Talk:Penthouse (magazine)

message: Famous vs infamous - A recent edit changed the description of the September 1984 issue from being "the most infamous" to "the most famous". It's arguably both; but I think the former (which I admittedly wrote) is more true than the latter. The issue did, after all, feature nude pictures of a fifteen year old. MK 20:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous vs infamous

message: Is it verifiable that the Vanessa Williams issue (September 1984) was the largest-selling issue of any magazine ever?  --15:23, 02 Jul 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And is it verifiable that the issue is illegal to own? I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for possessing it. 68.101.162.92 07:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: September 1984:  Long article about the issue, including assertions of largest-seller and illegality of owning by people involved:  https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a33955539/penthouse-scandal-vanessa-williams-traci-lords/?source=nl&utm_source=nl_esq&utm_medium=email&date=091520&utm_campaign=nl21471315 Kdammers (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanessa Williams

message: "For example, although the September 2006 issue features fully nude models, they have been posed such that their pubic regions generally remain hidden from view." <-Predicting the future I see. Should be "will feature fully nude models" or not be there at all. 59.167.141.187 14:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should be "will feature fully nude models"

message: I just added two more cite tags on the softcore ==> hardcore stuff. One question especially comes to mind - did the new format lead to the lower circulation or did the lower circulation lead to the new format? The section as currently written says both, and cites a source for neither. PurplePlatypus 07:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that the answer is both. The "new format" was brought about because of lowered sales due to internet porn & the new format itself lead to a lower circulation, as some people were disgusted by the urination shots & hardcore photos and canceled their subscriptions. --Hndsmepete 21:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite tags 

message: Should mention the infamous "forum" letters section. AnonMoos 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Penthouse Forum

message: What're the price of one cover and the circulation of Penthouse?
Thanks,
--Redflowers 08:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The price of one cover and the circulation 

message: I think this should be a separate section on financials of the company, General Media Inc., and Guccione.  This article needs to be filled out with more details of the magazine and culture:  Letters, Caligula, style of the magizine, history, and  Guccione's philosophy.  It needs to be much more like the Playboy article.
Perseus109 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financials 

message: * (Per message on my Talk page) Bloomberg? The editor used biglawbusiness.com a non-notable website to remove claims. A previous editor did this too, trying to remove references to Xvideos.com and changing the company name without citations (both new accounts). Also nowhere in the citation from Big Law does it even mention Holland. And the company's name is WGCZ Holding. I am undoing the revert for now per RS and COI rationale. Gotitbro (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * My mistake it is indeed a Bloomberg website. But the reported company name is still wrong and Kelly Holland is still the editor. I stand behind my reverts. Gotitbro (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

text: * The editor gave this link in the edit summary to say that she has left Penthouse. But her social profiles still say she is working for Penthouse. Kelly Holland can probably be removed from the infobox but the other edits by the editor removed information about Xvideos from the article and they should remain reverted. Gotitbro (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the company, as cited, is WGCZ Ltd. They own XVideos, but XVideos did not buy the magazine's assets, so is not to be listed as the owner. If you feel the connection is super-important, you can include a (cited) statement that XVideos is owned by WGCZ Ltd., but not remove the actual name of the new owning company. As for social profiles, they are NOT WP:RS, and are often obsolete - as it appears now. We do know that the assets were sold, and she was not part of the purchase. So keeping her name on the masthead is inappropriate. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *  Most publications refer to the company a WGCZ Holding. If you feel it is better to refer to it as WGCZ Ltd. then please do so but that would be removing the common name of the company (they are both the same). Yes, I believe it is important to list it owns Xvideos.com as it is the company's main property and the sole article that relates to the company (even the Bloomberg reference mentions it). I know social media profiles are not reliable that is why I said it should probably be removed from the infobox and Holland's departure should be mentioned somewhere in the article as well. Please edit how you see is the best way ahead but I think Xvideos should be mentioned in the article. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited reference says WGCZ Ltd. - it does not say WGCZ Holding. If you want to say that, you must find a WP:RS which says that WGCZ Holding (by that name) bought or owns the property. You don't get to simply say "I know they are the same, so I'll use the name I prefer", you have to have a reference that states it. As for XVideos, again, it is owned by the same owners, but it did not buy the property. It doesn't matter whether it's the major property of the owners, the purchaser was WGCZ Ltd. - not XVideos. You can add a statement in the article that they own the both properties, but it does not belong in the infobox. WGCZ (either Ltd. or Holding) isn't equivalent to XVideos. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not saying anything it was right there in the AVN reference which was replaced by the Bloomberg one. Gotitbro (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content 

message: Why the dramatic push to include this author in an already run-on list of previous authors? If he's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, why do we think he's so notable he MUST be added to a list in this article? Tarl N. (discuss) 17:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Alexander 

message: Is this another of those hip media words like ‘deprecate’ and ‘sunset’, or in other words, ‘close down’, or ‘discontinue’ or even ‘cease’ ? Could we try for encyclopaedic language, perhaps? 2001:8003:3010:700:38AC:179C:E284:708B (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shutter? 

message: Um… see the date? 2011 ? Should this be altered to the paste tense? 2001:8003:3010:700:38AC:179C:E284:708B (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D HD porn channel 

message: The Financial history section is very confusing, noting General Media, Penthouse, and Penthouse International alternately as the parent company at the same time. This needs clarification by someone more knowledgeable about the subject and to be rewritten. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 13:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing