Talk:Playboy Special Edition

List in article

The list is too long, serves no real purpose, and should be removed. Either that, or this article needs to become a list page, rather than an article page, with a name and formatting that reflects that. I removed the listcruft myself and that was reverted. If no one raises an objection in the next few days, I'll remove it again. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Keep list in article. Sp-mxs5md Wha? 07:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Keep list in article. 64.203.10.167 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Special Collections

I have a two one-offs which came with my subscription, but I'm not where it would fit in this article. There's no indication that they were sold in stores, and seem to be only bonus items issued to subscribers. They're marked "A special collection".

The first is "Playboy Presents 50 Beautiful Women". It's staple bound, published in 1989, and the covergirl is Robin Eisenmann.

The second is "Playboy's Midnight Playmates". Also staple bound, published in 1990, and the covergirl is Suzi Schott. 64.203.10.167 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I reckon your bonus issues do not fit the Special Editions/Supplements article. Sp-mxs5md (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is in wretched shape and needs major revisions . . .

. . . which I performed this morning, only to be summarily reverted without explanation by a borderline (albeit long-term) SPA. This article, as it stands, is mostly a poorly-sourced issue-by-issue listing of every minor magazine Playboy has published for the last 30 years, at such a level of detail that the cover models are also named. (And models are characterized as "unknown" whenever editors don't recognize them, which isn't a valid encyclopedic practice.) There are no other articles like this on Wikipedia; it's just overly detailed fancruft. It clearly runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO, two principles which enjoy strong community support. The page is also a humongous redlink farm that no one is watching over, leading to such absurdities as a sixtyish British Olympic competitor being identified as the cover model of the 2004 issue of "Nude College Girls". And he's male. I also think that such casual misidentifications as declaring that Portuguese Olympic swimmer has been a Playboy model, rather than the similarly named reality TV contestant, raise significant BLP issuea. Aside from that nearly-useless laundry list, my correction of bad links, spam removal, NPOV cleanup, and general copyedits were all reverted without explanation. I'm not the first experienced user to express concern over this mess, see above, and I see no good reason not to restore my improvements (and fix a few other flaws I've noticed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe you could have shown some courtesy towards the contributors of this page by discussing your changes (chopping 75% of the article) in the talk page BEFORE making the changes.

Funny that you talk about WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO when you contribute to articles such as The_Simpsons_(season_23) where every episode of every season is listed and detailled. Maybe you should delete all these lists too...

Also, concerning the sixtyish British Olympic competitor, the article was created in 2009 while the link in the current article was added in 2004. The author of the new article should have checked all articles linking to the new article (you know, that "What links here" link in the toolbox) and made the necessary corrections.

Furthermore, you:

• deleted information about the end of publication of the magazine
• deleted new (albeit temporary) website address
• removed image
• removed information (some series are shown as having X issues, others are simply denoted as "series")
• added inaccurary (example: College Girls (four one-shots, 1983-1993)). Do you know what "one-shot" means? How can you have FOUR "one-shots"?
• misplaced issues (example: Bunnies #3 in Supplements instead of SE).
• etc...

Sp-mxs5md (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

To reply to a few points in this amorphous complaint:

• The phrase "series of one-shots" appears in three dozen other Wikipedia articles and has nearly one million Ghits. The phrase "one-shot", in the context of publishing, does not mean "published exactly once and never again."
• It's not appropriate to wikilink every name in an article without regard to the existence of bio articles for those names, or to insist that it's the responsibility of editors creating unrelated bios to clean up such a mess.
• There's a conspicuous difference between sourced descriptions of episodes of major TV series and unsourced laundry lists with little or no descriptive information of every issue ever published of dozens of magazines, a difference reflected by consensus practice regarding those subjects.
• Message board posts are generally not acceptable sources under WP:RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion ends here for me, do as you want... Sp-mxs5md (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)