Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 1996

External links in the Playboy Lists

There has been recent action to delete external links to the Playboy Wiki in these lists.
If you are interested, either for or against, there is a discussion about it here: Noticeboard for External links. Wikilister (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Long standing community consensus is that there should be only "one" external links section in an article and not several external links sections embedded within an article. This has been reasserted at the External links noticeboard as well as a past discussion. There has also been recent cleanup of articles (removal of these multiple external links sections) across Wikipedia that is not "mass removal" of external links but cleanup of external links sections to comply with Wikipedia: policies and guidelines on external links. The Manual of Style policy is backed up with the layout guide on external links. These sections were removed per those policies and consensus. If an editor of this article would like to remove these and ensure that the appropriate links are included in a "sole" external links section, which might include referencing per what worked at List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 it would be better. Otherwise I will have to remove them again which may not provide the ideal solution. Otr500 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Removing valid references, whether in an EL section or otherwise, is almost always a bad idea. If removing EL sections, all those sources need to be converted to references when doing so. Personally I don't have an interest in tracking this dispute among all the various articles, so someone ping me if you want me to chime in somewhere.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not references in one external links section (stated: "in an EL section") but 12 external links sections in the article. It is not my responsibility to have to rebuild an article to remove violations. References (if that is what they are) should be placed in an appropriate reference section and not in multiple external links subsections within a list. If you or another editor would like to try to use the references in the appropriate reference section then go ahead. Otr500 (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete this

Why is this list even relevant? Richterer11111 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

For the same reason that the many, many other lists like this one are relevant. Once again, please try & focus your efforts on improving Wikipedia articles and not just on deleting content that you don't personally like. Guy1890 (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I've asked the same question and the answer seems to be that Playboy has successfully marketed themselves to such an extent that Wikipedia should echo some of that marketing. I'm not saying the lists don't meet our extremely low bar for justifying lists. I'm saying that the lists' reliance on primary, promotional sources clearly demonstrate these lists are BLP, NPOV, and NOT violations. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In other words, you too just don't like the content, which we all already knew "Ronz"...you can move on now... Guy1890 (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not dismissing content concerns by attacking editors. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE: "Richterer11111" was recently blocked for being a sockpuppet. Guy1890 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)