Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 2014/Archive 1

Archive 1

References

It was mentioned at External links/Noticeboard that this article needs citations to reliable sources. It is covered in the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and was tagged June 27, 2014. I would like to comment here for relevance, additional info, and hopefully action. This is, as stated in the EL/noticeboard, a BLP-oriented page

• This article is a candidate for "deletion" but also the policy Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people includes "the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article" and there are thus far seven listed. I realize it is titled as a list but with the added biographical templates (names and personal information) can probably be considered a misnamed article. When a Wikipedia search is performed on the playmates some are redirects to this "list". March was missed and June has an article by that name; Jessica Ashley. It seems to me it would be more appropriate to use red links for articles that will likely be created than to redirect to a "list" that contains article information. Otr500 (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  These "lists" are simply attempts to get around our notability guidelines and the deletion of articles about non-notable people. I think the time has come to delete them. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

These "lists" are an entirely appropriate way to cover "Playmates", which are a significant cultural entity, without devoting separate pages to each individual Playmate, who may or may not be sufficiently "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. However, it seems that these pages are under assault by editors who appear to have no interest in or knowledge about Playboy, Playmates, or links to sites that do know about them, including official Playboy sites. They claim violations of this or that Wikipedia policy, and when challenged or debunked, merely reassert their claims without actually answering the counter-arguments. They are sabotaging these pages and making them pretty near useless to anyone coming to this section of Wikipedia wanting to know about Playmates. You can list their names, but heaven forbid you provide a link that details exactly where you can find them actually being Playmates! It would be better if the disapproving editors just acknowledged that they consider this section to be "morally offensive" and "unsuitable for coverage in Wikipedia". Wikilister (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you WP:FOC? --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am amazed at what I have read and found out. First, and in response to a scathing and what I consider inappropriate reply, I have no problem with Playboy articles as Wikipedia is not censored. I will ask, aside from focusing on the issue at hand, please assume good faith and not make blanket arbitrary unfounded comments?

Because some editors take issue with articles in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies does not automatically mean they object because of moral issues, but articles (or content therein) "unsuitable for coverage in Wikipedia" that we object to, does have valid reasoning. Articles that have survived for long periods with violations have done so with consensus by silence and this ceases when one person objects. Individuals who may or may not be sufficiently "notable" do not get a green light for backdoor inclusion just because they fit "a significant cultural entity". What one may consider "entirely appropriate" might just be a matter of opinion that may not pass consensus from a Wikipedia policy point of view.

I have found that there is some cleanup going on but this only partially addresses the severe issues. The external links are but one issue. The want (or need) to create, maintain, or improve articles must adhere to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines and stand-alone lists are still articles. This article, no matter how much supposed improvements, while lacking approved references has severe problems. It contains biographical information on living people and is subject to a higher standard than other articles, including Playmates not living, and Wikipedia is very clear on this. There are no references on this article. This violates core content policies, and also subjects notable for one event. The "list" contains self redirects, This article (or parts) and List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, that contains over 700 "articles" and many (like the article link Margie Harrison) redirects to List of Playboy Playmates of 1954#January, that is yet another "list", with an abundance of biographical article information referenced with external links only. These articles are candidates for deletion requests, to include speedy deletion for self-redirects (#7), deletion for biographical article violations (no references etc.), and let's not forget that creating an article title to redirect to a list article with no references includes that title also because if the "List" fails Wikipedia policies and guidelines so does the redirected article title. List of Playboy models is a list article to more list articles that are, for some reason, self-redirected so it would appear this is more a diambig page, List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace is a list article but does contain redirects to another list article. There may be WP:COPYVIO issues with the links to pictures also.

I would think it would be more prudent to try to see what improvements (if any) would pass consensus, and discuss these in a civil manner, rather than other options such as seeing just how "appropriate" they really are. Then again, it has been my experience that some would rather battle, with more likely than not negative results, than seek consensus on article content. Otr500 (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

Skimming through past discussions (starting with Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_6#Proposal_to_change_List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of..._to_simple_lists), it looks like there was agreement that being selected a Playmate of the Month alone did not meet notability criteria. In response to this agreement, these articles were created to get around the decision and likely deletion of many articles. Unless there are similar lists where BLP applies and are of WP:GA-level, we should go ahead with deletion.

These people are already noted in List_of_Playboy_models, List_of_Playboy_Playmates_by_birthplace, and List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_the_Month. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

When you state "we should go ahead with deletion", you are meaning? I am not up to speed on this yet, nor the relevant discussions, and know there are a lot of affected links. I can not see any reason to have triple redundancy, let alone quadruple.

The "List of Playboy models" is not a "list of models" but a list to links broken down by year. As noted; all of these on the list are covered in "List of Playboy Playmates of the Month" which is broken down by year already. That actually means that each list (7 total) by groups of years, could be deleted (This would be the same for the other article lists that are found to be only redundancy), without any valid objections, and the title "List of Playboy models" redirected to "List of Playboy Playmates of the Month". List of people in Playboy 2010–2019 contains future dates and this is not usually acceptable. What bothers me is the AfD process. Is there any way to get involvement from an admin to group these? There does not appear to be any positive discussion on a very needed cleanup, even though it is plain to see these are duplication's. I have to assume any changes will be controversial.

There is also the issue of all the article Playmate titles, that do not have content, that were redirected to the lists and even self-redirected, such as the navbox on List of Playboy Playmates of 2000 and this article (list). These are shown as wiki-links when they were apparently created to be redirects. They could be blanked and redirected but this negates (or is a way around) link colors. Otr500 (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that all the "List of Playboy Playmates of..." articles should be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WOW! While a really nice short answer, it does about that much for potentially solving a problem. Maybe you are just too busy? One may wonder how all these rogue "less than articles" masked as such, with a multitude of violations, have been allowed to remain. Anyway, looks like they will win again. Have a nice day. Otr500 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to be clear about my concerns and their extent because I don't understand yours. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've requested help in setting up the AfD here. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The first comment confirms my concerns about trying a multiple deletion. While waiting for other feedback, other options are: WP:PROD (Where not already attempted. Note that WP:BLPPROD because these are lists.). I think speedy deletion is a stretch, though WP:G4, WP:G8, and WP:A7 might be interpreted as applying. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you try to find sources at e.g. Google books? Remember AFD is not cleanup. Christian75 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to why this is being brought up.

To be clear, I think the articles should be deleted. The only cleanup I see that would be appropriate would be to make these into simple lists, but that has already been done with List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. No amount of sourcing is going to fix these lists. The lists were created to work around individual Playmates' articles being deleted. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to get my head around what you're proposing. Let's list what we have:

1. List of Playboy models - that in turn points to 7 subarticles about List of People in Playboy broken out by decade
2. List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace - presumably this has all of them
3. List of Playboy Playmates of the Month - this has all of the Playmates in one place
4. List of Playboy Playmates of X, where X is a given year (e.g, List of Playboy Playmates of 2000)

Now, you're proposing to eliminate all of the ones in category 4 right? Tabercil (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - the yearly lists. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I also see the list(s) as a "get around" angle. The lists are redundant per #2 and #3 above. Otr500 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Given this discussion, I think a single AfD of this article might be best. If that there's little or no policy-based opposition in the AfD, then maybe just PROD the rest. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I Agree: Otr500 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion?

Athanatophobos July 16th 2014

Hello,

I delete Stephanie Branton's mention as the PoM for September 2014. I can understand "glamour centrefold" is not regarded as a reliable source even though this site is usually right.

So, we can wait the official annonce of the September PoM. No use deleting this page anyway.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athanatophobos (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Booth's Birthday

According her profil in the Playboy Magazine, Amanda Booth was born on July 1984 and not July 1986. http://www.imagebam.com/image/b8516c292397878

Playboyblog fif a mistake.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athanatophobos (talk • contribs) 05:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image actually confirms the 7/14/1986 birth date - as does another source now used in this article. Guy1890 (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

External links

For an list article like this, few if any external links will meet the relevant policies/guidelines. External link about a single individual listed are inappropriate because this article isn't about just a single person.

I've moved recent external links below. I don't believe they can be used as references, but perhaps some material in them could be used to find more references: --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Amanda Booth profile
• Shanice Jordyn interview
• Jessica Ashley interview

Seems to me that those are appropriate external links to keep/restore in the list-article. They are clearly labelled as being about individuals, so no reader is going to think they are links about the list per se. If there were separate articles about the individuals, the links should be included in those articles and then probably not also included in the list-article. I think this recent version of the article, which was last edited by postdlf, before the external links were removed by editor Ronz, was fine. It also seems okay/good that Ronz raise this as an issue at this Talk page, as Ronz has done, rather than clutter the ongoing AFD about this side point. But unless there is support for their removal from other editors, relatively soon, I would think it is okay for another editor to restore the external links, and I would hope that there would not be further edit-warring. Ronz, I would interpret your removal as a first Bold step, subject to Reversion by another editor per wp:BRD process, rather than interpreting a restoration of the links as being a first Bold step in that process. But i am okay also with the links being left out while this Talk section continues for a while, too. By the way, i recently commented at the AFD, having found my way there pretty randomly from following another editor's contributions from an entirely unrelated topic area. --doncram 00:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

I ask that we follow WP:ELBURDEN until we have clear consensus.

As far as I understand it, there is broad consensus that lists like this simply won't have appropriate external links at all. External links about few or single entries in the list don't belong. See Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_15#List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2014

I've not kept up to date on what WP:STUB-level articles are allowed for WP:BLPs when the subject is not notable (where such external links might be acceptable, especially in the developmental stage of the article), but I don't think we should be making exceptions in this article to accommodate the non-notability of the individuals. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The article in question here is a list article...it's not a stub, since "Non-article pages, such as disambiguation pages, lists, categories, templates, talk pages, and redirects, are not regarded as stubs." Again, there are exactly zero valid BLP concerns in this article. Guy1890 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. The external links might be acceptable in stub articles for the individuals, if such articles were permitted. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed to just the names

If there's any good argument for inclusion of anything other than the names, it has yet to be made.

While I appreciate the work on finding sources, they are extremely poor sources that I don't believe meet BLP criteria. They all just appear to be echo-chambers for Playboy, piggy-backing for some clickthrough. (referring to the sources in the version that at the time [1] --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

If there's some argument that we can somehow meet BLP, let's find it. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• That trimming to just the names while the AFD was going is ridiculous; these yearly articles have been around quite a long time, the AfD can run its course without harm to the wanking habits of wikipedia readers. Should we similarly trim List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions to just names instead of the words which they won by? Whether its a breast size or finding the word feuilleton, this is content that readers come to encyclopedias to find.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  So the argument is that if they come here for the information, we provide it?

  In the case of the spelling bee article identified above, it's the winning word that's being emphasized, not the person. The amount of information about the person is minimal. The criteria for winning is clear and unambiguous. The media coverage is significant. The amount of self-promotion for the organizations involved is minor (though the sponsor information is a bit over the top). --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've written a number of spelling bee articles, and the information on the winner usually much greater than the word, which is usually fairly trivial. Every playmate generates news coverage, albeit less today than in say 1973.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I just looked at the article mentioned, and responded to it. Could you identify others that are substantially different as you are suggesting? --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• If you revert the article to a stub again, you'll be blocked. Its extremely uncivil and does not help your argument to employ vigilante style justice of your own choosing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• An editor absolutely, positively cannot blank sourced content from an article while that same article is at AfD on behalf of that same, exact editor. I've seen editors banned for doing just that in the past...that's not a threat...just an observation, which I hope all will take to heart here. I've been in the process of sourcing all of the content in the article in question here, and that work will take a little more time over the next next day or so.

Our BLP policy basically requires that potentially controversial content about a living person be sourced...nothing more, nothing less. That some editors might find some content about a person "unpleasant" is not a valid reason to remove that content. What we're talking about here in this article are models that were hired to do a job...appear in Playboy. The fact that one personally might not be a fan of that magazine (and I'm actually not a fan of that magazine BTW) or some of the content in that magazine is not a valid BLP concern. Editors are not allowed to cite phony "BLP concerns" and then proceed to edit Wikipedia in whatever manner that they personally believe is "right"...that's not how things work on here. "BLP" is not a shield that can defend all of one's actions as an editor here. Guy1890 (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

How about WP:FOC?

"That some editors might find some content about a person "unpleasant" is not a valid reason to remove that content." Why are you bringing it up since no one is arguing it? Same with much of the rest. Let's deal with real concerns instead.

So, how about it? Can we deal with real concerns and not make this personal? --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, what this entire episode is obviously about is your apparent dislike for the subject matter. There are no "real concerns", period. You really need to dial back your disruptive behavior and move on to something else please. Guy1890 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

So the answer is no? Want to reconsider? --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, do you want to go to AN/I when this episode is concluded within a few days? The choice is yours & yours alone alone "Ronz". Your behavior during this episode is completely disruptive, and it needs to stop immediately. Guy1890 (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to continue working on this article. If there are behavioral concerns that you'd like to discuss, start at my talk page. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

January entry

My initial concerns are detailed in the edits I made 18 July 2014: [2] [3] [4] [5].

I don't believe guyism.com is a reliable source, especially for BLP's. As I mentioned earlier, "While I appreciate the work on finding sources, they are extremely poor sources that I don't believe meet BLP criteria. They all just appear to be echo-chambers for Playboy, piggy-backing for some clickthrough."

While I'm having to use electronic translation for the omroepbrabant.nl reference (and so left it in for the time being), the article itself looks like a puff piece that doesn't meet BLP. (That's not to say that omroepbrabant.nl might be a reliable source for their other journalism.)

Finally, and more importantly, is any of this deserving of inclusion in an encyclopedia article when the person is not notable and we have to follow BLP? --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Omroep Brabant is a legitimate news source. The article explains that she is originally from Geldrop (an area covered by this media source), but currently resides in New York, its not just a re-posting of Playboy content though certainly its a human interest story. It also notes that she has modeled for other brands and was a cover model for another magazine in 2012. Are you suggesting that Ms. Montfort cannot even be mentioned on Wikipedia in this list article because she doesn't meet some amorphous standard of your own. Can you just tell us now if you have some moral objection to boobie magazines, so we can understand why you just won't let the AFD run like any rational human being?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

We agree that the publisher is reliable source elsewhere.

"Can you just tell us now if you have some moral objection to boobie magazines, so we can understand why you just won't let the AFD run like any rational human being" It's very difficult to see such comments as good faith attempts at collaborating to improve this encyclopedia.

I'll say that at very best the article is a human interest story. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Its a good faith attempt to get you to think.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It's inappropriate. Doubling down on it with such a comment is inappropriate as well. --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Roos was the 60th Anniversary Playmate, and she was the Playboy Playmate of the Month for January 2014. These are completely valid & uncontroversial facts. The vast majority of the information in the infobox on this model, who did in fact appear in Playboy recently, are confirmed by a reliable source. Once again, your "intial concerns" (as displayed in your highlighted edits above from July 18th) are invalid, period. Guy1890 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The facts about her being the 60th Anniversary, Jan Playmate are not currently under dispute.

As for the rest, just because it appears in Playboy doesn't mean it belongs here. --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted you again because there is no "per BLP" here beyond your say so, and merely saying "BLP" does not entitle you to remove content, never mind that it's part of the standard, longstanding template for this subject. You're merely edit warring and blanking in support of your own pending AFD nom. I trust @Milowent: or @Guy1890: will revert you yet again if you persist, and I hope one of them (the real world calls me away) will then start an ANI thread to put a halt to this nonsense. postdlf (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"just because it appears in Playboy doesn't mean it belongs here." Would someone like to respond to get the discussion back on track?--Ronz (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• "The facts about her being the 60th Anniversary, Jan Playmate are not currently under dispute." No, they were never legitimately under dispute at all, period.

"just because it appears in Playboy doesn't mean it belongs here." Thanx for confirming that this entire episode is one big case of "I don't like the content" and "I didn't hear that", which is textbook disruptive behavior. Again, please stop it. Guy1890 (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we need non-primary sources that are independent of Playboy. Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There are well over a dozen sources currently in the article that aren't related to Playboy at all. Once again, your "concerns" don't match up with the verfiable facts here. Guy1890 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Just because it appears in Playboy doesn't mean it belongs here." An encyclopedia is used to get information about a topic. I've shown where studies have used that information for their own non-pornographic socio-economic purposes. The information does have its uses even though you refuse to admit it. Dismas|^(talk) 00:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bring up your point from the AfD [6]. Yes, the studies show that the material as a whole has some value. Encyclopedic value though? --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by differentiating "value" versus "encyclopedic value"? I think they belong here, so I guess that I think they have encyclopedic value but I'm unclear on what the difference is to you. Dismas|^(talk) 02:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As you've pointed out, the data has value in that it has been used for research purposes.

By "encyclopedic value" I'm referring to worthiness of inclusion in Wikipedia according to our policies/guidelines, especially WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oh jeez, here you go beating around the bush again. You seem to be making some value judgment here about the nature of Playboy playmates but don't explain what it is. E.g., we have lists for the top 10 best selling books of each decade for United States, I wrote the one for the oldest possible period, Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1890s. I've written individual articles on some of the entries from the 1890s through 1910s too, such as Tom Grogan, the bestselling book in the America in 1896, though now totally forgotten. If any of these books didn't merit individual articles (I would argue they all do, though), we could simply add more information to the list articles, which is what we do here. Is there really encyclopedic value to documenting superfluous forgotten romance novels of the 1910s? I am sure some people would say no. Would you? What is the value judgment being made?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking editors to collaborate to judge what encyclopedic value the information has that is in line with our policies.

Arguments on what might be done with other lists doesn't help the discussion that I see. On the other hand, it would be very helpful to identify GA-quality lists where BLP applies. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just admit you are squeamish about boobies already! You can't "collaborate to judge encyclopedic value" in a vacuum. Being a Playboy Playmate is a culturally significant fact in the 20-21st century, with the data and information we currently collect being reflective of that status, as also illustrated by social science research that uses Playboy playmate statistics. Playboy will no doubt stop publication one day and this data will continue to be of historical value. My reference to another list -- bestsellers of 100+ years ago, many of which are unfamiliar titles today -- and egads, works like The Plastic Age were considered absolute smut because they discussing "petting"!! -- was to illustrate the comprehensive range of popular culture history (judged as "low brow" by some) covered by Wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to participate if you don't want to. I'll follow WP:DR and be sure to get clear consensus. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion at your AfD is over "Ronz", and your side lost. The "encyclopedic value" arguments carried no weight there, which should be no surprise to anyone familiar with the way that AfDs usually work. For the last time, there are no valid BLP concerns with this article, period. Guy1890 (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the AfD is over and the article has been substantially improved.

This isn't an AfD, nor are we discussing deletion of the article in any way. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI

As promised, there's now an active discussion about Ronz's editing behavior (in relation to this article and its recent AfD) at AN/I. From what I understand, AN/I is not a forum for a discussion about article content. Guy1890 (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources

As expressed by at least three editors in the AfD, Playboy is a primary source here and is being used extensively and often solely. I'm concerned that we're violating WP:PSTS and WP:BLPPRIMARY, as I already mentioned above. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Again, the discussion at your AfD is over "Ronz", and your side lost. As has been pointed out in that AfD and above, there are plenty of sources in this article that aren't Playboy-related. There are no valid BLP concerns with this article, period.

NOTE: Based on "Ronz's" behavior both here & at the above-mentioned AfD (and taking into consideration some longer-term concerns about "Ronz's" similiar editing behavior in the past), I plan on unfortunately having to take this editor to AN/I. Expect that to happen by later today after I type some thing up. This disruptive behavior must stop immediately. Guy1890 (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Having "plenty of sources" doesn't address the concerns. The AfD is over. Care to let me work on the article? --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No "Ronz", since it's obvious that you're not at all really interested in "working on the article"...just getting your way at all costs. I'm now done discussing these settled matters with you as they relate to this article...see you at AN/I in due time. Guy1890 (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Then how about I let the dust settle here? Your call: I could just stick to only the talk page, making no edits to the article at all; or withdraw completely and give everyone time to relax? --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You're a piece of work, Ronz. Now that someone has given a fairly specific time that they are going to take matters to AN/I, you're willing to "let the dust settle"? You make it really hard to WP:AGF here. Dismas|^(talk) 20:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My proposal is open. I'll start by withdrawing completely for a day other than to continue discussing this proposal. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ronz, I would highly suggest you depart from this article for some good period of time. We have about 4 million articles that need work where you didn't recently "lose" an AfD in contentious circumstances. When you're in a "Consensus of One" driving you to feel the need to continue to edit an article, you need to step away from it. The world will be OK even though Playboy is cited for the breast sizes of these models; indeed, verifying this information would require original research! What are your areas of interest, I regularly run across scores of bad articles - even BLPs that truly need help!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my proposal. I'm starting with a month away. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As the AfD finished and a comment I made in it is being used out-of-context allow me to clarify. Being a Playmate is notable, however not all Playmates then go on to do anything with that title (aside from attending the Mansion for parties). Some become bigger stars and can have their own article (such as Pamela Anderson) others do not justify having one. These lists are the only place that all the information about the Playmates is kept (all the other pages are just pure lists or grids that redirect to these pages). Having the year by year pages saves creating 12 pages that might endlessly be put up for deletion; and having decade long pages would be too large. Sources aside from Playboy exist, these women do not exist in a vacuum, and so the pages can easily be sourced. This page doesn't violate policy and should be left to be improved. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance tag

The Primary sources Maintenance tag was removed, from what I understand by the non-admin AfD editor, during closing. There may not have been the references that are in the article now ( I didn't look) but there are certainly primary sources used now. Of the 27 references list 30% are primary so the tag is warranted per policy. Unless there is valid reasoning against I am going to replace the tag and this can discussed. Otr500 (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no prohibition on using primary sources, just caution as to which are ever fine to use and how or when to use them. And here the primary source is a notable media company describing its own content (the Playmate profile published each month) with respect to individuals with which it is affiliated as paid models, so there's no concern that I can fathom that the source is unreliable or otherwise inappropriate for these uses. So you'll have to be more specific about why you think there's a problem. postdlf (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Your reply had no bearing, as you well know, on the fact that a valid tag, placed with good rationale and intentions, should not be removed unless the criteria for removal has been met. I would think any editor would not agree that any article with an abundance of primary sources could not be improved with secondary or tertiary sources.

I did not state anywhere that using a primary source was not valid and I looked back to make sure. I did not question the references at all on validity of inclusion except that they are primary. I "hate" long term career tags and have removed many that are vague, but using them to keep attention on article improvements is the intended purpose. Having valid tags in no way harms an article. Removing them for no reason does not improve the article, nor does it prove any point. The tag was valid and warranted. I assume you will not further an argument that the entries in the article will "never" (or for some longer term than normal) have anything but primary sources? Surely you will not argue that? I have not yet looked and would hope there are some out there.

I am sure you did not forget the article survived the AfD and I would really hope that you will not think the article can not use improvements and certainly concerning references. For what ever "thinking" you might "assume" you will probably be wrong. There was a 100% fact that before the AfD the article had severe problems and probably was not going to see improvements. You should not celebrate that you won something by surviving an AfD. You should be happy that not only did it survive, there are improvements which means there was no "losing side" as I have seen advanced.

Using some around the world verbiage as a form of protectionism is not warranted. Asking for specifics when I assume you can't argue with the figures blows my mind. Specifically what part did you not understand? "IF" and article has primary sources it can, and should be, tagged. I am trying to determine what form of "specific" reasoning is being imagined as an argument that the tag is not valid?:

Specifically can you show that any part of that tag is not valid? The part about "Contentious material" is a warning and since that has not been a concern should NOT offend anyone. Surely you are not advancing that the article would not be improved with secondary or tertiary sources.

Concerning your probably wrong assumption; I do not want Playboy or related articles removed from Wikipedia. I hope that was clear enough needing no further "specifics". There are problem areas that can use improvements. Editors know this that is why there are now actual "references" instead of none or a pile of external links (like this) being used in the body of an article. These are blatant violations and are on other articles.

This tag (that was also used on the article) gives reason for an AfD while the other does not.

Also, the "Playboy Playmates of 2014 template" (similar types are used on other articles) should be reduced to just the years. The names that are listed link back to this article and I would like someone to look at this. The need to list the same names that are in the body of an article and link them back to the very same article is not appropriate. This is not an unfounded concern so please take it at face value that there is no reason to have that part of the template (as used) as it is not only redundant it is circular.

If you need some more "specifics" you will have to be more clear on what "specific" part you can't understand. As a clarifying recap: The tag was valid and serves a purpose of calling attention to the "fact" that the article could certainly use secondary or tertiary sources. "SURELY" that will be hard to sanely argue against? Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"on the fact that a valid tag, placed with good rationale and intentions, should not be removed unless the criteria for removal has been met." The closing editor of the recent AfD already removed a BLP tag from this article because there were (in the opinion of the community through consensus) no valid BLP concerns with this article.

"I did not state anywhere that using a primary source was not valid"..."I did not question the references at all on validity of inclusion except that they are primary." These two statement are contradictory.

"I assume you will not further an argument that the entries in the article will "never" (or for some longer term than normal) have anything but primary sources?" As has been pointed out many times now, this article has plenty of non-Playboy-related sources, and the use of Playboy-related sources in this article to verify information that appeared in Playboy in the first place is not at all controversial or against any known Wikipedia guidelines.

"There was a 100% fact that before the AfD the article had severe problems and probably was not going to see improvements." There is no deadline on Wikipedia, and, as was pointed out at AfD, AfD is not cleanup.

"This biographical article relies on references to primary sources." This article does not, in fact, "rely" on primary sources, since the majority of sources in this article are not Playboy-related. There is no "contentious material about living persons" in this article. There is no "libelous or harmful" information contained in this article.

"I do not want Playboy or related articles removed from Wikipedia"...even though you recently voted at AfD to delete this article?

Seriously, please drop these repeated & obviously invalid arguments. Guy1890 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There was no contradiction and you know that. Primary sources should be backed up with secondary or tertiary sources. I didn't make that policy (and the several related) but it is supported by a far wider consensus than those involved in this article. That does not mean a primary source is not acceptable it just means it is "primary" and should, by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, be supported. Please do not assume bad faith. I wanted, and still want article improvements. If I state that I do not want the articles deleted I mean it and attacks that I am insincere because I "voted" one way or the other, is not proof. AT THE VERY LEAST, and if I was dead set on deletion, you can not pretend to state or assume (and certainly not continue), without showing less than good faith, that because of the very same improvements that others weighed in to keep because they saw them, that I can not or did not change my mind so I will ask that you please drop that stick. I feel these disruptive comments, trying to make some case that because I "voted" for delete that I can not possibly edit the article now, as it is not productive and is disruptive. I stated, and have restated, that the article (and those related) have --and had-- issues that were (and are) not being addressed and it is tiring to try to defend a none-issue like you present. Maybe you you don't like the tag because it warns of possible BLP problems and think "Third-party" tag more appropriate?

I am giving valid attempts at discussing article improvements. These antics only bolsters the reasoning that when an article, or a multitude of them, are created with no improvements, and what can be seen as protectionism is exhibited to try to ensure this, then sometimes things such as an AfD is a reasonable avenue to force a change. I have no doubt you are aware the AfD forced improvements. That is not even a question as it was commented on.

All of that aside, I am concerned with the template. As I explained above and was ignored while being advised to bow out (drop the stick):

• The template should not have the names of the Playmates that are used in the article, that redirects back to the article, to be redundant. There is no reason for this. I can not imagine, but will be interesting to read, arguments for this. Sometimes available options are limited by lack of concern, lack of willingness for participation, or whatever. I asked "I would like someone to look at this." and I am again asking for comments on this. Otr500 (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is a valid reason for this. It allows for easy navigation within and among articles; when a playmate has a separate article, it directs there. And when a playmate becomes notable and gets a separate article, the links are redirected. We are managing information about 60 years of entries here, ease of navigation that is consistent among the articles is key for reader use. BTW, I haven't read the wall of text above since the AFD closed, I don't why people still have their panties in a wad.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You go ahead and play "I can't hear you and I will go another route. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Primary sources should be backed up with secondary or tertiary sources." It's been explained again & again why your continued assertions about the Playboy-related sources in this article are false. Move on...I'm done discussing these settled issues with you as well "Otr500".

"If I state that I do not want the articles deleted I mean it and attacks that I am insincere because I 'voted' one way or the other, is not proof"...sure it is. Don't be ridiculous...the AfD is over.

"trying to make some case that because I 'voted' for delete that I can not possibly edit the article now"...no one is saying that at all here. What's simply been repeated to you again & again is that your "concerns" about this article are invalid and settled issues at this late date. Again, there are no valid BLP issues with this article, period.

You keep bringing up Playboy template concerns (here, at AfD, etc.) apparently everywhere but in the right venue, which is the talk page for the template in question. Go find it and have it out there. We can't do anything here with the templates that you apparently have "concerns" about. Guy1890 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Emily Agnes

• Emily or someone close to her doesn't seem happy that she was made a Playmate, based on recent edits.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If that's really true, then there's a process that one must go through in order to delete that kind of content. Edit warring over content isn't the way to go. Guy1890 (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• First, if your issue is with the Sun article, why did you delete more than just the link to that one article? Second, how is the Sun article defamatory? It is an interview with the subject in question and she even linked to it on her Facebook page and called it 'pretty cool'. I believe the entry should be reverted to the status before your edit which contained useful and relevant information. Mathieas (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

October

In the intro sentence, September should be changed to October, obviously.

Also got previous modelling experience at Vision Los Angeles. 84.175.218.224 (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I made the necessary change to the month mentioned above. Guy1890 (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

September

Stephanie's PDS shows up in the Reference section 8 whopping times. I guess that might be reduced a tad bit? 84.175.218.224 (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There's an automated bot that goes around & cleans up referencing issues like that. It may take a few days for the bot to get to this article though. Guy1890 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reminder about the external links

These external links and any like them don't belong in per WP:NOTLINKS, WP:EL (WP:ELNO#10 and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL), WP:EL/P and the ELN discussion. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through the "List of Playboy Playmates of..." articles and cleaned up the ones that were missed earlier. I'll add a note on the 2015 talk page if it becomes an issue there. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

About Britt Linn and her short hair

Currently in her section is this sentence: "She is the first short-haired Playmate in more than 15 years." That statement is rather vague since it fails to mention who the other Playmate is, and nothing in an encyclopedia should make you wonder like this. In other words say, "the last one since X." Naturally this got me to wondering, and the likely one almost 15 years ago is presumably Dalene Kurtis (September 2001), although she really doesn't qualify. There are only two other Playmates who are even close: Saskia Linssen (June 1991) and the only real competitor, Carol Ficatier (December 1985). Long story short: delete the sentence in question as being needlessly obfuscatory. Or provide the needed reference. __209.179.0.121 (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)