. No one is implying that the game is a major part of Playboy's history, because it is not. I am the author of that line, and whereas I agree it is not a major part of the history it was not written in that context and you are overreacting. It ''should'' have a place in the article though, as should the other merchandise - although maybe not in the place that it is currently. |
||
[[User:Speedway|Speedway]] 16:29 15 April 2005 UTC |
[[User:Speedway|Speedway]] 16:29 15 April 2005 UTC |
||
:WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALK ABOUT? :-) I don't mind if you mention merchandise near the end of this article. I'm not a Playboy expert so let the other people decide. I was just expressing my opinion. --[[User:Anonymous Cow|Anonymous Cow]] 16:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:00, 16 April 2005
Good article but lack of pictures :-)
While the 1st issue is nice, the logo should really be added. -LtNOWIS 02:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Marilyn Monroe article says that she was the secong article. Which one is correct? - User:Olivier
"This page has been accessed 4928 times." Good grief! I guess the saying "sex sells" applies here as well as anywhere else. -- Modemac
Since market capitalization (share price times outstanding shares, I believe) fluctuates so much, is the market cap at a specific time -- even if it's labeled as being a snapshot -- really useful or pertinent information? --Calieber 16:33, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I've thought about this and think it could be fair to put in a years graphs, like ones that could be found on Yahoo! Business. Although I think it should be on a subpage, say Playboy/Financial 2004. Then you can have the relevant links on the front page and link to somewhere with the background info towards the back of the company. Now just to find the fool who would would update it daily... (c; Webhat 01:51, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
I've discovered a possible copyright violation which I would like confirmed before I do anything.
Most of the text on the Playboy page seems to come from the following page: [1], which contains the following notice Copyright © 2003 WorldSexExplorer.com. All Rights Reserved.
It is also copied on [2], although I think they got it from here... I'm not sure what to do about this besides from this message. -- Webhat 02:18, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content. I'm fairly sure the copyright violation goes the other way -- WorldSexExplorer ripped it from here, without crediting the source. — No-One Jones (talk) 02:24, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, it was my first violation note. -- Webhat 02:37, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
First full frontal nudity
In the article it claims that the first full-frontal nudity of a Playmate (not the dancer) occurred in 1971, Liv Lindeland. It also claims that the shot of her pubic hair was in a mirror's reflection.
I have recently come across jpegs which show that Liv Lindeland's full-frontal nudity is not reflected, but it a straight-on shot, and that she isn't the first after all. I have a jpeg of Melodye Prentiss from 1968 whose pubic hair is visible.
That JPEG couldn't have come from any of Melodye's 1968 appearances because there is no pubic hair visible in any photo of hers.
The playboys
Do we have articles about play-boys, either jet-set or choirboys? -- Error 01:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Playboy as Pornography?
I would have to differ here. To me, Playboy is erotic, highly so in many cases, but I would still stop short of calling it porn because it is nowhere near as full-on as many hardcore magazines. Unlike those, Playboy shows women as sexy, sensual, elegant, classy and mysterious (and yes highly arouseing! Why not?). In short I think it gives them more respect than hardcore mags, so I'm going to remove the line that calls it a pornographic magazine. Fergananim.
- I agree. It may have been seen as pornographic once, but the term has evolved and today Playboy is more properly labeled an Erotic men's magazine. Shanes 12:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd like to spank one of those butties!
British Playboy in 1953?
The article says there was a British version of Playboy published in 1953 (in the international editions section). I find that hard to believe. The American version of the magazine began in 1953 and published only a single issue in December of that year. I find it unlikely Hefner was already expanding into the international market within weeks of his first publication. MK2 07:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Want to get rid of a line
The magazine and following empire has spawned a video game which allows the user to create the Playboy brand from scratch.
Okay, so Playboy's recent history is all about a critically bomb video game? The game is not notable to be in the introduction stuff. There are a lot of Playboy merchandise. Playboy is all about the magazine and somewhat the television channel. --Anonymous Cow 00:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Calm down. No one is implying that the game is a major part of Playboy's history, because it is not. I am the author of that line, and whereas I agree it is not a major part of the history it was not written in that context and you are overreacting. It should have a place in the article though, as should the other merchandise - although maybe not in the place that it is currently. Speedway 16:29 15 April 2005 UTC
- WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALK ABOUT? :-) I don't mind if you mention merchandise near the end of this article. I'm not a Playboy expert so let the other people decide. I was just expressing my opinion. --Anonymous Cow 16:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)