Talk:The Playboy Club

• "We wouldn't expect an image of Patrick Trueman in the article, despite him being named, so why Steinem?" Putting aside the fact that there aren't any available images of Trueman, I refer to my previous argument that Steinem is the only person (unless you can cite others?) who received media attention as an individual rather than a group. If Trueman in his individual capacity spoke out against this show, nobody in the media would care; they only listened because he was a spokesman for a group. Steinem spoke out in her own, and the media took heed based on her past and her relevance as an individual. That's not a distinction that Wikipedia editors have made, but rather
  reliable sources did. Thus is makes sense that there would be a photo of her in this section, as opposed to Trueman or others. With regard to your argument, "Images in articles are supposed to be directly relevant to the subject," in this case it is, but only as far as the protests about the show are concerned. That's why it's appropriate that her photo be included in this section. With regard to your arguments about it being "human nature for the reader to then give more weight to that person's opinion", I don't think you can really speak for how other readers will interpret the use of the image, but even so, I think this argument is based on your personal opinion, not policy. I still also believe it's a weak argument to say the mere presence of an image raises neutrality questions. Nobody is going to read this article and think, "Well, I disagree with Gloria Steinem, but her picture is on the article, so I guess the editors think she's right, so she must be right." — Hunter Kahn 17:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

All of the above all being said, I feel like we've hit a bit of a wall here and aren't like to make much progress amongst ourselves, so I've asked others to weigh in with their opinions. I posted on the talk pages of the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and WikiProject Television for now. If you think of anywhere else we should ask, feel free to do so! — Hunter Kahn 17:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC might attract those who have signed up to be notified of Arts/TV, etc. article RfCs.

talk) 17:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I can understand the opposition to sticking a picture of Steinem in there, as on a personal level I feel that her attitude towards pornography belongs in the Vatican - however, I think such an illustration could easily belong here, but would it be possible to stick it in a multi-picture template with someone who has criticised the show for its actual quality rather than objecting to its content? The reviews all seem to be pretty negative; which would allow the caption for such a multiple image to state something along the lines of "The Playboy Club has drawn criticism from television critics for its perceived quality, and from feminist critics for its content". That way you're encapsulating the show's criticism with a visual aid, rather than using one image which can be perceived as giving additional weight or validity to one writer's views. I understand this might not be possible since the only reviews currently in the article are from seemingly non-notable critics, but I'd be very surprised if someone more noteworthy hasn't passed comment on it somewhere along the line. GRAPPLE X 17:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple: With your statement, "someone more noteworthy", are you saying that Steinem isn't "noteworthy" enough?

talk) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

No, she is. I mean the television reviewers mentioned in the article aren't, or you could use a picture of one of them as well as Steinem's. GRAPPLE X 18:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - thanks for clarifying.

talk) 18:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Grapple, I've been expanding this article in recent days, and I still have a lot of expansion to do particularly in the "Reviews" section. I have lots of sources to add to it, which includes reviews that are both positive and negative, and I'll hopefully get to that within the next week or two. However, respectfully, I'm not sure a photo of one of the reviewers is really appropriate. First of all, I'm not sure if there are any photos out there of any of the reviewers, as they tend not to even have individual Wikipedia articles about themselves, let alone pictures. Secondly, though, those reviews will be part of the "Reviews" section, whereas the Gloria Steinem photo is in the "Protests" section. I feel we would be confusing things if we took an image of a reviewer from the "Reviews" section and put it alongside the image of Steinem in the "Protests" section. Thirdly, I think it would be further inappropriate to put up an image of a reviewer because there will be many reviewers, and just picking one of the many might raise some of the undue weight concerns that have been voiced above. Since Gloria Steinem is the only individual (as opposed to a group) whose calls for a protest were covered by the media, I don't think the undue weight argument applies there and the image is appropriate. — Hunter Kahn 21:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could use logos for groups along with pictures of individual critics/reviewers; but I still do not see what either adds to the article. What a critic/reviewer (or a groups logo) looks like would be germane in the articles about them, but unless the critique involved the critics looks what does it add? —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the critics, I think a quote box would be a better alternative, one that is reflective of what many or a majority of the reviewers are saying. But that's a different argument than that of the Steinem photo. — Hunter Kahn 02:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Steinem is one of the critics, which was my point. In the article about the actual Playboy Club nightclub, a picture of her in the bunny suit when she worked there (or even better side-by-side of her in the suit and in regular clothes during a related interview) would be appropriate. But this article is about The Playboy Club television series, and while her opinion about the show is germane, what she looks like is not. If there was a source that gave her comments primary credit for the shows cancellation, that would be a reason to put them in a quote box. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the picture of her in the bunny suit under copyright? If so, there would not be contextual significance that warrants including it. As for including the 2008 picture, I think that if there has not been a sense of others rallying behind her specifically, the picture may be too much. I'd rather see a quote box from a full-fledged organization like Parents Television Council instead. (Also, if the picture is going to be used for now, it should be left-aligned since guidelines state pictures of someone facing a certain direction should be facing the text and not away.) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMAGES only says "It is often preferable", it doesn't mandate left placement of such images which breaks text flow and, in this article, directs the reader to Steinem's text, placing even more weight on her words than is appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Wouldn't a picture of that more closely resembles what Steinem looked like during the time The Playboy Club aired be much more appropriate than that image? I understand a picture of her in the bunny suit ties directly into the content of the show and her history with the Playboy clubs, but the content of the article as it relates to Steinem is more focused on her statements in 2011, not her actions in the 60s. — Hunter Kahn 16:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 picture of Steinem is free to use. I'm assuming that Steinem in the bunny suit is not free, and with that being the case, I don't think that there is a compelling fair use rationale to show a non-free image of one of the topic's numerous commentators. Explaining her past involvement in text is sufficient. I'm not saying that the 2008 picture is critical to have. It's the kind of image to include to break up a wall of text, but since there is some perception of a slant, then we should find an alternative, may it be a quote box or another image. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use isn't the issue. If you can't find rationale for eliminating the photo based on policy, then everything else is just personal opinion and really has no weight and is not germaine to this discussion.

talk) 17:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, so far we've had

WP:TVRECEPTION, but that apparently is unsufficient. As I'f yet I haven't seen how any policy actually supports inclusion of the image. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm confused about your stance. Are we talking about the free picture of Steinem from 2008 or the copyrighted picture of her as a Playboy bunny? You had said that the inclusion of the 2008 picture could be undue weight, which is what I meant by "some perception of a slant" and suggested an alternative. Fair use is part of it because we cannot use a copyrighted image of Steinem in a bunny suit regardless. For this topic, a TV series, such an image is far too tangential to be contextually significant. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated yesterday, I have changed my stance regarding the inclusion of the Steinem photo (at this point it's difficult to wade through all the comments and remember who said what!). I no longer feel that inclusion of the photo is undue weight; more importantly, I believe that according to policy on including images in articles, this photo meets the requirements for inclusion, is allowable and should stay. Read this and this for more information. Again, it's best that we talk policy here rather than

I think I may have been misunderstood above. I could understand an argument for Steinem's picture (from when she worked at the Playboy Club) in the article about the actual Club (where fair-use could also be argued). But I do not see anything informative or encyclopedic about a picture of Steinem in this article about The Playboy Club TV series.
Based on Wikipedia Images: Pertinence and encyclopedic nature "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Steinem's picture does not belong here. Her comments are germane, her image is not. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you are basing your opinion on policy, could you please provide a link to that policy?

talk) 19:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Per Wikipedia Images: Pertinence and encyclopedic nature "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Steinem's image does not meet that standard for this article. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it does meet that standard. Is the image relevent to the article it appears in? Yes. Is she significantly and directly related to the article's topic? Yes. She's a famous feminist who spoke out against the show, her statements against the show received widespread attention, and all of this is a significant part of the article itself. But honestly, you and I and Lhb1239 have already voiced our thoughts above. I was hoping to get others involved in the discussion rather than keep repeating ourselves. — Hunter Kahn 19:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep doing a good job of explaining why Steinem's comments are relevant, but I just don't see how a picture of Steinem is. I have kept responding because it feels like my stance on her pictures inclusion is being conflated with my stance on her commentary. I would also welcome wider input on that specific point. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that there are now pictures of recording artists in the article. Unless those pictures are from the show, I don't think they are on subject. I.E. a random picture of a Colbie Caillat does not improve the article, but a picture of her in character would be fine. Even better would be a composite image of her in character next to her from a regular performance.
I would also say this for actors. A picture of a character is good, a group shot of the cast from the shows press junket also good, but random images of the actors from other work or appearances adds nothing encyclopedic. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I feel like the concerns being raised about images are getting really out of hand here. I'm not sure why The Playboy Club article in particular seems to have drawn this discussion, but images of actors who play roles in television shows, or people involved in the creation of such shows, etc., have long been considered acceptable in thousands of Wikipedia articles. And these images are licensed, so a fair use rationale argument isn't necessary. Unless you can cite specific Wikipedia policy that says these images shouldn't be used, I don't think this new discussion is even warranted. — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hunter. Stick to policy please - personal opinion about this subject means nothing, opinion based on policy is the only opinion that's going to sway this discussion appropriately and within Wikipedia guidelines.

talk) 17:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Per policy "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." an image of a guest star in character meets that standard, a random image of them does not. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photos of the two celebrities are of two celebrities who were going to be in future episodes, had the series not been cancelled. Based on that alone, inclusion of the photos meets the guidelines as they were to be guest stars. This series is likely to be picked up by another network. It will probably be put onto DVD. The episodes not being aired at this time doesn't disqualify the photos from inclusion.

talk) 19:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You can't make the assumption that the series will be picked up or that it will ever go to DVD. As you said earlier, "Wikipedia isn't a

crystal ball". If you're going to cite policy and continually request that others stick to policy, you need to do the same yourself. There are numerous situations where a possible guest star on a TV program doesn't appear. When that happens it's non-notable event and there isn't a single piece of policy that supports inclusion of what amounts to non-notable trivia. Colbie Caillat's non-appearance isn't notable enough to include in her article, so why should her image be included here? --AussieLegend (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

We don't say "...was a television series" because fiction is always treated in the present and because the series still exists, but this has nothing to do with including these images. While there might still be unaired episodes, the only verifiable information we have as to what is in these episodes does not include Raphael Saadiq. Justifying inclusion of his image based on what you think might be in the episodes is a clear breach of

WP:CRYSTAL. As regards Caillat, it appears that her appearance was so notable that nobody here noticed that she had actually appeared and, unless I missed it, she doesn't appear to have been credited in the episode. She certainly wasn't mentioned in the press release. As for the "potshots" comments, As I reminded you on your talk page recently,[11] addressing personal concerns about other editors is best done on the user's talk page. Accusing an editor on the article's talk page is a poor attempt at inappropriate point-scoring. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I would add that your distinction that only an image of that guest star in character meets that standard, and that an image of them out of character, is completely based on your opinion and is inconsistent with the policy. The policy language you are citing is actually favorable to keeping the images in, not out. All the photos in this article are relevant to the article they appear in, and they are significantly directed to the topic of the article. — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is your opinion also. In all of this nobody has explained what the pictures in question add to the article. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed links to policy on including images on articles during this discussion more than once. Did you read said policy? If you had, you would already know that the policy explains why the images are appropriate and pertinent to the sections they are included in. Based on their appropriateness and pertinence, they add to the article. As far as "opinion", my opinion and Hunter's opinions are based on policy. Can you explain what your opinions on this subject based on?

What I was trying to say is that every post on a talk page is someones opinion. Trying to dismiss input as opinion is not-productive. Furthermore I have read the image policy you linked to and quoted it. To whit, no one has yet explained how a random image of a guest star is "significantly and directly related to the article's topic" —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures illustrates subjects of discussion within the article. You say "random image" like these aren't people who appear in the show at all. Now, take the Amber Heard image, for instance. Amber Heard is the star of this show. She is described in the article, but clearly, having an illustration of her in the article serves an encyclopedic purpose and helps the understanding of the reader. They can not only understand that Heard is the star of the show, but now know what she looks like. Now, an image of Amber Heard in costume would be ideal, but there is no licensed image of her in costume available to us. So in order to use one, we'd have to use

WP:NFCC. However, the very first standard of WP:NFCC is that there is "no free equivalent". In this case, there is a free equivalent: the picture of Amber Heard presently in this article. (And even if there weren't, you'd find that making a non-free argument for images of the actors in character would raise other concerns.) So the Heard image in use now is the most appropriate given Wikipedia standards. Not using that image simply because a better image (i.e., Heard as she appears on the show) isn't available makes absolutely no sense at all. And even putting that whole argument aside, your interpretation of Wikipedia's image policy is a tortured one at best. The very policy you cite is "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The images in question meet that standard by illustrated people who are indeed "relevant to the article" and are "directly related to the article's topic." Your claims that they somehow still fail to meet that standard just because they aren't in character on the show itself are a stretch, to say the least, and are completely inconsistent with how that policy is being enforced at hundreds, if not thousands, of other Wikipedia articles. — Hunter Kahn 19:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I was talking primarily about the pictures of guest stars. In my experience on Wikipedia most articles about TV series do not include images of guest stars from a single episode. Furthermore, I do not believe an image of a guest-star (or star but less strongly) is relevant unless the image is from the show. If a reader want to know what an actor looks like, they can click on the link to the actors' page (the whole point of links). An image of Heard in costume is germane to this article, and would be covered under fair-use arguments (which is why we have guidelines for fair-use).

It was a thing on this series that they got famous recording artists of today, to play famous artists from the 1960's. That is also germane to the article and an image that illustrates that would also be germane (and reasonable fair-use). But an image of a guest star that is not from the show is just a random image of that person, and as such that image is not "significantly and directly related to the article's topic" —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You say "random image" like these aren't people who appear in the show at all." I hate to state the obvious but, in the case of all but one imagehalf of the images in the article, that's exactly the situation. With the discovery that Caillat actually apeared in an episode, I don't have any opposition to her image appearing, but I still don't see why people who haven't appeared should be included. There doesn't seem any justification in Saadiq's image appearing, let alone being given equal space with Caillat's. She appeared, he did not. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This has already been addressed below, but I'll point out that this is incorrect. All but one (Raphael Saadiq) physically appeared in an episode that was broadcast. In Saddiq's case, his performance was filmed for the show, it was just never aired, but his association with the show is well documented in the article; again, it's not a "random image" in the sense that I just threw somebody in here who has nothing to do with the series. — Hunter Kahn 13:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"All but one" is incorrect, Steinem hasn't appeared in an episode either. If Saadiq hasn't appeared in an aired episode, he hasn't appeared at all. It doesn't matter whether the episode was filmed or not. Until such time as it airs, or is at least scheduled to air, the episode effectively doesn't exist, at least

not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. A few years ago I filmed an episode of a television program that was cancelled with 10 unaired episodes, including mine, in the can. Despite having a significant role in the episode, which the producers felt was one of the best episodes, you won't find me credited in any episode list, and it would be inappropriate to include my image in an article about the series because I didn't actually appear on-air. Saadiq is no different. There's no encyclopaedic value in including his image and I'm still waiting for somebody to refute that. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: Aussie Legend's argument above:

• "Despite having a significant role in the episode, which the producers felt was one of the best episodes, you won't find me credited in any episode list, and it would be inappropriate to include my image in an article about the series because I didn't actually appear on-air. Saadiq is no different." You example is not the same at all. First of all, were there any major entertainment articles written about your participation in the filming? Were you already an established and well-known entertainer with other major entertainment articles written about you? Uncredited guest stars appear in films and TV shows all the time. Regardless, I have included reliable sources in my previous post in this thread that shows he was in episode four, and episode four was taped and completed at the time of the cancellation. He appeared in the show, it just hasn't been aired yet.
• "the episode effectively doesn't exist, at least not as far as Wikipedia is concerned." That's untrue. The episode does exist, because it's been verified that it exists. And, as I already pointed out in an earlier response during the course of this discussion, we don't say "was a series" when a show is cancelled, we say "is a series" because even if it is no longer aired, it is still an existing series. This show is no different. The show is a series with 7 episodes - three were aired on NBC, four of them haven't yet aired. Saadiq appeared in episode four. Your argument just doesn't hold water.
  talk) 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

When replying to posts, please keep your replies within the thread that you're replying to and don't spread them about the page. The RfC thread is a different thread to this one and your reply shouldn't have appeared in that thread.

"First of all, were there any major entertainment articles written about your participation in the filming?" - That's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter who the person is, they haven't guest starred in an episode if it hasn't aired. This is one of the principles that we follow and examples are seen everywhere. For example, it's why |num_episodes= in {{Infobox television}} is for the number of episodes released, not the number of episodes produced.

"Uncredited guest stars appear in films and TV shows all the time." - You're correct but all of those episodes have actually aired. The aren't considered to have appeared unless the episode has aired.

"He appeared in the show, it just hasn't been aired yet." - It's quite impossible for somebody to have "appeared" in an episode that hasn't aired. It's easy to test that. Use {{cite episode}} to cite Saadiq's appearance. If he really has appeared, you'll be able to cite the episode, its airdate and the time within the episode that he appeared.

"The episode does exist, because it's been verified that it exists." - It has been verified that there are 7 episodes, 4 of which have not aired. It has been stated that Saadiq "will" appear in an episode to air in October but we have no idea which episode it was to be. The fourth episode to be produced may not have been the fourth to air. This is often the case with TV programs. Nor has there been anything since the fourth episode was filmed to confirm that Saadiq was actually filmed.

"as I already pointed out in an earlier response during the course of this discussion, we don't say "was a series" when a show is cancelled" - Yes, and I've already addressed the fallacy that you presented in an earlier post.

"Saadiq appeared in episode four." - "Appeared" is past tense. With that in mind, please provide a source that confirms he "appeared". --AussieLegend (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided that source. Apparently you missed my numerous references to it as well as the link to the source itself. The source also states specifically that he was appearing in episode four. You must have missed that as well. I also provided links to sources that showed him in still photos from the episode he appeared in. You didn't look at those links/sources either? It's not impossible for someone to have appeared in an episode that hasn't aired and your disbelief that he appeared in the episode (although I have given proof to the contrary) seems rather silly at this point. Just because you don't want to believe he was in the episode doesn't mean it didn't really happen. And please provide either proof in regard to your statement, "The aren't considered to have appeared unless the episode has aired." along with either Wikipedia precedence or policy to back your statement up. Again, you are drifting into the personal opinion mode rather than arguing based on policy and/or precedence.

No, you haven't provided the source. A source that originated before the episode was filmed does not confirm that he appeared in an episode and, as I've pointed out, you can't have appeared in an episode that hasn't aired. If you could, then you'd have no trouble providing the citation. I know that a source says he was going to appear in the fourth episode, I've commented on that above so I clearly did not miss it, despite your assertion. I've also commented on the sources so I didn't miss them either, again despite your assertion. None of the sources you've provided confirm that he has appeared (past tense) in an episode. He might have filmed an episode but that's not the same as having appeared. It's simple English and there's not a source that supports your assertions. And please, stop referrring to posts being opinions, as if the opinions of others are invalid. You've criticised the posts of others by referring to their opinions several times now (13 times now in 8 posts by my count); you've actually used "opinion" at least 20 times. As MBurrage has told you at least twice, everything is someone's opinion. Wikipedia works on

consensus, which is based on opinions. It's the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia and there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Every opinion is valid; it may not be made in accordance with policy but not all decisions are based on policy. We don't need to be continually hit over the head with it. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You seem very angry about this. For the life of me, I can't figure out why. And please stop using edit summaries to lash out at other editors. Edit summaries are supposed to be a brief summary of what your edit is or is about, not commentary aimed at editors who are pissing you off. Your attitude along with your edit summaries are turning this needlessly into a

talk) 02:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not angry, although I must confess to being somewhat frustrated at your unwillingness to accept simple dictionary definitions, your insistence that people cite chapter and verse of policy while you do not see the need to respond to such requests from others and your dismassal of the posts of others because you perceive them to be "just their opinions", even when those opinions are based on policy. I'm not too concerned about the unexplained move of my post out of the section for which it was intended and into an irrelevant section. As for edit summaries, on talk pages they tend to serve a different purpose than they do in articles. In articles they should be an explanation of the edits that have been made but on talk pages "replied" is generally unhelpful, so they tend to summarise the thrust of your edit, which you're well aware of.[12][13] --AussieLegend (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two closely related parts to this RfC:

1. Is the image of
   undue weight
   to her opinion as an opponent to the series?
2. Is the inclusion of images of proposed guest stars such as Colbie Caillat and Raphael Saadiq, who never appeared in the series' three episode run, appropriate and does theirits inclusion provide any encyclopaedic value?

Thank you for your participation. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the RfC request based on the discovery that Caillat actually appeared in the third and final, episode to be aired. Apparently her appearance was so notable that nobody here noticed that she had actually appeared and, unless I missed it, she doesn't appear to have been credited in the episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the above points is incorrect. Colbie Caillat did appear in episode three, therefore, the point of whether or not her photo should be included is moot and not appropriate in the context of the RfC regarding the appropriateness of photos of "proposed" guest stars. What's more, was Saadiq only a "proposed" guest star, or was the episode he was to appear in actually taped before the series was cancelled? Photos found online show him in character as Sam Cooke, the singer he was to portray, therefore, it seems possible his episode was also taped and he was not a "proposed" guest star at all. Indeed, all resources I have found online state he was signed to play the singer in an episode to be broadcast in October. This would make him not a "proposed" guest star, but a contracted guest star. Links are here and here. Caillat's episode was shown - her photo is definitely pertinent to the article; Saadiq's was at the very least already contracted for one episode, so his photo it also pertinent to the article. Indeed, TV Guide reported in mid-September that Saadiq was "booked" (entertainment industry-speak for contracted) to appear in the show's fourth episode (see here for evidence). The show was cancelled after the third episode aired. The fourth episode - the episode Saadiq appeared in (as evidenced by the TV Guide online link) - was already completed, as were three more episodes up to episode 7 (this is also referenced and cited in the article). In summary, both photos are pertinent to the article, meet the criteria for article images, and should be kept in the article and the section they are a part of.
• Steinem's criticism of the series was widely reported (references cited in the article in regard to this are already present in the section where her photo is included) and her proposed viewer and advertiser boycott of the series was also well known amongst strong critics of the show. Steinem herself has been a decades-long critic of Playboy and the Playboy Club - in the 1960s, she completed an undercover journalistic assignment in the Chicago Playboy Club (the club the series is based on) as a Bunny. In fact, in the third and final episode aired on NBC, the Bunny working undercover was based on Steinem and her experience there. It is noted in the article as well as in the media that it was the criticism and controversy surrounding the show that caused advertisers to drop like flies and ultimately NBC to pull the plug on airing it past three episodes. Steinem is a famous, known activist and advocate of women's rights - she was one of the most well known of all the show's critics. It makes sense to have a picture of her included in the article in the appropriate section relating to her involvement with the Playboy Club as well as getting the show cancelled. Undue weight? Not at all.
  talk) 04:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Saadiq's status must remain as "proposed" as we have no evidence that he appeared in one of the unaired episodes. We can't speculate; that's

original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

See link to TV Guide online above.

talk) 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI, it's considered

bad form to substantially edit your comments after somebody has replied to them.[14] Perhaps you could move your additions after the point where I replied to your original post, so that I don't have to substantially edit my post in order to reply to the added content? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

@Lhb1239 - Instead of moving my post to the wrong section, as you did here, could you please comply with my request? --AussieLegend (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am fine with having the 2008 picture of Steinem in the article, but it should be left-aligned. Lhb1239 says that her criticism was widely reported, so its alignment is appropriate. It would not be appropriate if it seriously interfered with how the other elements were presented (such as crossing into the next section). I do not buy the argument that the left/right placement has any relation with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated earlier,

WP:NPOV. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Not my field really, but if you want a truly outside opinion based on what I consider general principles of using pictures in WP articles: It's utterly nonsensical having a photo of s guest who never appeared. It adds zero relevant information. As for the photos of those who did appear, I'd suggest it be the actors who portrayed the major characters. Unless a guest star's appearance was in some way particular notable, I think there's no encyclopedic purpose in including it. I think Steinem is important and relevant enough. Which side of the web page it goes on is not a judgment of anything but article formatting. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Execpt the guest did appear in an episode (as already proven in my comments above with links to sources stating which episode he was in). That there are secondary sources available makes the appearance notable according to WP guidelines.

talk) 17:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]