Talk:PLBY Group/Archives/2014

RE: MERGETO

• DONT MERGE: Playboy (magazine) should not be merged to this, this is an article about a holding company, the other is an article about a publication. Xaosflux 19:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think the article should add more info about the company's products, such as the magazine? The article would be improved if it contained throughly information about Playboy Magazine, Playboy TV, and other brand products --Alberto msr 01:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really. The Playboy Magazine article is rather large already, nad has been in existance for many years. A merger would also lead about 100 internal links only needing to be edited to not have to go through the rediretor, not to mention external links. Most major magazine articles are standalones already, and not sections of their parent holding companies. I also notice that noone is proposing merges on all of the other listed divions for which their are wiki articles. I do think that the enterprises article has room for expansion, perhaps expansing on its charity and community functions. I am but one voice though, and certainly not a consensus! Xaosflux 02:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right. Merging Playboy Magazine with Playboy Enterprises would yeld in an enormous and giant article. What I think I'm gonna do instead, is create a disambiguation page. When you search for "Playboy", you are redirected to Playboy Magazine article, and the first time I did it, I was looking for corporate info. It took me some days to discover that there was an article called "Playboy Enterprises" in addition to "Playboy Magazine". So I think the best option would be to create a disambiguation page for the term "Playboy".

Merge discussion

I think that Playboy Entertainment, Playboy Licensing, Playboy Publishing are just divisions of this company and should be merged. Although many products of a corporate division may deserve distinct articles, I think this content all belongs in the Playboy Enterprises page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I concur. Townlake (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Playboy Entertainment, Playboy Licensing, Playboy Publishing, as I understand it all fall under the auspices of a single holding company. As such, placing them under a single entry, accessible using individual titles, as above, would be proper. Playboy Magazine, should be maintained as a seperate entry as searches for information on the magazine itself do not directly relate to business matters. Co-referencing links should be maintained for relationship and clarity. As an example to support this position, consider that someone researching the 747 aircraft, and the Boeing Aircraft Corporation would be seeking different information, but the entries would still reference themselves because of the interrelationship. Jbbrandes (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• As for PB Lifestyle, its just a franchisee. It should stay a separate article or be deleted, but not merged with the main Playboy article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• On second thought, I heavily pruned the article and merged it into the Licensing section since that's where it belongs. There were issues with the PB Lifestyle article as well, so "two birds..." --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Playboy UK

Why is Playboy UK a redirect to here? This article has nothing about any UK activity. Does it mean there isn't any? 85.217.22.105 (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Redesign

Just parking some sources...

http://business.avn.com/articles/technology/Playboy-com-Relaunches-with-Social-Media-in-Mind-570722.html

http://adage.com/article/media/playboy-makes-website-facebook-friendly/294653/

--SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)