Talk:Lists of Playboy models/Archive 1

Untitled
I unlinked most of the people in 1972. None of the entries that I changed had a page as of my edits. I don't feel that every model that appears in Playboy should have their own article. I'm thinking of writing an article that would be a list every Playmate of the Month along with some stats. I think it would be suitable since many PMOMs don't deserve their own article, IMO.


 * For what it's worth, I agree. I'm generally opposed to the meaningless creation of "red links" to articles that are unlikely to ever be written. I did leave a few in my edits here, but only to people I think will actually get articles. MK2 17:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * So we're agreed on that. By the way, I've been getting the names for the Playmates at Playboy's website.  They have a page that lists each Playmate by the year and month that they appeared.

Delete this article?
With the completion of the "List of People in Playboy" articles, it seems to me that this article is redundant and no longer needed. Is there a consensus to delete the page? MK2 02:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This article can be used to redirect to the various lists and tables now. What text exists below the links can be deleted. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:29, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems that the time for list to be deleted has been here for a while. I'm going to be bold and go ahead and delete the list while leaving the links to the seperate decade tables. Dismas 03:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * See also Articles for deletion/List of Perfect 10 models Kappa 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

occupational category
I was cleaning up the "lists of people by occupation" and added playboy models to both entertainers & sex workers. User:Dismas removed the sex workers category by reference to the wikipedia article sex workers; he said that playboy models are not sex workers by the wikipedia article. I looked at the wikipedia article which includes a) strippers and b) actors; and I'm not sure why nude models in a magazine generally intended as an "adult" magazine would not be included. (I'm distinguishing between artist models, who might pose nude, and models for nudity pictures.) If the sine qua non is "providing sexual services", then it seems to me that posing nude for the sexual gratification of someone is a "sexual service".

I note, first of all, that "sex workers" isn't a term of disapprobation; it's a neutral term that reflects employment in the industry that caters to sexual desires. That seems to fit Playboy.

I don't think the medium (still photography; as opposed to some performative medium, like stage-dancing, film) should be the only reason for exclusion; otherwise, you get into complex line-drawing exercises about poses with multiple people; series of still photos; faked versus actual sexual intercourse in the work; etc.

Thoughts? --LQ 14:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First appearance only?
Can someone explain why we're only listing the first appearance? I'm of the mind that the list would be more comprehensive in a way if we listed all the models for that year instead of just the first appearance. A couple of the women are notable for this since, for instance, Janet Pilgrim was a Playmate of the Month a record three times (July/December 1955 and October 1956) and Farah Fawcett has appeared a couple times (once as late as in her fifties which is unusual for a nude model in a non-fetish magazine).


 * No idea, I'm just following the pattern that was already in existence. If it were me, I'd suggest a table organized by month with the centerfold, cover model, interview subject, and an "other" category for any celebrities in the issue or other notable facts. MK2 17:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Like this:


 * That would be perfect! Although, it includes more info than what the article title suggests the article is for.  I would keep it down to just the cover model, Playmate/Centerfold, and additional models. Dismas

For what it's worth, I started this list to be a comprehensive list of all the Playboy models, especially those without a page. By no means did I intend for all the people on the list to be linked. Here is an excellent example of people who are certainly notable enough to be mentioned, but not so important as to have their own entry. Since it was supposed to be a list of every model who appeared, it made sense to mention them only once, although subsequent appearances could be mentioned in parentheses somewhere. I rather like the idea of a table with odd facts in it. An annotated list could be very interesting. I have no objection to putting all appearances under the respective years. Do a quick poll and if that's considered better, change the info I put on the top. T h e St ev e