Boobpedia talk:FAQ

Boobpedia - Encyclopedia of big boobs
Jump to: navigation, search

Ask questions here.

I have a whole lot of questions and things to say about this Boobpedia wiki...

Firstly, hello. I've just signed up to this wiki. I'm quite impressed at the level of detail that exists here, with over 500 models, although I can also see that this wiki has a lot of potential for expansion. I can clearly see that large parts of your policies and guidelines are based on those of Wikipedia, but some things are unclear:

  • How many users are active on this wiki, approximately?
  • Are you commercially affiliated?
  • Is information on this wiki required to be sourced?
  • Can talk pages be used as mere discussion forums about the model in question? (Wikipedia doesn't permit that of course, simply saying "she's hot. I really like this girl" on the talk page would be deleted as it does not serve to improve the article)
  • I notice that all links to articles that are not about models (such as natural tits) in the main namespace redirect simply to the category. Are all pages in the main article namespace about individual models? (NOTE: I've just discovered you have a category "Research" for such articles, and you have a "Lists" category for lists, which is answering my own question presumably?)
  • I also have a slight issue with your body types categories - some of the models I feel there are quite incorrectly categorised, and "chubby" can be seen as quite a derogatory term. Perhaps we could give that particular category a different name. Also, it has occurred to me that these body type distinctions are a subjective personal interpretation rather than an objective one; Sara Stone as "average" and Bea Flora as "chubby" does not seem logical as they seem to have similar body shapes, and Wikipedia wouldn't allow personal interpretation like that
  • Do you have a Neutral Point of View policy like Wikipedia? Do you prevent Original Research?
  • Is Hexvoodoo the only administrator/user of authority on this wiki?
  • Do you have a policy on vandalism?
  • What about user pages? I assume these are used to explain one's preferences in the women discussed here?
  • I suggest you delete the Category of 1993 births immediately and the article in it

Anyway, I'd like it if you got back to me about these queries. Some of them are a little unclear... I feel the policies and FAQ could use a little expansion, but it's your site and I've only just discovered it so what do I know?

-PlasticJesus 18:00, 30 April 2007 (PDT)

hi, i'll try to answer your questions one by one
  • it's hard to say how many users could be classified as active. usually a user would have prolific edits for a few days, and after a while come back and do another round of edits. i think there are a few dozen who have done more than just minor edits. you'll also see a fair number of anon edits. you won't find many who contributes every day, but hang around for a while and you'll see the regulars.
  • boobpedia is not commercially affiliated. it is a fan project
  • all negative or controversial info should be sourced
  • yes general comments about the subject is permitted on the talk pages. of course abusive comments are not permitted.
  • most of the articles are about models. there are a few research articles and a few lists. there is also a video article.
  • there has been some discussion about body types. right now it is quite subjective. we could use BMI for objective classification, but it will take quite a bit of work. this area will likely be looked at again. "chubby" is in common usage among BBW fan communities, and i haven't seen any models take offense to the term. there are alternate terms like "plump", but they are not that much different.
  • neutral language is perferred, and overly POV passages are usually edited. we do not prevent original research. information about most of the models is so scarce, that often the best source is the model herself.
  • The_Honorable is also an admin here. there may be future admins as the need arises.
  • obvious vandals are perm banned on sight. personally, i sometimes try to contact a user first if i feel he might have had a reason to do certain things. overall we are much less tolerant of vandalism than wikipedia.
  • yes you can talk about your faves on your user page.
  • 1993 category is now gone. i didn't notice it, but yes, only those over 18 should be included on boobpedia

--Hexvoodoo 02:09, 1 May 2007 (PDT) Can I add a site to your page? Bare Necessities is the largest online retailer of bras - I believe this site adds value to your readers :)

Let's standardize boob sizing

As you know cup size letters are to identify the difference in circumference in between the rib cage alone and the total circumference of the rib cage and breast all together.

Cup Increment (Inches)
A +1
B +2
C +3
D +4

Now lets check this a little deeper.

Person Bra Ribcage Ribcage + breasts
Women X 30D 30 34
Women Y 44D 44 48

Both womens show a total 4 inches ribcage/breast difference. So both are Ds, but they actually don't have the same size of boobs!

Let's use the following ratio logic to better understand; we could have a table like this:

Bra BR% (Breast to Ribcage Ratio)
30D 13.3%
32D 12.5%
34D 11.8%
36D 11.1%
38D 10.5%
40D 10%
42D 9.5%
44D 9%

So the breasts of women X (30D) is at 13.3% BR (Breast/Ribcage ratio) and women Y is at 9% BR This means that, in terms of proportions, women X gives the impression that she has bigger boobs and women Y's boobs looks fairly small to normal... Yes, D can potentially look small on a bigger person... because she only has 9% BR.

So it kind of looks bigger on women X but are they actually bigger? No, in fact women Y has bigger boobs alone, if we remove the proportion feeling. Women Y has the same difference of 4 inches indeed, but that's not counting every angles, it's only the difference with the cage..

In fact women Y has boobs with a bigger circumference (and bigger bra underwire, all due to bigger cage as the breast base) than women X, so boobs to boobs, she would still have bigger boobs (more volume) than women X even if looking at her, she did not really seem to have big boobs.

Here is a link to underwire conversion chart: Underwires design

There you can really see that for example, 36D really has the same underwire circumference as the 42A ! And 40D is like 36F !

Are you confused still? Well overall, what I mean is that with just Cup size alone, we don't really have a true breast size category... as some will look big and some not.

On top of that cup sizes above D are noted differently depending on the manufacturer!!! (Bra fitting chart). So sometimes DD=E and some other times DDD=E or F!

Where I'm I really going with this?

  • Issue 1: We have girls here listed as E or DDD (who says triple D?? I prefer to say E) that have the same bra size in reality!!! But listed in 2 separate categories! They should be merged in the major american standard (one that can go high in cup sizes preferably) in a way that simply demontrates the 1 inches incrments of the cups! So if we say we follow the "Made For Me by Bra Smyth (American)" (not sure if the best manufacturer but they go up to J) standard like:
    • D
    • DD
    • E(DDD)
    • F(DDDD)
    • etc... anyway, as long as we put them in one single chart!!! Europeans should be converted, Japanese and so on to our common boobpedia standard (at least for classification purpose)
  • Issue 2: Since 30D is smaller than 44D, we should put that into factor! That would give the following option:
    • Browsing the F would give you a list sub grouped in ascending band sizes.
    • Browsing the band size would give you the list of women grouped by ascending cup size...
    • We could have a Boobs2Boobs feature, since it would know that 38D is the same cup size as 34F ( Underwires design) they could be all listed in the same category! Since the 2 womens are actually filling the same cup underwire... And that would feel like the same boobs in your hands... It's a fun fact to know!
    • And my last idea would be to have a list by BR% (Breast/Ribcage ratio) so that you can browse ones that have bigger boobs on smaller body and vice-versa!
  • Issue 3: Wrong bra size... A women listed as 43G (Full mensuration instead of ribcage size) should be converted to 36G and so on, it's easy to convert, anything above, let's say, 40 should be converted back to real sizing unless you know she is 6 feet 4 inches tall and really is tall enough to have a huge ribcage, or unless she is really fat. Because 43G on a small girl is impossible...

All of that would make a great "Boobpedia" that would be very powerful ;) thx all! Slamcool

this sounds like an interesting idea. i think it can run alongside the existing cup sizes, but it can't completely replace them for a few reasons. there are a lot of models who miss either the cup size or the bust measurement (the proper one) and we can't calculate their true size. also as you mentioned some consider DD to be E while others consider DDD to be E, so that can cause some problems. i do like the idea of a way to compare real boob sizes. we need three things to get this started, a catchy name, a new field in the biobox, and an instruction page.
for the name, i'm thinking something like "Boobpedia True Size". a detailed help page needs to be created that explains the system and the calculation process (slamcool?). then a new biobox field can be opened to accept the values. --Hexvoodoo 14:39, 30 October 2007 (PDT)
I think that there are more manufacturers conversion grids like the reference I put that can help a lot in bringing everything down to a common scale. Also, the model location can help us a lot, if for example it's european, overthere we can most definitely assume that their E is DD. If they say DD than it's the same as our DD. A grid can help us at that too. Here is an interesting converter: Bra converter
So for Fuko for example we have good data since we have her mesurements that includes the bust size. We have the metric bra cup size but not the band size. No problem, with the bust size and the cup size we can still figure out an american cup size. Actually, we could event use the same calculation as they put on their site, so that anybody around the world could browse the boobsizes in the scales that is more meaningful to them were they live.
Let me convert Fuko:
  • Bust: 120cm
  • Cup: JAP metric P
120cm = 47.2 inch
JAP Metric P Cup = US, N cup (Figured from the converter but it stopped at K, so I figured the scale would continue the same)
So bust 47 inch and cup is N
N means +15 inch to underbust
Bust - Cup factor = underbust
47 - 15 = 32
So fuko, would wear like something around a 32N bra...
She has a small asian ribcage, so if we would want to compare her "True Boob size" with womens from here it would look like:
Cup of a 32N is like somewhat around 34M, 36L, 38K, 40J
I did not find girls that fitted that exactly but the very close one was Nadine Jansen with her calculated 38J...
So they could appear together in a list and you know they have about the same size boobs, despite their 4 inch height difference (Nadine being taller than the little 5' Fuko) and the overall body mass... Boobs for boobs, it's around the same thing.
All of that to say, we ca probably standardize thing like that here. Eventually if this site becomes big, maybe we will be able to get the girls participating and to tell us their true bra size or to send them some bras that are using the American units so that they can tell what fits them best hehehe But until then, we still can bring the boobs that fit together in a category system or something.
How about a simple image with circles/layers (the most internal circle would be the smallest size and the most outer circle would be the largest size)? -Biguns 06:45, 18 December 2007 (EST)
concerning the converted and standardized sizing, i can open a new category for it, but we need someone who volunteers to do the conversions. --Hexvoodoo 14:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia has an article on how to calculate volume of a breast based on bra size. Sslx (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2018 (EDT)

I have a question, are videos not allowed to be linked on the pages? If they are free as well?


are there specific links that you are referring to? --Hexvoodoo 23:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)
Hi, yes, I put some (well actually 17 links) in the Maxi Mounds page and have some for Kayla Kleevage that I was going to edit in. I did not do the Kayla Kleevage ones, because saw the Maxi Mounds ones were edited
as i recall, they were all hosted on a youtube style site. i don't think the content is licensed, and even if they are licensed that's way too many links. in the gallery linking guidelines, you'll see that boobpedia is not a TGP (thumbnail gallery post), and its main mission is to provide information, not to link to all the pics and videos that can be found online - that's a job for google. you may see external links to some youtube videos on some articles, but those are supposed to demonstrate something about the model (for example, showing that a model can flex her boobs). --Hexvoodoo 01:38, 18 November 2007 (EST)
Do you want the link to all 17 clips put in? Either under external links, or a new a new headline.
i've already given the reasons. the content is likely not licensed, and does not provide any unique information, so the links shouldn't be added. --Hexvoodoo 17:09, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Non-public figures need to e-mail the admins

But how do you know it's really them? You have no idea unless they scan an ID card and attach it or something (and even then it could be faked). -Biguns 09:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)

a little good faith is needed, because as you said, if someone really wants to cheat they can fake even the ID. this is at least better than having no consent at all. --Hexvoodoo 18:54, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Also, they can always send in something like this: Sofia Rose boobpedia.jpg The Honorable 21:52, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Not that it's any less fake proof, as lots of funny sign generators proved... -Biguns 06:39, 18 December 2007 (EST)
We can ask them to write "Boobpedia" on their chest in lipstick or something. :) The Honorable 17:42, 18 December 2007 (EST)
It would probably take more time to do it physically and then wipe it off than fake it in Photoshop... ;-) -Biguns 04:29, 19 December 2007 (EST)