Talk:Playboy

message: Hello editors. I'm Zach, a new editor here on Wikipedia, and a representative of my employer, PLBY Group. I understand the rules for editors with a conflict of interest, and am committed to following community standards. I disclosed my COI in the banners above, and on my user page. I will not edit the article directly, instead I will make suggestions here. My goals are to help volunteer editors by providing appropriate sourcing where there are gaps, and suggest changes or updates to information that is out of date or inaccurate, again with appropriate sourcing to support any proposed edits. 
I understand that some edits I suggest may not be accepted, or may be altered by editors. This is a new process for me, but I'm looking forward to collaborating with the community and learning more about Wikipedia. As I'm new, I've posted what I hope is a simple request below, and provided some sources to address a couple of the "citation needed" tags in Publication history.  
===Sources for Publication history===
I've noticed there are a few tags in the article where no source has been cited to support the content. I have a few sources here that I think will help support some of the unsourced content. 
:*Citation needed in 1950s for: The cover price was 50¢. Copies of the first issue in mint to near-mint condition sold for over $5,000 in 2002.
:::This Mental Floss article confirms the first issue cover price. I was not able to find a source that supports the $5k selling price in 2002, however the Mental Floss article does mention an auction of a first issue. This Newsweek list confirms that a copy of the first issue sold in 2018 for $6,100, but I learned to cross-check sources with this list of reliable sources and saw that Newsweek is not always reliable, so I understand if editors prefer not to use. 
:*Citation needed in 1960s-1990s for: Since reaching its peak in the 1970s, Playboy saw a decline in circulation and cultural relevance due to competition in the field it founded—first from Penthouse, then from Oui (which was published as a spin-off of Playboy) and Gallery in the 1970s; later from pornographic videos; and more recently from lad mags such as Maxim, FHM, and Stuff. In response, Playboy has attempted to re-assert its hold on the 18–35-year-old male demographic through slight changes to content and focusing on issues and personalities more appropriate to its audience—such as hip-hop artists being featured in the "Playboy Interview".
:::The Los Angeles Times went into detail about this period in this story. 
:::One other note for this section, it says "...Playboy has attempted to re-assert its hold on the 18-35-year-old male demographic..." I think it would make sense to remove the word has from this sentence, because it implies that the section describes current efforts, when this information is past tense. 
I'll continue to look for sources that support other parts of the article, and appreciate any feedback editors have. Thanks, PLBY ZG (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting here that I added the edit request template above. PLBY ZG (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

text: , the above two requests have been implemented -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks so much for implementing those changes. I've posted another request below, if you're interested in continuing to collaborate on these updates, please have a look. I've also posted a request at Talk:Playboy Enterprises. Thanks again, PLBY ZG (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

text: The printed magazine ran several annual features and ratings. One of the most popular was its annual ranking of the top "party schools" among all U.S. universities and colleges. In 2009, the magazine used five criteria: bikini, brains, campus, sex and sports in the development of its list. The top-ranked party school by Playboy for 2009 was the University of Miami.
*Paragraph three ends with an unsourced sentence "In December 2009, they further reduced the publication schedule to 10 issues per year, with a combined January/February issue." This Business Insider article confirms that the magazine published one less issue in Q1, 2010. If that source is acceptable, here is a citation:
 
*Question for editors: The article currently notes that along with bringing back nudity in 2017, Playboy Philosophy and Party Jokes also returned. Cartoons also returned to the magazine at that time, but I've been unable to locate secondary coverage for independent verification. My question is, can the magazine itself be used to support mentioning the return of the cartoons? I understand if editors prefer to wait for a secondary source. The reason I'm asking is because in 2016–2018 changes and brief ending of full frontal nudity the article mentions that "Hefner, himself a former cartoonist, reportedly resisted dropping the cartoons more than the nudity, but ultimately obliged." So it seems relevant to the history that cartoons returned. Curious what editors think, and any advice you have.   
Thank you for reviewing, PLBY ZG (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Y Partly done Changed the tense in paragraph two (), makes sense to me. ritenerek⋆:) 20:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   sorry, forgot to ping ritenerek⋆:) 20:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have closed this request as answered since it looks like it has been fulfilled. Please post a new request below if there are still things to add to the article. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal intro and request 

message: I've noticed there are a few tags in the article where no source has been cited to support the content. I have a few sources here that I think will help support some of the unsourced content. 
:*Citation needed in 1950s for: The cover price was 50¢. Copies of the first issue in mint to near-mint condition sold for over $5,000 in 2002.
:::This Mental Floss article confirms the first issue cover price. I was not able to find a source that supports the $5k selling price in 2002, however the Mental Floss article does mention an auction of a first issue. This Newsweek list confirms that a copy of the first issue sold in 2018 for $6,100, but I learned to cross-check sources with this list of reliable sources and saw that Newsweek is not always reliable, so I understand if editors prefer not to use. 
:*Citation needed in 1960s-1990s for: Since reaching its peak in the 1970s, Playboy saw a decline in circulation and cultural relevance due to competition in the field it founded—first from Penthouse, then from Oui (which was published as a spin-off of Playboy) and Gallery in the 1970s; later from pornographic videos; and more recently from lad mags such as Maxim, FHM, and Stuff. In response, Playboy has attempted to re-assert its hold on the 18–35-year-old male demographic through slight changes to content and focusing on issues and personalities more appropriate to its audience—such as hip-hop artists being featured in the "Playboy Interview".
:::The Los Angeles Times went into detail about this period in this story. 
:::One other note for this section, it says "...Playboy has attempted to re-assert its hold on the 18-35-year-old male demographic..." I think it would make sense to remove the word has from this sentence, because it implies that the section describes current efforts, when this information is past tense. 
I'll continue to look for sources that support other parts of the article, and appreciate any feedback editors have. Thanks, PLBY ZG (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting here that I added the edit request template above. PLBY ZG (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

text: , the above two requests have been implemented -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks so much for implementing those changes. I've posted another request below, if you're interested in continuing to collaborate on these updates, please have a look. I've also posted a request at Talk:Playboy Enterprises. Thanks again, PLBY ZG (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for ''Publication history''

message: *Paragraph two currently reads in present tense in several places. I propose updating it to past tense, and specifying that it's referring to the printed edition of Playboy for clarity. Suggested changes are in bold below: 
:The printed magazine ran several annual features and ratings. One of the most popular was its annual ranking of the top "party schools" among all U.S. universities and colleges. In 2009, the magazine used five criteria: bikini, brains, campus, sex and sports in the development of its list. The top-ranked party school by Playboy for 2009 was the University of Miami.
*Paragraph three ends with an unsourced sentence "In December 2009, they further reduced the publication schedule to 10 issues per year, with a combined January/February issue." This Business Insider article confirms that the magazine published one less issue in Q1, 2010. If that source is acceptable, here is a citation:
 
*Question for editors: The article currently notes that along with bringing back nudity in 2017, Playboy Philosophy and Party Jokes also returned. Cartoons also returned to the magazine at that time, but I've been unable to locate secondary coverage for independent verification. My question is, can the magazine itself be used to support mentioning the return of the cartoons? I understand if editors prefer to wait for a secondary source. The reason I'm asking is because in 2016–2018 changes and brief ending of full frontal nudity the article mentions that "Hefner, himself a former cartoonist, reportedly resisted dropping the cartoons more than the nudity, but ultimately obliged." So it seems relevant to the history that cartoons returned. Curious what editors think, and any advice you have.   
Thank you for reviewing, PLBY ZG (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Y Partly done Changed the tense in paragraph two (), makes sense to me. ritenerek⋆:) 20:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   sorry, forgot to ping ritenerek⋆:) 20:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have closed this request as answered since it looks like it has been fulfilled. Please post a new request below if there are still things to add to the article. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Tense and sourcing updates for '''Post–2000'''

message: Hello, Zach here with another set of suggestions and some sourcing updates for the article. Ritenerek, thank you for your help with the wording changes on my last request. I'm pinging you here in case you're interested in collaborating on some additional changes. 
These suggestions all pertain to the Online sub-section of Other formats. I found some unsourced material in the current article, and some details that could use some clarification. I hope these suggestions are improvements from a reader and encyclopedia perspective, and I understand that editors might not prefer to implement every change, or might alter my suggested text. 
:*I'd like to propose changing  to 
::*The proposed change clarifies when Playboy first had a digital presence with what I hope is an appropriate source, and includes improved sourcing to confirm details about the website launch, which is currently sourced to an archive of the website. 
:*Details about the "Playboy Cyber Club" are currently unsourced. I have a citation here that confirms the details, but I was not able to find an easily accessible digital copy. I understand if editors prefer not to include, but thought I'd offer it just the same:
 
:*I also propose changing  to 
::*I've added a citation here as well, since it's currently unsourced. Because the magazine has existed in a digital format since that time in one form or another, I've rephrased this slightly to be inline with the supplied source and to focus on when the company began publishing the magazine digitally.
:*I noticed that details about iPlayboy are also currently unsourced and "i.playboy.com" is inaccurate. For clarity and to eliminate any need to keep the URL up to date, it seems like this could be Changed from  to . I've also provided a source below that discusses the launch of iPlayboy. 
 
:*One last question. This section also talks about "The Smoking Jacket", which was redirected when Playboy.com became a safe-for-work website. Do editors think it's worth mentioning that change? I wasn't able to locate a source that specifically mentions "The Smoking Jacket" being redirected. This CNBC article mentions the main site becoming safe for work. 
As always, I appreciate all the help from editors with these requests so I can remain hands off with my conflict of interest. I am open to any feedback. Thank you! PLBY ZG (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions and sourcing for '''Online''' section 

message: Hello again! I'd like to ask editors for their thoughts on updating the International editions section. In the collapsed box below, I've posted a list of changes to international editions that are not reflected in the article. Can someone take a look at let me know what might be an acceptable source or if it's reasonable to implement any of these changes? Looking at WP:VERIFY, these don't seem like changes that are "likely to be challenged". But, I understand that editors prefer to use secondary coverage whenever possible, so I'm not sure what's appropriate for updating information already in the article if the new information wasn't reported in the news. , thanks for your help implementing my most recent request! I am tagging you here in case you'd like to weigh in on any of these.
Current editions – date corrections
Asia
*Philippines  (2008 – 2021) – will terminate at the end of the year
Africa
*South Africa (1993–1996, 2011–2016, 2017–) *Digital only
*Afrikaans (2017–) *Digital only
North America
*Mexico (1976–1998, 2002–)
Oceania
*Australia (1979–2000, 2018–) *Digital only
Europe
*Czech Republic (1991–)
*Denmark (2018–) Digital only
*France (1973–1985, 1993–2013, 2016–)
*Germany (1972–)
*Greece (1985–2015, 2018–)  *Digital & Special Editions. Will terminate in March 2022
*Netherlands (1983–) 
*Russia (1995–) 
*Sweden (1998–1999, 2017–) *Digital only
*Ukraine (2005–) 
 
Former edition amendments
Asia
*Indonesia (2006–2007)
*Singapore (2009, 2011)
*South Korea (2017–2020)
*Thailand (2012–2020)
*South America
*Brazil (1975–2017)
*Colombia (2008–2011, 2017–2020)
Europe
*Estonia (2007–2012)
*Macedonia (2010–2012)
*Bulgaria (2002–2020)
*Croatia (1997–2020)
*Italy (1972–1985, 1987–2003, 2008–2020)
*Portugal (2009–2010, 2012–2013, 2015–2020)
*Slovakia (1997–2003, 2005–2019)
*Slovenia (2001–2020)
*Spain (1978–2013, 2017–2020)
Remove:
*Belgium (1987–1991, 1994–2003, 2008)
*Switzerland (2017–)
We don't have records of editions that were specific to Belgium and/or Switzerland. Other territory editions were permitted to distribute in those territories, e.g. PB Italy had the right to distribute its edition in Switzerland as of Nov. 2017, but it was not a Swiss edition
There were also a couple of questions I asked in requests above that hadn't been answered when the request was closed, so I figured I would repost those here as well. 
:*In Post–2000 The article currently notes that along with bringing back nudity in 2017, Playboy Philosophy and Party Jokes also returned. Cartoons also returned to the magazine at that time, but I've been unable to locate secondary coverage for independent verification. My question is, can the magazine itself be used to support mentioning the return of the cartoons? I understand if editors prefer to wait for a secondary source. The reason I'm asking is because in 2016–2018 changes and brief ending of full frontal nudity the article mentions that "Hefner, himself a former cartoonist, reportedly resisted dropping the cartoons more than the nudity, but ultimately obliged." So it seems relevant to the history that cartoons returned. Curious what editors think, and any advice you have.
:*The Online section talks about "The Smoking Jacket", which was redirected when Playboy.com became a safe–for–work website. Do editors think it's worth mentioning that change? I wasn't able to locate a source that specifically mentions "The Smoking Jacket" being redirected. This CNBC article mentions the main site becoming safe for work. 
   
Looking forward to hearing editors' thoughts on how to move forward with these updates. Thanks for the continuing help! PLBY ZG (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the editions as described (hopefully correctly). I'm not inclined to add the cartoons back based on the primary sources only (you can't cite every edition, but just the first edition it came back could have been a one–off, or maybe they were added back for a year only... difficult under WP:V to establish they came back indefinitely). Similar with the Smoking Jacket—without a secondary source, I don't think it's worth mentioning. — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for making those updates and your explanation on the other questions. I understand your reasoning there. I looked over the changes to International editions and it looks like all but one was transferred over. Do you have time to add "Thailand (2012–2020)" to the list of former editions? Thanks again, PLBY ZG (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, done now, sorry about the mistake. — Bilorv (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  International editions updates 

message: Hello. I have another request I'd like to make for this article. Below, I've proposed a short mention of when the Playboy Philosophy column was added to the magazine, and some early topics covered, as well as brief mention of the magazine's stance on cannabis reform at the time. I think this would fit in 1960s-1990s, and gives valuable context on the magazine's development over time. I will of course defer to what volunteer editors think is best, and as an editor with a conflict of interest, appreciate the help reviewing and implementing acceptable changes on my behalf. Thanks! PLBY ZG (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks so much for reviewing and
implementing! PLBY ZG (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition for 1960s-1990s 

message: Did the magazine experience an increase in cancellations of subscriptions, or an increase in the number of non-renewals of subscriptions, after plans to end full-frontal centerfolds were announced? Did this enter in to the conclusion a year later that "the dropping of nudity had been a mistake?" Can these figures be found and documented? One wouid think that Playboy tracked cancellations and non-renewals along with other market indecators. 2603:800C:3944:BC00:9D56:9EE1:9B4A:B199 (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are any figures available to document how many subscriptions were cancelled in 2015-2016 when the ending of full-frontal centerfolds was announced? 

message: Shouldnt the Playgirl not also be mentioned at see also? The Other Karma (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: sure. I've added it. In future, you should be bold and add it yourself. Either there was a reason it wasn't mentioned, and you get reverted and learn something, or there wasn't and you've made an improvement. Articles aren't designed top down by somebody who is in charge, but the result of dozens of volunteers adding and tweak little bits here and there. — Bilorv (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: kk The Other Karma (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playgirl 

message: In the history section under the topic „online only“ should be more information about Playboys Centerfold.com. Centerfold.com is a platform the Plby Group (owner of the Playboy magazines) has bought. It is developing this Platform to a major Only Fans competitor. Adult Stars like Amanda Cerny and Lana Rhoades are allready Content Creators on this Platform. 2003:E0:AF2D:4B00:A8E5:EA93:C2C5:E788 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide some reliable sources that comment on Centerfold.com? It would be interesting if any journalists have described this as a change in Playboy's company vision (pivoting more to online content; or aiming to compete with OnlyFans). — Bilorv (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centerfold.com 

message: I don't know why there isn't a mention of the classic Playboy joke ("I read it for the articles") here, when the Carnegie Hall article has a whole section on its classic joke.  The joke was certainly very well-known in the U.S. during the 1970s or 1980s, and there's a TV Tropes entry for it  (as I mentioned in the 2015 archives of this page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick search for sources shows lots of trivial references to the line but perhaps some usable content among these: Chessbase, Salon, SBS. I'm sure there are sources out there (better than these) that could make a solid paragraph on this, or even a full section on the balance of the magazine between sexual imagery and journalistic content—go ahead and add one, . — Bilorv (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous joke 

message: As best I can tell Playboy the magazine is completely defunct at this point, even the digital version being gone. I can't find any sort of official announcement but I browsed every Playboy website and no where was there an option to sign up for it. Centerfolds also were completely abandoned back in 2021. I think the magazine briefly went digital and then just quietly disappeared after a few months and nobody even much noticed. Even their website is just an online store selling Playboy hoodies and stuff. Zaqwert (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: well, we do say in the infobox that 2020 was the last issue, but the article at present doesn't seem very clear on the matter. Whatever we say should have a reliable source (including the infobox claim). No matter how little readership it was getting in the 21st century, Playboy is such a widely recognisable name that I can't believe that it would just go defunct without making headlines worldwide. — Bilorv (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the opening ("Playboy is an American men's lifestyle and entertainment magazine, formerly in print and currently online.") should be altered to indicate that the magazine is still in print internationally.  Something like "Playboy is a men's lifestyle and entertainment magazine.  Originally in print, it is currently online-only in its native United States and elsewhere, while remaining in print in several International editions."2002:620D:3AF:0:C9E9:B14B:7969:6B10 (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give some reliable sources that talk about its international printing recently? — Bilorv (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

text: My understanding is that the international versions of Playboy are not owned, operated, or run by Playboy as a company at all and never really have been. I believe all they do is license the Playboy brand name to otherwise independent magazines that are simply paying for use of the name and logo. Zaqwert (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it fully defunct at this point? 

message: I am concerned about a few things that have to do with Playboy, one being the fact I LOVE the story. And completely love the designs and the way it Appears to my eye, I think it’s a great brand it’s a great story but is it appropriate for minors? Is it really about sex or is it about beauty and fashion? Is it suggesting anything sexual? Or is it showing a lifestyle people have or dream of. Is the story of hefner about sex and just to promote sex? Or is it a story about a business man who came from nothing and become a influencer and a icon all around the world. 2600:1700:C470:6410:D4D2:1EB0:EE07:AF7D (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What changes are you proposing be made to the Wikipedia article on Playboy? — Bilorv (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Cjsmith7 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR 10 am

message: We went in and added a section about the female experience in the Playboy mansion. We felt like this section gave insights that were previously not included in this article.  Aileen216 (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female Perspectives and Experiences