Talk:Mayfair (magazine)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Accuracy

Hi,

Edits have been made to this page by people who don't seem to know what they're talking about! I come today to re-read the entry I wrote and find that half of what I wrote has been replaced with INCORRECT details! I found all these details about Mayfair's history from an interview with Mayfair's founder Kenneth Bound in Vol 35 No 1 of the magazine, so I'm not just making this up!!

Going to change it all back now...... can I ask that people please know their subject before editing pages on Wikipedia?

--Monikahajkovafan 15:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link to password-protected site

Should the link to the fan site be left now that it requires a password? Rlquall 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Mayfair Files fan site closed permanently on 10th March 2006, as did all the other sections of that site, so I'm removing the link. 212.118.242.2 18:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HISTORY OF MAYFAIR MAGAZINE WANTED If you are an expert on the history of Mayfair Magazine - please could you email Kim at takeawaymedia.co.uk We are currently researching a television programme for the BBC and are interested in info about the history of Mayfair and Top Shelf Mags in the late 1960s and 1970s. We are researching this subject until 16th Feb 2007. Please only get in touch up until that date. Many thanks

So what happened to this project, there is nothing on that website? Silver Barnet (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal issues

In the Legal Issues paragraph, it says that it is now illegal for 16 or 17 year olds to appear nude in the media. I thought that under 18's could appear as long as they had their parents written permission. Can anyone clear this up?. Tiger20001 08:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Protection of Children Act 1978 defined an indecent photograph of a child to apply to someone aged under 16. Simple possession of such photographs was not an offence until 1988. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the age to 18. Nick Cooper 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mayfair 11 12.JPG

Image:Mayfair 11 12.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal issues again

The way the first sentence of that section is written implies that Mayfair was a special case for featuring 16- and 17-year-old models. I'm sure that's not the case; didn't even the Sun have 16- and 17-year-old Page 3 girls? (Which does lead to an interesting question: what are archivists supposed to do? Is there an exemption to the law for them, and if not how can complete archives of such magazines/papers ever be kept?) Loganberry (Talk) 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that the legal issues are probably quite complex. For instance the DVD of 'To the Devil a Daughter' features a 15 year old Nastassia Kinski wandering about stark naked. Is this legal or is it just that nobody at the police station has noticed yet? Colin4C (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16 and 17 year old girls could appear with parental consent, both in magazines and in papers. I think that such a law applied retrospectively to magazines, newspapers etc to prosecute for ownership would be unenforceable due to the large numbers of these that people may have stored away in lofts etc without even realising it. If the police had nothing better to do they could possibly try to prosecute someone selling vintage copies of such magazines and newspapers on e-bay or wherever, but then how would they prosecute on the basis that something was legal when purchased and for which the prospective purchaser would be none the wiser as to how it is now 'illegal', given that the prospective purchaser is not going to be aware of the ages of all the models in any magazine? Or in the case of an old copy of, for example, The Sun, whether or not the Page Three pin-up was 16 or 17 years old, or 18 years old or over? Silver Barnet (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of this page

Monikahajkovafan cites an article with Bound as being gospel. This is not the case - it is an interview that took place 35 years after the magazine launched. Bound will have forgotten things and will over the years have rewritten his history of the magazine. Statements that come from the article should be referenced so that discrepancies with other sources can be identified and the existence of confusion acknowledged.

For example, I believe the first sentence is wrong. Mayfair was not originally published under the title King. See http://www.magforum.com/mens/mensmagazinesatoz6.htm#kin (though it appears Raymond was involved in funding King in 1964). The titles were competitors for 1966-68, when Mayfair took over King - hence Mayfair carrying the line 'incorporating King' on its cover from v3n8 (1968 aug). See http://www.magforum.com/mens/mensmagazinesatoz8.htm#111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magforum (talk • contribs) 08:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are overlooking the fact that Monikahajkovafan last edited the page in December 2005, when the page was very different to as it stands now. For example, you are right about the relationship with King, but this was not mentioned in the version of the page last edited by Monikahajkovafan. Someone would have to dig up the article by Bound from 34/1 to determine if there is actually anything in it that may still be in the article! Nick Cooper (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References section tidy-up

Having just added some references to this myself, I realise that it could probably do with tidying up, not least when two separate references are for the same edition of the magazine, eg both Brigitte Barclay and Kirsten Imrie have pictorials in Vol 24, no 12, published in December 1989. Does anyone know how it would be possible for these two references to be combined into one? If more models are added to the list then this issue will crop up more often. Silver Barnet (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tidied this up, where possible just having one reference per model. I appreciate that there may be a better way to do this, but it is now a bit less cluttered.Silver Barnet (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mayfair (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]