Talk:The Playboy Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit request[edit]

{{Request edit}} I don't have a conflict of interest but two other editors who have added material, Kaitlanelizabeth and Joanphilo, do. The former states that she appears in this series and the latter identifies herself as the casting agent who placed the actors in the series. The information in the Cast section that starts with "The 20 Bunnies..." through the end of the list of names needs to be removed as unverifiable information about living persons. Thanks. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Those users do have a conflict of interest however their information may be correct. Joanphilo has had several casting call listings in the Chicago, IL area for this particular show the appeared in early February around the time the pilot was shot (which was shot in chicago). This casting agent is a decently well known casting agency in the midwest as well. So this looks like it may be factual information.

Source 1:

Source 2:!!!-656.html

As for the actress list poster by Kaitlanelizabeth. Some of the actresses in that list posted do in fact appear in the imdb listing for this show. However it looks like the " bunnies" are uncredited. Since they are uncredited, it may take some time to fully verify this list however the initial run through shows at least some of the names to be credible.

IMDB Listing:

In addition for this particular user her twitter account has some notable conversations with known people in this shown. Mainly the main actor's wife Leann Rhymes and a confirmed actress in the show Lindsay Davis.!/leannrimes/status/53196205651542016!/LindsayLuvDavis/status/59020138002923520

--Nothingmore06 (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Whether or not it's factual, it's not verifiable, which is the relevant standard. IMDB is not a reliable source (indeed, it has the name of the show wrong and until yesterday it listed it as a TV movie, not a series). Even if it were reliable, it doesn't include all of the listed names and those it does list are tagged as uncredited, which in most cases means "extra". Twitter is not a reliable source since by its definition it is self-published. So what we have here is an unverifiable listing of extras placed in an article by a casting agent in a bid for self-promotion. This violates any number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I don't see how this is even a close call. The information should be removed until such time as it is verifiable by someone who is not connected to the series. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Production company category[edit]

Please do not add the production company category in the absence of a reliable source that specifically says "produced by Fox Television Studios". The two companies are separate entities and assuming that the involvement of one means the involvement of the other is original research. Source it or don't add it. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Note under Category:Television series by Fox Television Studios, for inclusion in the category: Television programs produced, licensed and/or syndicated by 20th Century Fox Television, Fox Television Studios, Fox Television Stations Group, Regency Television, MTM Enterprises, New World Television, Four Star Television, selected programming from Cannell Entertainment Inc., Fox 21, Blair Entertainment, most programs by Genesis Entertainment (except for Highway to Heaven), and 20th Television. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
And we know that unsourced statement is accurate based on what? Harley Hudson (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
What part of the source for "A co-production by 20th Century Fox Television and Imagine Entertainment," as stated in the Production section do you not get? The fact that it is a production of "Twentieth Century Fox TV" (as clearly stated in the source), or that it cannot be included in Category:Television series by Fox Television Studios, where 20th Century Fox Television is listed as criteria for inclusion? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Well since you asked so politely, the part I don't "get" is why you didn't answer the question that I actually asked, which is "And we know that unsourced statement is accurate based on what?" Now I suppose it's possible that you didn't understand that the "unsourced statement" to which I was referring was the unsourced statement in the category description and not something within the article, so I'll ask again: And we know that unsourced statement in the category description is accurate based on what? Harley Hudson (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you should bring that up at categories for discussion or the talk page for Category:Television series by Fox Television Studios, etc. Arguing that sources are needed for the inclusion list in a category is not relevant here. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no unsourced statement on the category page, that's just the scope of the category, and this article falls under the scope of that category. If you think the scope of the category is to wide then you can discuss that, as Logical Fuzz said, at CfD or the categories talk page. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Scarlet Bunny/The Scarlett Bunny[edit]

Only two episode into this series this edit highlighted what should be a relatively minor problem with episode 2. As the editor indicated, NBC's website calls the episode "The Scarlet Bunny" (one "t" in "Scarlet"),[1] while the citation previously used in the article listed the episode as "The Scarlett Bunny" (two "t"s). While this really shouldn't be a problem, experience has shown that edit wars will occur over contradictory spelling, different air dates shown by different reliable sources and even punctuation. Normally, the primary source (ie the network's website) would be authoritative but a check of reliable sources commonly used for episode information revealed that Zap2it and TV Guide both use "Scarlett",[2][3] as does the Futon Critic, which reproduces NBC's press release. That press release also uses two "t"s,[4] so we have a situation where the primary source (NBC) contradicts itself. Unfortunately, experience has also shown that, despite best efforts to educate, many editors think iMDB and are also reliable sources. Both of these use the single t, ie "The Scarlet Bunny".[5][6] Pre-empting the inevitable edit war, I added "The Scarlett Bunny" as an |AltTitle= as NBC's website, which uses only one "t" and is more current than the press release, with an appropriate hidden note and a descriptive edit summary,[7] but it was reverted, without explanation.[8] With multiple sources, reliable and unreliable, using two different spellings, we really need to cover both, without giving one undue weight over the other by listing only one, until the correct spelling is resolved. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of[edit]

Re: my latest reversion - While is not considered reliable for actor bios and plot synopses (they are edited by everyday schmoes like you and me), the cast and production info is very reliable. Imdb has a staff that checks and rechecks cast, director, production, etc. and vets the information first before it is added. I read a very recent discussion about this very thing on at least one noticeboard (probably at a project noticeboard) - and I wish I could find it to use as a reference to cite. I will look for it to provide here, but for now, could we just suffice it to say that imdb = reliable ref for production info and bad for actor bios? I have reverted it back for the last time today so as not to test the limits of 3RR. Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been numerous discussions at WP:RSN debating the reliability of imdb[9] and the consensus is that it just isn't reliable. This is reinforced at WP:RS/IMDB which states "The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged." Better sources should always be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I just read that, too. Regardless, I have yet to find anywhere reliable that gives information on the episode as far as director and writer. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Until such time as we do have a reliable source with that information, it can't be in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, in that case, until there is a reliable reference for any of the credits (or the episode airs), it should be removed. That includes the "production numbers" and there seems to be some conflict on whether or not they are correct as well. (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the "Series overview" section necessary?[edit]

All it really contributes to the article is the fact that the series had five episodes and it repeats the series premiere and finale dates. Since this info is already covered in the "Episodes" section as well as other areas of the article, I'd suggest we remove it. I think it also disrupts the flow of the sections a bit. — Hunter Kahn 01:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In most TV series it's relevant but here, where we only have 5 episodes and there are no DVD releases, it's unnecessary and just a waste of space. If another station picks it up, the table can always be added later. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Number of episodes[edit]

Chad Hodge (the shows creator and executive producer) and Laura Benanti (one of the lead actors) have both confirmed that they finished seven episodes. Being straight from the horse's mouth, this is as reliable as a source can get for such information. There seems to be one editor still unhappy with this, but I am not sure what to do about it. Input from other editors would be welcome. —MJBurrage(TC) 23:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there are 7 episodes, unfortunately, I'm thinking that Twitter would not be considered a reliable source. But you're welcome to find out differently as well as other sources. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Twitter is not a source, it is a medium. Hodge and Benanti are the sources. —MJBurrage(TC) 23:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You are using Twitter postings as a source. Who's to say that those Twitter accounts actually belong to the people they say they belong to? This states "reasonable doubt". I believe that there is reasonable doubt whether or not the owners of these Twitter accounts are who they say they are. It would be better to get an unquestionable reliable source for this information, then you can likely get by with using the Twitter posts as sources as well. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
NBC links to the official "The Playboy Club" twitter from NBC's website. The official TPC twitter follows only 14 people (all producers, crew, etc) and Hodge is one of them. Laura Benanti's official page ( confirms her twitter, facebook, etc. I would not have posted the information without checking the source of the tweets. —MJBurrage(TC) 23:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I suppose what you could do is reinsert the Tweets, but also look for better sources - the tweets are likely to be challenged by others in the future. And - start a new section (something like "Vetting Twitter posts as reliable sources for article") and put your rationale and links to the NBC listing of Hodges and Benanti's Twitter accounts. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I have looked for other sources, but the show is not being covered by the media anymore. So unless/until a DVD release, the word of the creator and a star is probably all we will get. This detail—a subject speaking about their own completed work—is a specific exception to not generally using twitter as a source. Twitter: Sources on themselves.
Should I add the confirmation of the twitter feeds to the citations, and put them back in the infobox? —MJBurrage(TC) 23:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I would give it a try. It's possible someone may still either challenge or remove it entirely. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Steinem photo[edit]

I think it's appropriate for a photo of Steinem to be in this article considering her connection to the Playboy Club (the actual entity) as well as her call to boycott the show. That being said, I'm concerned that with the photo of her as the only photo in the body of the article right now, it's giving undue weight to Steinem. After all, the article is about the show, not the controversy surrounding the show. If we were able to get a free copy of the image of her as an undercover reporter posing as a Playboy Bunny in the 60s, that would be much more appropriate and fitting for this article. For those too young to remember (or even know) that Steinem worked very briefly as a Bunny, a copy of the photo I'm referring to is found here. Productive comments are welcomed, of course. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Steinem was relevant to the original club but not the series, she's just somebody who has commented on it and it's undue weight to include her photo here without including other commentators, even more so when there aren't even cast photos. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Fine. Your feelings on this are noted. But...removing the photo when discussion about the image had already been started was premature and bad form. Other editors need to weigh in on this (including the one who put the photo here to begin with). I have replaced the photo. And one more thing: it would be best to use policy on this one, rather than personal feelings. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I also think the photo gives undo weight to Steinem. The show had a variety of critics before it was aired, and while some of them claimed credit after the fact, there is no evidence that anything other than viewer apathy caused the show's cancellation. —MJBurrage(TC) 18:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I added the photo in the first place, and I believe it's perfectly appropriate to include in this section. This particular section is about the protests the show drew, and Steinem was one of the most vocal and highest-profile of these protests. In fact, while the other protesters who drew media attention were organizations, she was the only to draw the same level of media attention (if not more) as an individual rather than a group, so I think it makes sense that there be an image of her above all others. Plus she has the connection to the actual Playboy Club itself and Playboy Bunnies, as Lhb1239 pointed out. I don't think the argument that there are no other images in the article, thus the Steinem one should be removed, holds much water; the rest of the article is gradually being expanded, and images will eventually be added to the additional sections. Finally, as far as Lhb1239's concern that a photo of Steinhem from the 1960s might be better than this, I'm open to considering an alternative picture if you can bring one forward, but I personally felt it made more sense to include an image closer to how she looks today, since the subject of the article is a 2010s television series. — Hunter Kahn 20:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not there are ever cast or production photos; What does Steinem's picture add to this article? —MJBurrage(TC) 22:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It provides an illustration for a subject that plays a major part of this particular section of the article, namely the protests. — Hunter Kahn 22:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
She is not the subject of the section, criticism by her and others is. What she looks like has nothing to do with that criticism, and thus a picture of her is not germane to said section. —MJBurrage(TC) 00:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well don't forget, MJBurrage. that your strong statements above are really only your opinion. Others who choose to weigh in on this discussion may agree with you, but I really wish you would be sure to state your opinions as if they are your own. Of course, if you can name a WP policy that would back up the personal opinion you're stating here, then policy would outweigh the opinions of others, regardless (then again, there's always interpretation of policy that can gum up the works ;-) Lhb1239 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the photo Steinem, but would rather see the current photo along with the Steinem/Bunny photo combined. If that can't be accomplished, then the Steinem photo - as far as I'm concerned - can stay. Looking over this policy, I don't see how keeping the photo would be against anything the Manual of Style states. The inclusion of it may be a little weighty right now, but when other photos become available, undue weight would be a moot point. Having it in the article at this point isn't going to hurt anything, in my opinion. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
@Lhb1239 - I'd actually removed the image before I saw the discussion here. My opinion based on applicable policies remains, singling Steinem out of several commentators gives undue weight to her opinion. This is not a newspaper, seeking attention for each article by adding attention grabbing images, it's an encyclopaedia and we have to maintain a neutral point of view. The image doesn't give the appearance of neutrality. All that should be included is a link to her article, as is done with other commentators. MJBurrage is correct in stating that there is no evidence that anything other than a lack of viewers caused the show's cancellation, so opinions that Steinem is somehow more relevant than other commentators just don't stand up under Wikipedia:Verifiability. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • AussieLegend, what I feel makes Gloria Steinem stand out as compared to the other commentators is the fact that she is the only one speaking out as an individual, whereas the others are groups. If an individual person from the PTC or Morality in Media spoke out separately from their capacity in those groups, notable sources like newspaper articles and magazines would ignore them. But due to her past association with the Playboy club brand, when Gloria Steinem did it, those same notable sources printed stories about it. That's why I think having a photo of her in this particular section is not giving her undue weight. — Hunter Kahn 14:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not maintaining the neutral point of view that we are required to. It might be fine to do that in a newspaper or a magazine, but not in an encyclopaedia. Steinem's past association with Playboy shouldn't be something we force the reader to deal with. We just present the facts. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • How exactly is it not neutral to include a photo of the only individual whose opposition to the show was important enough to achieve notability by Wikipedia's standards (as indicated by significant coverage in secondary reliable sources per WP:N and WP:RS)? It's not like there are 50 individuals listed in this section and we chose a photo of one because we liked or disliked that person. There was one individual, so including a photo of her doesn't give undue weight, and certainly doesn't demonstrate any lack of neutrality. — Hunter Kahn 14:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Aussie, it's fine that you were being bold and removing the photo, however, when you saw that a discussion had already ensued, the right thing to do would have been to return the photo until the discussion had run its course.
Now, to the above points:
  • Placing photos in Wikipedia doesn't make it a "magazine" and no one is trying to "seek attention" to articles or sections and no one was just "grabbing photos". Please stop with the personal commentary that's bordering on a personal attack and concentrate on the facts and edits as well as the question at hand.
  • The image does nothing to the neutrality of the article (as you argue more than once above). It that were the case, no Wikipedia articles would have photos in them depicting and illustrating various points and content article.
  • No one said Steinem's comments on the show carried more weight than anyone else's. Are you aware of a photo out there that shows the individuals of the PCT posing either separately or as a group? If so, we could put that in if giving equal time through images is what you're concerned about. But even so, the Steinem image on its own doesn't show preference to Steinem whatsoever.
  • Your argument that placing photos in an article is "forcing" the reader to do something they wouldn't want to do is, in a word, ridiculous. Again, if that were the case, WP articles wouldn't have photos in them that had pictures of anything other than the article's subject. The image is placed near relevant text and therefore meets the policy guidelines for image placement.
  • I suggest you refer to this and this for more information on the use and placement of images in Wikipedia articles.
Although I originally brought discussion here regarding the Steinem photo from a concern I had regarding undue weight, I no longer feel that way because of Hunter Kahn's argument above citing Steinem's journalistic experience as a Bunny, her outspoken disdain for the place since the 60s, and her comments now. She was influentual previously in her vocal criticism of the place decades ago, and she was likely influential this time in regard to the show, as well. The article content mentions her as more than just another schmoe voicing their opinion against it, so I say the photo stays. As well, new photos have been added, so the undue weight question is now completely off the table.
Lhb1239 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There was no need to restore the image. Only you and I had commented in the "discussion" and we both felt the image placed undue weight on Steinem's opinion. In any case, you restored the image only 13 minutes after I posted here. I didn't say that placing images in the article turned it into a magazine. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my meaning but I don't see why you would construe that as a personal attack. My point is that images here should be not be decorative. In magazines and newspapers, images are used to attract the reader to a particular article, section or advertisement. In an encyclopaedia they are generally used to visually identify or demonstrate some aspect of the article, for example to provide an example of the architecture in a geographical location or to visually identify major cast members of a TV program. This type of image does not affect neutrality of an article as it's identifying something directly related to the subject of the article so your argument that "It[sic] that were the case, no Wikipedia articles would have photos in them depicting and illustrating various points and content article" is not valid. Images grab the attention of the reader and by including an image of one commentator (it doesn't matter that it is Steinem, it could be any of the commentators) it draws the readers attention to that person and it's human nature to wonder why that particular person was chosen above the others. It's also human nature for the reader to then give more weight to that person's opinion, even if it's not the intention to do that with the image. Your statement that "WP articles wouldn't have photos in them that had pictures of anything other than the article's subject" is actually valid. Images in articles are supposed to be directly relevant to the subject. Cast photos are initimately related to the subject so we expect them. We don't expect images of 3rd party commentators. We wouldn't expect an image of Patrick Trueman in the article, despite him being named, so why Steinem? She may have disguised herself as a bunny to get inside Playboy in the past but she didn't do it on this program. Given the storyline it might be appropriate in A Matter of Simple Duplicity as a comparison, provided that episode was notable enough for an article and there were reliable sources that made the comparison, but here her comments are simply as a commentator so we shouldn't draw undue attention to her. That you started this discussion suggesting that the image gave undue weight to Steinem demonstrates what I'm arguing, despite your subsequent change of opinion. Regarding the addition to your post,[10] the addition of images doesn't change a thing. Steinem's image is the only image in the entire "Reception" section. The other images have nothing to do with that. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


  • "There was no need to restore the image" - Wow, that is just so completely wrong - from an Wikiquette stance as well as talk page/discussion procedural stance. You removed the image when a discussion regarding the placement of the image into the article was in progress. It doesn't matter how many had commented on it already, talk page discussions re: content usually always generate more discussion from several editors over time.
  • "My point is that images here should be not be decorative" - And the image of Steinem definitely isn't meant to be decorative eye-candy, it relates directly to the content in the section in which it is included.
  • "it draws the readers attention to that person and it's human nature to wonder why that particular person was chosen above the others." And, hopefully, by the time the reader has gotten to that part of the article, they have (a) already understood that Steinem had a lot to say about the show, contributing to the controversy and negative criticism surrounding it, and/or (b) have seen the photo and are looking closer at the section it's attached to in order to find out why Steinem's photo is there to begin with. Either scenario makes for the reader's interest being piqued, which is why people come to Wikipedia as a reference in the first place. Seems to me that in this manner, both The Project as well as the reader are well served.
  • "It's also human nature for the reader to then give more weight to that person's opinion" - Wikipedia isn't, and should never become, a resource that babysits the reader. Aside from that, we are not supposed to be judge and jury and psychologists determining what human nature is going to cause the reader to feel or think. That's not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation or its editors. As long as NPOV is adhered to (and in this case it is), the reader is free to do what they will with the information they find in the article.
  • "We don't expect images of 3rd party commentators." - Who's "we" there a policy on that?
  • "That you started this discussion suggesting that the image gave undue weight to Steinem demonstrates what I'm arguing, despite your subsequent change of opinion." - Which I am free to do and did do based on thinking a little harder and looking a little closer at policy. I'm making my decision to change my original thought on this discussion based on policy and the logical argument presented by the editor who placed the image in the article to begin with. Your decision here appears to be based on personal opinion only - and you have yet to name a policy that supports to your opinion. As far as what I wrote originally demonstrating your argument - no, that's not the case at all. My original concern was over undue weight and my reasons were based on the fact that there were no other images in the article (save the infobox). Now that there are other images in the body of the article, my original point is moot. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "You removed the image when a discussion regarding the placement of the image into the article was in progress." - A discussion involves more than one person and at the time I removed the image there was only one person involved in the "discussion". I wasn't aware of your post. You were free to restore the image if you if you wanted, and you did. I don't see why you're going on about this. It's an incredibly minor issue.
  • "And the image of Steinem definitely isn't meant to be decorative eye-candy" - Yet it adds nothing to the article. What encyclopaedic value is there in knowing what Steinem looks like?
  • "And, hopefully, by the time the reader has gotten to that part of the article" - Hopefully, but it's not guaranteed. I certainly saw the photo before I read the content. That's the problem with images, they pull your attention away from the text. Because there's doubt as to the effect of the image, it's best left out.
  • "Wikipedia isn't, and should never become, a resource that babysits the reader." - Agreed, but it shouldn't direct the reader either, which is why we have WP:NPOV.
  • "Who's "we" there a policy on that?" - We would be Wikipedia and....there is certainly general consensus. Have a look at other articles to see what is expected. You should also look at various policies and guidelines, WP:TVRECEPTION for example: "These reviews can either critique the show, or comments on its impact. They should not just be descriptions of the episodes, and preferably should not exceed two or three sentences per critic, so as not to apply undue weight to any given reviewer." Since the "Protests" section is part of the "Reception" section, that applies to Steinem. Not only does she get some prose, she gets a photo as well. It's undue weight.
  • "Which I am free to do and did do based on thinking a little harder and looking a little closer at policy" - Hopefully others wouldthionk harder too and form their own opinions, but we can't be sure of that. That's why we act neutrally and don't try to push readers one way or the other. Giving reviewers and commentators equal space is part of that. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and we can't second-guess or predict what readers are going to think or do when reading an article and then fashion every Wikipedia article around that prediction or possibility. You keep saying that we are to report the facts. Well, the fact is that Steinem has a past connection to the actual Playboy Club, she was very vocal about her opposition to Playboy and the Playboy Club in the past, and she's been vocal about it again in relation to the TV series. You do realize that her opinion was very influential way-back-when and is still considered to be so today, don't you? Do you also realize that in the last aired episode that the Bunny who is actually a reporter was based on her, right? Lhb1239 (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
"Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and we can't second-guess or predict what readers are going to think or do" - Yes, that's why I cited WP:NPOV in response to your "Hopefully" argument above.
"Well, the fact is that Steinem has a past connection to the actual Playboy Club" - The actual Playboy Club is not this Playboy Club. This Playboy Club a work of fiction and Steinem's only connection to it is as an opponent to the series. WP:TVRECEPTION says she should get equal space to other critics. We don't need a photo to do that. We need not to have a photo to ensure it.
" You do realize that her opinion was very influential way-back-when" - We have no evidence that her opinion had anything to do with the cancellation of the program. We can't assume it did.
"Do you also realize that in the last aired episode that the Bunny who is actually a reporter was based on her, right?" - If you had been reading my posts you would have seen that I've already covered that when I said that the image "might be appropriate in A Matter of Simple Duplicity as a comparison, provided that episode was notable enough for an article and there were reliable sources that made the comparison, but here her comments are simply as a commentator so we shouldn't draw undue attention to her." That the reporter may have been based on her isn't even mentioned in this article so it's not a justification to keep the image. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "We wouldn't expect an image of Patrick Trueman in the article, despite him being named, so why Steinem?" Putting aside the fact that there aren't any available images of Trueman, I refer to my previous argument that Steinem is the only person (unless you can cite others?) who received media attention as an individual rather than a group. If Trueman in his individual capacity spoke out against this show, nobody in the media would care; they only listened because he was a spokesman for a group. Steinem spoke out in her own, and the media took heed based on her past and her relevance as an individual. That's not a distinction that Wikipedia editors have made, but rather secondary reliable sources did. Thus is makes sense that there would be a photo of her in this section, as opposed to Trueman or others. With regard to your argument, "Images in articles are supposed to be directly relevant to the subject," in this case it is, but only as far as the protests about the show are concerned. That's why it's appropriate that her photo be included in this section. With regard to your arguments about it being "human nature for the reader to then give more weight to that person's opinion", I don't think you can really speak for how other readers will interpret the use of the image, but even so, I think this argument is based on your personal opinion, not policy. I still also believe it's a weak argument to say the mere presence of an image raises neutrality questions. Nobody is going to read this article and think, "Well, I disagree with Gloria Steinem, but her picture is on the article, so I guess the editors think she's right, so she must be right." — Hunter Kahn 17:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeking more input[edit]

All of the above all being said, I feel like we've hit a bit of a wall here and aren't like to make much progress amongst ourselves, so I've asked others to weigh in with their opinions. I posted on the talk pages of the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and WikiProject Television for now. If you think of anywhere else we should ask, feel free to do so! — Hunter Kahn 17:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

An RfC might attract those who have signed up to be notified of Arts/TV, etc. article RfCs. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I can understand the opposition to sticking a picture of Steinem in there, as on a personal level I feel that her attitude towards pornography belongs in the Vatican - however, I think such an illustration could easily belong here, but would it be possible to stick it in a multi-picture template with someone who has criticised the show for its actual quality rather than objecting to its content? The reviews all seem to be pretty negative; which would allow the caption for such a multiple image to state something along the lines of "The Playboy Club has drawn criticism from television critics for its perceived quality, and from feminist critics for its content". That way you're encapsulating the show's criticism with a visual aid, rather than using one image which can be perceived as giving additional weight or validity to one writer's views. I understand this might not be possible since the only reviews currently in the article are from seemingly non-notable critics, but I'd be very surprised if someone more noteworthy hasn't passed comment on it somewhere along the line. GRAPPLE X 17:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
@Grapple: With your statement, "someone more noteworthy", are you saying that Steinem isn't "noteworthy" enough? Lhb1239 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
No, she is. I mean the television reviewers mentioned in the article aren't, or you could use a picture of one of them as well as Steinem's. GRAPPLE X 18:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay - thanks for clarifying. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Grapple, I've been expanding this article in recent days, and I still have a lot of expansion to do particularly in the "Reviews" section. I have lots of sources to add to it, which includes reviews that are both positive and negative, and I'll hopefully get to that within the next week or two. However, respectfully, I'm not sure a photo of one of the reviewers is really appropriate. First of all, I'm not sure if there are any photos out there of any of the reviewers, as they tend not to even have individual Wikipedia articles about themselves, let alone pictures. Secondly, though, those reviews will be part of the "Reviews" section, whereas the Gloria Steinem photo is in the "Protests" section. I feel we would be confusing things if we took an image of a reviewer from the "Reviews" section and put it alongside the image of Steinem in the "Protests" section. Thirdly, I think it would be further inappropriate to put up an image of a reviewer because there will be many reviewers, and just picking one of the many might raise some of the undue weight concerns that have been voiced above. Since Gloria Steinem is the only individual (as opposed to a group) whose calls for a protest were covered by the media, I don't think the undue weight argument applies there and the image is appropriate. — Hunter Kahn 21:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

We could use logos for groups along with pictures of individual critics/reviewers; but I still do not see what either adds to the article. What a critic/reviewer (or a groups logo) looks like would be germane in the articles about them, but unless the critique involved the critics looks what does it add? —MJBurrage(TC) 01:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the critics, I think a quote box would be a better alternative, one that is reflective of what many or a majority of the reviewers are saying. But that's a different argument than that of the Steinem photo. — Hunter Kahn 02:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
But Steinem is one of the critics, which was my point. In the article about the actual Playboy Club nightclub, a picture of her in the bunny suit when she worked there (or even better side-by-side of her in the suit and in regular clothes during a related interview) would be appropriate. But this article is about The Playboy Club television series, and while her opinion about the show is germane, what she looks like is not. If there was a source that gave her comments primary credit for the shows cancellation, that would be a reason to put them in a quote box. —MJBurrage(TC) 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the picture of her in the bunny suit under copyright? If so, there would not be contextual significance that warrants including it. As for including the 2008 picture, I think that if there has not been a sense of others rallying behind her specifically, the picture may be too much. I'd rather see a quote box from a full-fledged organization like Parents Television Council instead. (Also, if the picture is going to be used for now, it should be left-aligned since guidelines state pictures of someone facing a certain direction should be facing the text and not away.) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
MOS:IMAGES only says "It is often preferable", it doesn't mandate left placement of such images which breaks text flow and, in this article, directs the reader to Steinem's text, placing even more weight on her words than is appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't a picture of that more closely resembles what Steinem looked like during the time The Playboy Club aired be much more appropriate than that image? I understand a picture of her in the bunny suit ties directly into the content of the show and her history with the Playboy clubs, but the content of the article as it relates to Steinem is more focused on her statements in 2011, not her actions in the 60s. — Hunter Kahn 16:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The 2008 picture of Steinem is free to use. I'm assuming that Steinem in the bunny suit is not free, and with that being the case, I don't think that there is a compelling fair use rationale to show a non-free image of one of the topic's numerous commentators. Explaining her past involvement in text is sufficient. I'm not saying that the 2008 picture is critical to have. It's the kind of image to include to break up a wall of text, but since there is some perception of a slant, then we should find an alternative, may it be a quote box or another image. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair use isn't the issue. If you can't find rationale for eliminating the photo based on policy, then everything else is just personal opinion and really has no weight and is not germaine to this discussion. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, so far we've had WP:UNDUE, which is part of WP:NPOV, and WP:TVRECEPTION, but that apparently is unsufficient. As I'f yet I haven't seen how any policy actually supports inclusion of the image. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused about your stance. Are we talking about the free picture of Steinem from 2008 or the copyrighted picture of her as a Playboy bunny? You had said that the inclusion of the 2008 picture could be undue weight, which is what I meant by "some perception of a slant" and suggested an alternative. Fair use is part of it because we cannot use a copyrighted image of Steinem in a bunny suit regardless. For this topic, a TV series, such an image is far too tangential to be contextually significant. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As I stated yesterday, I have changed my stance regarding the inclusion of the Steinem photo (at this point it's difficult to wade through all the comments and remember who said what!). I no longer feel that inclusion of the photo is undue weight; more importantly, I believe that according to policy on including images in articles, this photo meets the requirements for inclusion, is allowable and should stay. Read this and this for more information. Again, it's best that we talk policy here rather than "I like it" or "I don't like it" (neither of which are valid arguments). So far, no one's been able to come up with a valid argument based on policy against including the image; all I've seen is personal opinion and incorrect interpretation of policy. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I may have been misunderstood above. I could understand an argument for Steinem's picture (from when she worked at the Playboy Club) in the article about the actual Club (where fair-use could also be argued). But I do not see anything informative or encyclopedic about a picture of Steinem in this article about The Playboy Club TV series.
Based on Wikipedia Images: Pertinence and encyclopedic nature "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Steinem's picture does not belong here. Her comments are germane, her image is not. —MJBurrage(TC) 19:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
And if you are basing your opinion on policy, could you please provide a link to that policy? Lhb1239 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia Images: Pertinence and encyclopedic nature "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Steinem's image does not meet that standard for this article. —MJBurrage(TC) 19:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe it does meet that standard. Is the image relevent to the article it appears in? Yes. Is she significantly and directly related to the article's topic? Yes. She's a famous feminist who spoke out against the show, her statements against the show received widespread attention, and all of this is a significant part of the article itself. But honestly, you and I and Lhb1239 have already voiced our thoughts above. I was hoping to get others involved in the discussion rather than keep repeating ourselves. — Hunter Kahn 19:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You keep doing a good job of explaining why Steinem's comments are relevant, but I just don't see how a picture of Steinem is. I have kept responding because it feels like my stance on her pictures inclusion is being conflated with my stance on her commentary. I would also welcome wider input on that specific point. —MJBurrage(TC) 20:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures in general[edit]

I've noticed that there are now pictures of recording artists in the article. Unless those pictures are from the show, I don't think they are on subject. I.E. a random picture of a Colbie Caillat does not improve the article, but a picture of her in character would be fine. Even better would be a composite image of her in character next to her from a regular performance.
I would also say this for actors. A picture of a character is good, a group shot of the cast from the shows press junket also good, but random images of the actors from other work or appearances adds nothing encyclopedic. —MJBurrage(TC) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I feel like the concerns being raised about images are getting really out of hand here. I'm not sure why The Playboy Club article in particular seems to have drawn this discussion, but images of actors who play roles in television shows, or people involved in the creation of such shows, etc., have long been considered acceptable in thousands of Wikipedia articles. And these images are licensed, so a fair use rationale argument isn't necessary. Unless you can cite specific Wikipedia policy that says these images shouldn't be used, I don't think this new discussion is even warranted. — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Hunter. Stick to policy please - personal opinion about this subject means nothing, opinion based on policy is the only opinion that's going to sway this discussion appropriately and within Wikipedia guidelines. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Per policy "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." an image of a guest star in character meets that standard, a random image of them does not. —MJBurrage(TC) 19:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The photos of the two celebrities are of two celebrities who were going to be in future episodes, had the series not been cancelled. Based on that alone, inclusion of the photos meets the guidelines as they were to be guest stars. This series is likely to be picked up by another network. It will probably be put onto DVD. The episodes not being aired at this time doesn't disqualify the photos from inclusion. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You can't make the assumption that the series will be picked up or that it will ever go to DVD. As you said earlier, "Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball". If you're going to cite policy and continually request that others stick to policy, you need to do the same yourself. There are numerous situations where a possible guest star on a TV program doesn't appear. When that happens it's non-notable event and there isn't a single piece of policy that supports inclusion of what amounts to non-notable trivia. Colbie Caillat's non-appearance isn't notable enough to include in her article, so why should her image be included here? --AussieLegend (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My comments about the series being picked up by another network and coming out on DVD was not in relation to content in the article, it was in relation to the celebrities whose images are now included the article were on the guest star list for the show, therefore, the inclusion of their photos is directly related to the article. The article is about a series that has been cancelled but has a number of episodes in the can that have yet to be seen. Just as we don't say "...was a television series" in regard to cancelled or retired TV series we don't pretend filmed episodes of TV shows and the characters featured in them don't exist. As far as Caillat's appearance on the show being notable enough to be included in her article - I just included it in her article. When getting references together for the blurb on her guest-appearance, I had no problem finding plenty of good sources to include. Apparently, her appearance was notable enough for numerous media outlets to cover it over a two-month period of time. On another note: please, don't keep using edit summaries for negative and cutting commentary on editors. Just as talk page comments are not to concentrate on editors, rather, to concentrate on edits, edit summaries are not for taking potshots at editors you don't agree with. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't say "...was a television series" because fiction is always treated in the present and because the series still exists, but this has nothing to do with including these images. While there might still be unaired episodes, the only verifiable information we have as to what is in these episodes does not include Raphael Saadiq. Justifying inclusion of his image based on what you think might be in the episodes is a clear breach of WP:CRYSTAL. As regards Caillat, it appears that her appearance was so notable that nobody here noticed that she had actually appeared and, unless I missed it, she doesn't appear to have been credited in the episode. She certainly wasn't mentioned in the press release. As for the "potshots" comments, As I reminded you on your talk page recently,[11] addressing personal concerns about other editors is best done on the user's talk page. Accusing an editor on the article's talk page is a poor attempt at inappropriate point-scoring. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I would add that your distinction that only an image of that guest star in character meets that standard, and that an image of them out of character, is completely based on your opinion and is inconsistent with the policy. The policy language you are citing is actually favorable to keeping the images in, not out. All the photos in this article are relevant to the article they appear in, and they are significantly directed to the topic of the article. — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Your position is your opinion also. In all of this nobody has explained what the pictures in question add to the article. —MJBurrage(TC) 19:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have listed links to policy on including images on articles during this discussion more than once. Did you read said policy? If you had, you would already know that the policy explains why the images are appropriate and pertinent to the sections they are included in. Based on their appropriateness and pertinence, they add to the article. As far as "opinion", my opinion and Hunter's opinions are based on policy. Can you explain what your opinions on this subject based on? Lhb1239 (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that every post on a talk page is someones opinion. Trying to dismiss input as opinion is not-productive. Furthermore I have read the image policy you linked to and quoted it. To whit, no one has yet explained how a random image of a guest star is "significantly and directly related to the article's topic"MJBurrage(TC) 19:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The pictures illustrates subjects of discussion within the article. You say "random image" like these aren't people who appear in the show at all. Now, take the Amber Heard image, for instance. Amber Heard is the star of this show. She is described in the article, but clearly, having an illustration of her in the article serves an encyclopedic purpose and helps the understanding of the reader. They can not only understand that Heard is the star of the show, but now know what she looks like. Now, an image of Amber Heard in costume would be ideal, but there is no licensed image of her in costume available to us. So in order to use one, we'd have to use non-free content and thus meet WP:NFCC. However, the very first standard of WP:NFCC is that there is "no free equivalent". In this case, there is a free equivalent: the picture of Amber Heard presently in this article. (And even if there weren't, you'd find that making a non-free argument for images of the actors in character would raise other concerns.) So the Heard image in use now is the most appropriate given Wikipedia standards. Not using that image simply because a better image (i.e., Heard as she appears on the show) isn't available makes absolutely no sense at all. And even putting that whole argument aside, your interpretation of Wikipedia's image policy is a tortured one at best. The very policy you cite is "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The images in question meet that standard by illustrated people who are indeed "relevant to the article" and are "directly related to the article's topic." Your claims that they somehow still fail to meet that standard just because they aren't in character on the show itself are a stretch, to say the least, and are completely inconsistent with how that policy is being enforced at hundreds, if not thousands, of other Wikipedia articles. — Hunter Kahn 19:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I was talking primarily about the pictures of guest stars. In my experience on Wikipedia most articles about TV series do not include images of guest stars from a single episode. Furthermore, I do not believe an image of a guest-star (or star but less strongly) is relevant unless the image is from the show. If a reader want to know what an actor looks like, they can click on the link to the actors' page (the whole point of links). An image of Heard in costume is germane to this article, and would be covered under fair-use arguments (which is why we have guidelines for fair-use).
It was a thing on this series that they got famous recording artists of today, to play famous artists from the 1960's. That is also germane to the article and an image that illustrates that would also be germane (and reasonable fair-use). But an image of a guest star that is not from the show is just a random image of that person, and as such that image is not "significantly and directly related to the article's topic"MJBurrage(TC) 20:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
"You say "random image" like these aren't people who appear in the show at all." I hate to state the obvious but, in the case of all but one imagehalf of the images in the article, that's exactly the situation. With the discovery that Caillat actually apeared in an episode, I don't have any opposition to her image appearing, but I still don't see why people who haven't appeared should be included. There doesn't seem any justification in Saadiq's image appearing, let alone being given equal space with Caillat's. She appeared, he did not. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This has already been addressed below, but I'll point out that this is incorrect. All but one (Raphael Saadiq) physically appeared in an episode that was broadcast. In Saddiq's case, his performance was filmed for the show, it was just never aired, but his association with the show is well documented in the article; again, it's not a "random image" in the sense that I just threw somebody in here who has nothing to do with the series. — Hunter Kahn 13:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
"All but one" is incorrect, Steinem hasn't appeared in an episode either. If Saadiq hasn't appeared in an aired episode, he hasn't appeared at all. It doesn't matter whether the episode was filmed or not. Until such time as it airs, or is at least scheduled to air, the episode effectively doesn't exist, at least not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. A few years ago I filmed an episode of a television program that was cancelled with 10 unaired episodes, including mine, in the can. Despite having a significant role in the episode, which the producers felt was one of the best episodes, you won't find me credited in any episode list, and it would be inappropriate to include my image in an article about the series because I didn't actually appear on-air. Saadiq is no different. There's no encyclopaedic value in including his image and I'm still waiting for somebody to refute that. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: Aussie Legend's argument above:
  • "Despite having a significant role in the episode, which the producers felt was one of the best episodes, you won't find me credited in any episode list, and it would be inappropriate to include my image in an article about the series because I didn't actually appear on-air. Saadiq is no different." You example is not the same at all. First of all, were there any major entertainment articles written about your participation in the filming? Were you already an established and well-known entertainer with other major entertainment articles written about you? Uncredited guest stars appear in films and TV shows all the time. Regardless, I have included reliable sources in my previous post in this thread that shows he was in episode four, and episode four was taped and completed at the time of the cancellation. He appeared in the show, it just hasn't been aired yet.
  • "the episode effectively doesn't exist, at least not as far as Wikipedia is concerned." That's untrue. The episode does exist, because it's been verified that it exists. And, as I already pointed out in an earlier response during the course of this discussion, we don't say "was a series" when a show is cancelled, we say "is a series" because even if it is no longer aired, it is still an existing series. This show is no different. The show is a series with 7 episodes - three were aired on NBC, four of them haven't yet aired. Saadiq appeared in episode four. Your argument just doesn't hold water. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
When replying to posts, please keep your replies within the thread that you're replying to and don't spread them about the page. The RfC thread is a different thread to this one and your reply shouldn't have appeared in that thread.
"First of all, were there any major entertainment articles written about your participation in the filming?" - That's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter who the person is, they haven't guest starred in an episode if it hasn't aired. This is one of the principles that we follow and examples are seen everywhere. For example, it's why |num_episodes= in {{Infobox television}} is for the number of episodes released, not the number of episodes produced.
"Uncredited guest stars appear in films and TV shows all the time." - You're correct but all of those episodes have actually aired. The aren't considered to have appeared unless the episode has aired.
"He appeared in the show, it just hasn't been aired yet." - It's quite impossible for somebody to have "appeared" in an episode that hasn't aired. It's easy to test that. Use {{cite episode}} to cite Saadiq's appearance. If he really has appeared, you'll be able to cite the episode, its airdate and the time within the episode that he appeared.
"The episode does exist, because it's been verified that it exists." - It has been verified that there are 7 episodes, 4 of which have not aired. It has been stated that Saadiq "will" appear in an episode to air in October but we have no idea which episode it was to be. The fourth episode to be produced may not have been the fourth to air. This is often the case with TV programs. Nor has there been anything since the fourth episode was filmed to confirm that Saadiq was actually filmed.
"as I already pointed out in an earlier response during the course of this discussion, we don't say "was a series" when a show is cancelled" - Yes, and I've already addressed the fallacy that you presented in an earlier post.
"Saadiq appeared in episode four." - "Appeared" is past tense. With that in mind, please provide a source that confirms he "appeared". --AussieLegend (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I already provided that source. Apparently you missed my numerous references to it as well as the link to the source itself. The source also states specifically that he was appearing in episode four. You must have missed that as well. I also provided links to sources that showed him in still photos from the episode he appeared in. You didn't look at those links/sources either? It's not impossible for someone to have appeared in an episode that hasn't aired and your disbelief that he appeared in the episode (although I have given proof to the contrary) seems rather silly at this point. Just because you don't want to believe he was in the episode doesn't mean it didn't really happen. And please provide either proof in regard to your statement, "The aren't considered to have appeared unless the episode has aired." along with either Wikipedia precedence or policy to back your statement up. Again, you are drifting into the personal opinion mode rather than arguing based on policy and/or precedence. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't provided the source. A source that originated before the episode was filmed does not confirm that he appeared in an episode and, as I've pointed out, you can't have appeared in an episode that hasn't aired. If you could, then you'd have no trouble providing the citation. I know that a source says he was going to appear in the fourth episode, I've commented on that above so I clearly did not miss it, despite your assertion. I've also commented on the sources so I didn't miss them either, again despite your assertion. None of the sources you've provided confirm that he has appeared (past tense) in an episode. He might have filmed an episode but that's not the same as having appeared. It's simple English and there's not a source that supports your assertions. And please, stop referrring to posts being opinions, as if the opinions of others are invalid. You've criticised the posts of others by referring to their opinions several times now (13 times now in 8 posts by my count); you've actually used "opinion" at least 20 times. As MBurrage has told you at least twice, everything is someone's opinion. Wikipedia works on consensus, which is based on opinions. It's the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia and there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Every opinion is valid; it may not be made in accordance with policy but not all decisions are based on policy. We don't need to be continually hit over the head with it. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You seem very angry about this. For the life of me, I can't figure out why. And please stop using edit summaries to lash out at other editors. Edit summaries are supposed to be a brief summary of what your edit is or is about, not commentary aimed at editors who are pissing you off. Your attitude along with your edit summaries are turning this needlessly into a battleground atmosphere. There's no way consensus can be reached in such an atmosphere. Until you change your tone and your edit summary behavior, I'm pretty much done responding to you. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not angry, although I must confess to being somewhat frustrated at your unwillingness to accept simple dictionary definitions, your insistence that people cite chapter and verse of policy while you do not see the need to respond to such requests from others and your dismassal of the posts of others because you perceive them to be "just their opinions", even when those opinions are based on policy. I'm not too concerned about the unexplained move of my post out of the section for which it was intended and into an irrelevant section. As for edit summaries, on talk pages they tend to serve a different purpose than they do in articles. In articles they should be an explanation of the edits that have been made but on talk pages "replied" is generally unhelpful, so they tend to summarise the thrust of your edit, which you're well aware of.[12][13] --AussieLegend (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should certain images be used[edit]

There are two closely related parts to this RfC:

  1. Is the image of Gloria Steinem appropriate in this article and does it give undue weight to her opinion as an opponent to the series?
  2. Is the inclusion of images of proposed guest stars such as Colbie Caillat and Raphael Saadiq, who never appeared in the series' three episode run, appropriate and does theirits inclusion provide any encyclopaedic value?

Thank you for your participation. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've amended the RfC request based on the discovery that Caillat actually appeared in the third and final, episode to be aired. Apparently her appearance was so notable that nobody here noticed that she had actually appeared and, unless I missed it, she doesn't appear to have been credited in the episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • One of the above points is incorrect. Colbie Caillat did appear in episode three, therefore, the point of whether or not her photo should be included is moot and not appropriate in the context of the RfC regarding the appropriateness of photos of "proposed" guest stars. What's more, was Saadiq only a "proposed" guest star, or was the episode he was to appear in actually taped before the series was cancelled? Photos found online show him in character as Sam Cooke, the singer he was to portray, therefore, it seems possible his episode was also taped and he was not a "proposed" guest star at all. Indeed, all resources I have found online state he was signed to play the singer in an episode to be broadcast in October. This would make him not a "proposed" guest star, but a contracted guest star. Links are here and here. Caillat's episode was shown - her photo is definitely pertinent to the article; Saadiq's was at the very least already contracted for one episode, so his photo it also pertinent to the article. Indeed, TV Guide reported in mid-September that Saadiq was "booked" (entertainment industry-speak for contracted) to appear in the show's fourth episode (see here for evidence). The show was cancelled after the third episode aired. The fourth episode - the episode Saadiq appeared in (as evidenced by the TV Guide online link) - was already completed, as were three more episodes up to episode 7 (this is also referenced and cited in the article). In summary, both photos are pertinent to the article, meet the criteria for article images, and should be kept in the article and the section they are a part of.
  • Steinem's criticism of the series was widely reported (references cited in the article in regard to this are already present in the section where her photo is included) and her proposed viewer and advertiser boycott of the series was also well known amongst strong critics of the show. Steinem herself has been a decades-long critic of Playboy and the Playboy Club - in the 1960s, she completed an undercover journalistic assignment in the Chicago Playboy Club (the club the series is based on) as a Bunny. In fact, in the third and final episode aired on NBC, the Bunny working undercover was based on Steinem and her experience there. It is noted in the article as well as in the media that it was the criticism and controversy surrounding the show that caused advertisers to drop like flies and ultimately NBC to pull the plug on airing it past three episodes. Steinem is a famous, known activist and advocate of women's rights - she was one of the most well known of all the show's critics. It makes sense to have a picture of her included in the article in the appropriate section relating to her involvement with the Playboy Club as well as getting the show cancelled. Undue weight? Not at all. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Saadiq's status must remain as "proposed" as we have no evidence that he appeared in one of the unaired episodes. We can't speculate; that's original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
See link to TV Guide online above. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI, it's considered bad form to substantially edit your comments after somebody has replied to them.[14] Perhaps you could move your additions after the point where I replied to your original post, so that I don't have to substantially edit my post in order to reply to the added content? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
@Lhb1239 - Instead of moving my post to the wrong section, as you did here, could you please comply with my request? --AussieLegend (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I am fine with having the 2008 picture of Steinem in the article, but it should be left-aligned. Lhb1239 says that her criticism was widely reported, so its alignment is appropriate. It would not be appropriate if it seriously interfered with how the other elements were presented (such as crossing into the next section). I do not buy the argument that the left/right placement has any relation with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
As I indicated earlier, MOS:IMAGES does not mandate left placement, it just says it's "often preferable", not "always preferable", just often. It also says that images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict, which implies that it's permissable to place such images on the right. People who rely on screen readers actually prefer it that way, and we have to accommodate them. WP:TVRECEPTION says that content in the "Reception" section, where the Steinem photo is located, "preferably should not exceed two or three sentences per critic, so as not to apply undue weight to any given reviewer." The idea is to give each critic equal billing and adding a photo of one critic gives that critic more billing, which breaches WP:UNDUE, which you'll notice is part of WP:NPOV. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not my field really, but if you want a truly outside opinion based on what I consider general principles of using pictures in WP articles: It's utterly nonsensical having a photo of s guest who never appeared. It adds zero relevant information. As for the photos of those who did appear, I'd suggest it be the actors who portrayed the major characters. Unless a guest star's appearance was in some way particular notable, I think there's no encyclopedic purpose in including it. I think Steinem is important and relevant enough. Which side of the web page it goes on is not a judgment of anything but article formatting. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Execpt the guest did appear in an episode (as already proven in my comments above with links to sources stating which episode he was in). That there are secondary sources available makes the appearance notable according to WP guidelines. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is "The Playboy Club" going to be available on DVD in the near future?[edit]

Is The Playboy Club going to be available on DVD from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment sometime in the near future? AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. If it's picked up by another network, probably not until the series run has completed. If not picked up, it will probably be available on DVD next year. Hard to say, though - until we know for sure, it's all just speculation :-) Lhb1239 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Set in 1961 or 1963?[edit]

An IP has made a number of changes to the article including these two:[15][16] It's all well and good saying that the 1961 references are continuity errors but we treat what appears on-screen as an authoritative source. There are certainly continuity errors (for example, Lesley Gore was only 17 in 1963 and wouldn't have been allowed in the the Playboy Club then, let alone when she was 15 in 1961) but the second episode had several references to 1961, including an image of a newspaper dated September 26, 1961. There are also numerous citations such as this article, which says the series is set in 1961. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  • And it's all well and good to make threats and false accusations against said IP but there are far more reliable sources that say the series is set in 1963, including as many if not more on-screen references to its being 1963 than 1961. Ignoring reliable secondary sources in favor of interpreting primary ones is original research. And by the way, your so-called citation which says the series is set in 1961? Doesn't say that at all. It says that the issue of the magazine is "1961-themed" (which is contradicted by the magazine cover itself which says it is "1960s price") and that the magazine is selling for what it sold for in 1961. And gee, this source (among many, many others) says that it also sold for 60 cents in 1963 and actually identifies the commemorative issue as being "priced like 1963 and "styled as 1963". But by all means, let the Wiki-fascists have their way, littering the article with inaccurate information and pissing on anyone who disagrees. Funny how when I make the changes it's "edit warring" but not when you make the changes back. I guess that's why you're a legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I certainly haven't made any threats or false accusations so I don;t know what you;re on about with this. Wikipedia has a bright line rule called the three revert rule that prevents you making more than three reverts in a day on any page and you've made three reverts, which is why you were warned and asked to discuss here. The second episode of this series has numerous references to 1961 including an image of a newpaper. You can't discount a third of the series as a continuity error, which is why it needs to be discussed. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, anyone who cared and who isn't an idiot could change the lead to say "the early 1960s" and insert language in the Production section about how the early sources indicated that the series was set in 1963 but some on-screen images carry a 1961 date. I no longer care so if another non-idiot happens along maybe that person will make the changes. Plus I'm dealing with people lying about "edit-warring" and accusing me of being someone I'm not so screw all of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The tone of your post is not civil and is perilously close to being a personal attack. Nobody is lying about edit-warring. You did make three reverts in just over 20 hours,[17][18][19] which is close to breaking the three revert-rule. You'll note that the warning I left on your talk page said that your edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. It was a warning given to help you prevent yourself from breaching 3RR and getting blocked as a result. And it seem s to have worked. You're welcome. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm interested to know under what account or other IP(s) you've edited Wikipedia with previously. Inserting hidden comments in your earliest edits isn't done by first-time or new editors, using terminology such as "Wiki-fascists" speaks of sour-grapes - possibly from being blocked or banned. Care to enlighten us, Lhb1239 (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't care to pay you the slightest damned bit of attention. Believe me, you don't have to have been around long before you learn what a Wiki-fascist is. Sometimes you only have to work on a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, if that's the way you want to play this be it. But do be prepared for the possible consequences. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)