User talk:Dekkappai/Archive 1

Welcome back

I can't think of any recent major changes. You should have no problem continuing to contribute. :) The Honorable 17:47, 26 February 2008 (EST)

• If the sites provide some useful information, and aren't just come-ons for membership sites, they should be okay. The Honorable 20:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)
  • If it's related to big breasts, it is probably a suitable subject for an article. :) The Honorable 17:20, 1 March 2008 (EST)

I agree with you about movie posters and video covers in a filmography -- I can't imagine any video producers objecting to using covers for that. The Honorable 17:38, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Big-Bust genre directors articles!

Sounds fine to me. I'm kind of embarrassed that we don't have a Russ Meyer article already... :) The Honorable 16:27, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Good-- here comes Satoru Kobayashi! Dekkappai 16:27, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Images and stuff

I think that image size warning is a default MediaWiki thing. Unless you're uploading images that are several megs, you're probably okay.

Also, I notice that those Flickr images are Creative Commons-licensed, so they should be fine for use over here.

And let me know if you sneak a Boobpedia article into Wikipedia. :) The Honorable 19:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Format of external links

Please see Help talk:Contents#Format of external links -Biguns 19:59, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Hi, and thanks for the pointer, Biguns. Actually, I try to always use the {{cite}} template in my editing. I assume you're referring to my additions at Rachel Aldana? The Wikipedia article on this subject is probably going to be deleted. She's not in my normal area of editing interest, but I saw some good links at the Wiki article which we did not have, so I did a quick cut & paste job, trusting that regular editors there would patch it up. My BP-editing time is extremely limited, so I wanted to put as much time as I could into researching the Japanese/Asian area which is my principle interest. Hope you understand. Cheers! Dekkappai 20:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

You've opened 2 other discussions about this. :-) Let's just talk about it in the aforementioned link from now on. -Biguns 20:38, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, Biguns. Dekkappai 20:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Akira Takatsuki

hi dekk, i'll shoot Akira Takatsuki an email and see if he wants to get involved. thanks for the information and for your excellent work on BP. --Hexvoodoo 20:33, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

DVD covers

No problem. I'll try to control my urge to prune unused images. :) The Honorable 18:51, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

• I don't think there's any way to just rename image files with MediaWiki -- they have to be re-uploaded with the correct name. The Honorable 15:40, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Greetings Dekkappai

Domo Arigato! Dekkappai... Is a good new your return, in this field (gravure and idols) still remains a lot by including... Greetings and hands to the work.--Kamui99 13:03, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, i don't dominate very well the English, i'm from Monterrey, Mexico, by that i use very terms no transliterated from the spanish, sorry.--Kamui99 21:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Protected Amazon link

I assume Hexvoodoo protected it to keep anyone from adding their own affiliate code to the link. I think the protect tags only work if certain people use them -- and it's not an automatic admin thing, because they didn't work for me at first. The Honorable 20:05, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Archiving articles

Unfortunately, archiving other sites' articles is probably a bad idea, for obvious copyright reasons. The Honorable 19:17, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Hey, if it was up to me, I'd have no problem with it. :) The Honorable 18:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Japanese "metric" cup sizes

Hi Dekkappai,

I wrote a bra size template, but I have no idea how to convert these "metric" cup sizes. I saw that you contributed most of the information on Japanese models here. Can you help me? Here's the template:

Template:Bra size

Please read the Usability section about the metric cups. Any help is appreciated!

Thanks and regards

Prophecy 21:08, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi Dekappai,

thanks for your reply! Well, measurements like in Aki Tomosaki's Moodyz profile are just perfect! If only all the magazines worked this way (including American and European)... Sometimes they give the real bust measurements, and sometimes the underbust, together with waist and hip, which is useless for a correct bust-waist-hip or a bra size calculation.

I just saw that you sent me a second answer while I was writing. Did not read the link you gave me so far, because I was calculating if Aki's measurements were really correct. And it's perfect! This is the first Japanese big bust model of whom I ever got the correct bra size! Just look here, it's a normal shop site with advice for women how to calculate their bra size from bust and underbust measurements: Pampered Passions. I followed the instructions exactly with the 70 and 100 cms from her profile, converted them into inches without cutting the numbers - Her cup size is a perfect and real G like stated in the Moodyz profile! And her bra size is 32G.

As it's you work - would you mind if I added her bra size to your article using my template? You have given "H metric" there - which does not correspond to all the other metric cup sizes sometimes given, because normally they differ a lot from European cup sizes. But 32G is really sensible, I would have estimated her this way too. I'd add a reference and explain how her bra sizes was calculated. I know, this is Boobpedia, and everybody can change articles, but I have respect for the work of others and don't want to disturb any "rules" of your articles which I did not know.

Thanks again

Prophecy

Thanks. You did not add a reference, so I could not see where you got the H cup from. But anyway, a cup size is never static. I personally know women who wear everything from F to H, depending on the brand, the band size and the country the bra comes from...

BUT: I think we have found the proof that all this "metric" stuff is nothing other than normal cup sizes! I never understood the difference anyway. 34 is inches and 75 is metric cms, this is clear. But as for a cup size, they seem to be all the same, with regional and brand differences perhaps. I think this is why I found absolutely nothing on "normal" discussion boards where women wanted to buy a bra in Japan - the answer was always the same: Cup sizes are just like in other countries.

I also think that the difference between some Japanese cup sizes and the "real" cup size we might estimate exists simply because some photographers and producers 1. do not know anything about bra sizes (I know several who admitted this) 2. a few cups bigger always sells better. As if Fuko was less attractive if they wrote her real bra size... P is unreal and nonsense, but she does have at least a wonderful H, I or K cup.

Best regards

Prophecy 19:18, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh... I just noticed that the "G" in her Moodyz profile does not mean her cup size. I thought so. My bad... But anyway, G is correct. :-)

Prophecy 19:34, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

That's exactly why I left the "metric" entry for Aki untouched, but added her "real" bra size to the measurements field. :-) Prophecy 16:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

AV idols

As you know more about the subject than I do, however you want to organize the categories is fine. The Honorable 23:50, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Image question

I suggest doing it like the thumbnails on the front page -- in the description for the front covers, put a redirect to the higher quality image. The Honorable 20:32, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Put #REDIRECT [[Image:HigherQualityImageName.jpg]] as the only text in the image's description, and clicking on the image in the article should take the reader to Image:HigherQualityImageName.jpg. The Honorable 22:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Ethical dilemma

As long as there are plenty of busty women featured in the series, your plan sounds fine. :) The Honorable 20:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

• And if they're busty transsexuals...then what will you do? :) The Honorable 20:02, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Filmography at Fuko's and other pages.

Hi Dekkapai,

congratulations for your thoroughness! I just stumbled across Fuko's site again and noticed the filmography. Please have a look at my Userpage and at a more recent table I created on {{Biobox new}}. I know that the Boobpedia CSS is lacking vertical column borders, but I managed to create some at the {{Biobox new}} page. Perhaps we should think of standardising the tables in your filmographies too? I'd be happy to be of assistance.

I also saw that you asked how to make the pictures clickable in your tables. On my Userpage every picture is clickable, as everywhere on Boobpedia. I do not quite understand why you added the |thumb parameter to your cover photos. Is there a certain plan behind it? I think the frames take more place as if the photos were just there, without frames. They would remain clickable anyway.

Regards

Prophecy 12:13, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, concerning the tables - you are the only one who managed to get vertical lines in your tables so far :-))) It's a bug or something in the Boobpedia formatting CSS, but Hexvoodoo (who would have the rights to change it) isn't there most of the time. My style of having vertical borders/lines is quite complicated, and if you are writing your articles offline, the possibility of having layout problems when you upload your articles is quite high. But perhaps I'll write something like a how-to-guide some day. It would be quite easy if we were allowed to define classes. You would only have to take your tables, write class = "Boobpedia special fancy boobstable" in it, and the layout would change. But so far, we have to be satisfied with workarounds...

Ah, by the way: I extended the {{Bra size}} template so that it can handle "E metric" and stuff now. Perhaps you would also like to have a look at the simplified {{Bra}} template. You can just type {{bra|E metric}}, and the result is E metric. :-)

Concerning thumbs: I've searched for this too, because I'd like to have clickable thumbs on my user page that lead to the model's page, like you with your covers. As far as I have tested this, neither the redirect nor other versions work. They don't on Wikipedia either, there's an article about this. Perhaps I did it wrong; I'll let you know if I find a solution. The problem is: Boobpedia's software isn't up to date. Many tricks I'd like to program for templates, for example, don't work, as the Wikipedia features aren't implemented in Boobpedia yet. Again, let's wait for Hexvoodoo...

I also think we should have clearer categories so that people can find your lists easier. That is a project I'll start with template categories first.

Have a nice day and thanks for your feedback

Prophecy

fyi

hi dekk, i have started a discussion about the direction of boobpedia here. as you have lots of experience with editing on wikipedia, please have a read and give your input, thanks! --Hexvoodoo 17:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Server will slow down for a few minutes.

Hi Dekkapai,

I have fixed some things in the {{Bra size}} template. When I upload the new version of the template, the server will slow down significantly for a few minutes, because the template is used on more than 1,000 pages.

As I saw that you are uploading a lot of covers at the moment, and as I know that your online time is limited, I thought I'd wait until you have finished your work. Please tell me when you are ready. The server will probably not respond then for a few minutes.

Thanks and regards

Prophecy 17:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

(Excellent list, by the way. I'll think of a fancy table format for your creations in the near future.)

Please look at the fyi message by Hexvoodoo (above)

Just in case you did not notice: Hexvoodoo sent you a message and invited you to join the discussion about a few topics I consider very important: My new category sub-structure and the use of templates tagging articles as containing statements without sources. Please add your comments on my talk page. I think it is essential for a site like Boobpedia to have at least all statements on boobs properly sourced. Boobpedia is cited more and more, and we have to be reliable in this field. Just my opinion... Curious what you think about it. Prophecy 19:08, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Measurements

Yeah, I've got this on my list for future templates... I noticed that too, and everyone writes them in another way. I'm thinking of developing a template for that, but there is the difficulty that some models do not provide their real bust measurement for the first number, but their bra size with cup letter. This would be a bit difficult to handle, so I did not start the project yet. For my own projects I always use a style that is similar to {{Height}} and {{Weight}}:

• Original measurements first, calculated second and in brackets.
• cm and in with a leading space and always abbreviated.

So for Iori Kuroki, it would look like this:

130-90-110 cm (51-35-43 in)

If this is too long for one line, you can consider writing it

130-90-110 cm<br/>(51-35-43 in)

which would cause a line break and display both measurements cleanly in two lines.

Regards

Prophecy 15:42, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Chronology

Hi Dekkapai,

thanks! I'm glad you like the idea and I'm looking forward to your contributions. Prophecy 16:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Formatting

Hi Dekkappai,

on my computer the table and biobox are displayed normally, but maybe you have changed your article in the meantime. But this is a known issue. It's not the fault of any biobox (old and new would behave the same), but of the principle of positioning any tables at the right of a page in general (the biobox is nothing else than a table).

I had the same problem with my photographer pages: They are actually categories, with the models of this category listed under the article. If the article is short enough, the list of models (category list) overlaps with the biobox.

Workaround:

Type <br clear="all"/> before your filmography table. As the filmography table is formally after the biobox in the article code, it will be pulled down until the end of the biobox. This produces a bit of white space, but better than overlapping content...

See Gabór Both for example. It has the <br clear="all"/> at the end of the page, so that the category entrie are listed below the biobox if the page is displayed on Category:Gabór Both models.

In my opinion, a final solution (if there is one) could only be found by updating the main CSS file of Boobpedia or something like that. I've sent a mail to Hexvoodoo about that some time ago, but did not get a reply.

Regards

Prophecy 04:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Sayuri

Haaaa! I knew you'd find this red link... I already wondered how it could be that you did not start an article about her yet. :-) Not only a picture, here's a few links I saved when I wanted to start a thread on the arabella bra on a forum, but now found a better place for this on Boobpedia:

• http://tokyotopless.com/model/Sayuri/10/
• http://tokyotopless.com/model/Sayuri/12/
• http://tokyotopless.com/model/Sayuri/13/

In these galleries she wears the Arabella bra, but I guess you know how to play with numbers. :-) I wanted to start an article on her some day, but feel free to do this. You have much better knowledge of the subject and are able to read Japanese. She's already listed in your Tokyo Topless list, but with a red link.

Thanks for your interest and regards

Prophecy 19:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Minor formatting issues 2

Hi Dekkapai,

1. Sorry, I did not quite get you. Which "."s do you mean? Please show me a page with those "."s and desribe the phenomenon. 2. Filmography overwriting bioboxes. Please show me a page where this happens. I just saw a page with a filmography overwriting the biobox some time ago, filled in the br clear thing, and everything went well - at least on my computer.

Regards

Prophecy 10:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah, now I know what you mean. First: The women in the Oppai listing are incredible! I'm looking forward to your articles.

Concerning vertical lines: No, nothing has been done. It can only be solved if the main Boobpedia CSS file is changed, but nothing happened.

Concerning the "."s: The wikitables should allow empty fields without "."s. There must have been something different lacking in your former versions so that the column or the lines were lost. The standard wikitable has lines, no matter what's in the cells. But it looks ugly...

Concerning the overall format of tables: You can work around this by defining your own CSS style for every single table. That's a lot of work and could be saved by establishing a class in the main CSS file. You can also work around this by defining the cell background colours, so the rest between the cells keeps a different colour. See {{Decades}}, the decade header on 1990s or just the parameter table in {{Biobox new}} for example. But the amount of work is really immense. And the code isn't very easy to read.

That's why I'm planning something like a filmography template for the future. One change to the template lets all filmographies on Boobpedia look the same. But that's for the future...

Sorry I couldn't give you an easy solution. Prophecy 12:38, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd have asked you anyway, it's simpler than going through all your tables and find the fields that might be important. :-) Perhaps there will be a simple type parameter to specify whether the filmography shall become "Japanese" or "General". Prophecy 14:37, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Bra

Sorry, I don't know this bra... :-) The bra thing was only an idea, because there are several manufacturers who specialise on big bust bras. I noticed that some busty models always wear the same bra types so I got interested... I thought it would fit on Boobpedia, but I already got into a discussion if the Eyes Wide Shut body is big bust specific or not. So far it has only been owrn by big bust models and became very popular, but Honorable thinks that a body has nothing specific to big busts. Although my point was that bodies look even more sexy if the yre stretched by big boobs, and if they are transparent, and if they are made of latex - like this one. Latex has become the big boobs material, but Honorable's point was that wet t-shirts are transparent too... Hm...

That's what I think too. I would include articles on all garments that do something with boobs (so a body has to be included), but I would not include garments like stockings (although I love stockings), shoes, panties and so on. You brought me to a good idea. I forgot about that argument. :-) Prophecy 16:18, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Server down and citation templates

I'll answer on my page as two users have contributed. Prophecy 18:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Shoe size

Yes, I noticed that on many American and british portfolios and sedcards too. The problem is: You never know what this size means or how it was measured. Sometimes it's centimetres, sometimes simple numbers (wich differ heavily from USA to UK to France to Germany to Poland and other countries). So I think providing such information in the biobox could not serve the purpose: To give the reader more information on the model, because he does not know what the sizes mean.

But I can be wrong. Writing something like a conversion like for bra sizes is almost impossible; it would have to take into account the nationality and the country where the model is living now (and we don't even have a field for this). Or we just leave it as free text - letting the user decide what to write in it and if he finds the information useful when he sees it in a biobox. Don't know...

Prophecy 19:10, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Asian erotic cinema vs. Asian-born performer in U.S. erotic cinema

The solution seems simple:

We do not have a category neither for performers in asian films nor for performers in US films. So she does not have to be categorised at all - unless you'd like to introduce a category for this.

Then again it would be simple: You can add a category like "US film performer" and "Asian film performer" (names would have to be revised, just an idea). If she performs in both, you add both, if not - just one. Personally I think that we do not need such categories - a list would do better. Like yours. As she did not perform in Japanese AV films, she's not an AV idol and not to be listed in your list. If you'd like to start a list of Asians performing in US films (quite interesting perhaps), feel free to start it. I could not contribute, because I'm not that familiar with the subject, but you are.

As for the nationality: We know that she's Japanese, so this has to be entered in the biobox. If you find a source that mentions that she has acquired American nationality too, you can add the nationality2 field which I introduced exactly for this purpose. It's not shown if the biobox is the old one turned to a new one by adding "new", but as soon as it's the new biobox, nationality2 is accepted and processed.

I hope I could help you.

Regards

Prophecy 11:04, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Birthdays

That's a good idea. I'll probably add some sort of "today's birthdays" link once there are categories for all the days. The Honorable 14:12, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I've added "Today's birthdays" and "Today in boob history" links in the Interesting Links section on the front page. The Honorable 19:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Satoru Kobayashi

By the way... I added the non-performer biobox to Satoru Kobayashi. Do you have a picture of him, by chance? Perhaps on some of the covers or in an article you read about him? I have searched for pics in the net, but the only Satoru Kobayashi I could find was a professional Go player... Prophecy 19:53, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

References

I'd like to invite you to take part in a discussion that User:Prophecy, User:The Honorable, and I have been having, about the layout of model articles. I've Consolidated everything here: Help_talk:How_should_the_articles_be_written

Drducker 04:49, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Citation templates

Hi Dekkappai,

please do not stop using citation templates. I am sure the problem does not lie in these relatively simple templates, but in bigger high-use units containing other templates, like the new biobox. In addition to this, I believe that updating the Wiki software could already help.

Regards

Prophecy 19:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT

You are right - if it even makes the text easier for you to read, use the plain text. This could help for future articles. Prophecy 06:25, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Quality: That's what I hope too. For German and Russian, for example, the results are already quite ok. And as far as Japanese is concernced: You don't know how helpful it is already to see a word like "Hair" and a colour behind, even if the rest of a text might be nonsense. :-)

Google template: Well, that's why I created the template. Before, I went to Google translate, copied the link into the page, had it translated and copied the monster link back into my article. This is what you'd have to do... See Anna Semenovich for example. I wrote the article before I created the template, so all the Google translation links are still "manual".

Regards

Prophecy 12:37, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

You too!

Have a nice time!

Prophecy 13:56, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

You are...

...incredible! I just wanted to tell you that I created categories for Satoru Kobayashi and Akira Takatsuki and that you can add the categories to your articles if you want - but when I looked at the categories to see if my director templates worked well, I saw that you already populated them. :-)

So you liked my suggestion before I made it.

Hint: If you mention a director's name in an article of a model by using his template, you do not need to add the category manually:

She has played in many films by {{director|Satoru Kobayashi}}.

gives

She has played in many films by Satoru Kobayashi. (with Category:Satoru Kobayashi actresses being automatically added to the page.

If you just want to mention his name, but do not want a category to be added, you can use the nocategory parameter:

She has never worked with {{director|Satoru Kobayashi|nocategory=1}}.

By the way:

• If you create a new article on a director, you can create such a template for him too. There is no automated article on how to add a director template yet, but it works analog to Boobpedia:How to add a photographer. You can just go to {{New director}}, copy the whole code into a newly created template with the exact name of your director, remove the four #'s and fill in the data you know about him.
• If you want to create a category for your director, you can use your newly created director template too: Just by adding the header parameter, you get a nice header. Example for Satoru Kobayashi: {{director|Satoru Kobayashi|header=1}} gives

Regards

Prophecy 20:29, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Not important how you add the categories. I made this functionality for myself, because you can expand the names if you like. I use this in my lists of photographers a model has worked with, because I did not want to change a photographer's homepage on hundreds of pages if it changes:

{{photographer|Gil Perron|link=1|location=1}} gives Gil Perron

The information comes directly from the template, so I only have to update the template if photographer data changes. As your directors both have no homepage and the known location is only "Japan", it's not that important if you use them or not. Prophecy 20:42, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh, sh... Yes, you are right. That's because {{Director}} simply redirected to {{Photographer}} which adds the "models" category. I'm currently working on this, please do not change anything. Of course, "actresses" is correct for directors and "models" for photographers. I was about to let all non-performer templates redirect to my new {{Nonperformer}}, but this would lose the information if it is an actress or a photographer. Thanks for the hint, I'll fix it. Prophecy 22:30, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. I deleted the category from Natsuko Kayama, the director template adds it correctly now. Prophecy 22:40, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Work is done. You can now easily add a new director by going to New director and following the instructions. There are predefined pages that do all the work for creating an article, a template and the categories. Prophecy 06:52, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah, by the way: Just type New page in the search box, and you have a skeleton for a "normal" performer article. :-) Should save some copying work for beginners as well as established users. New photographer works correspondingly. Prophecy 06:21, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Table of contents

You could simply block it from being displayed by adding __NOTOC__ to the page. I already did, but commented it out, so you can choose which solution you like better. Generally, every user can click on hide which lets the TOC collapse.

About the small icons: The director and photographer header templates are just a beginning... I think that the redirect works very well (see, for instance Petra Verkaik and look for the small playboy icon in the biobox: It's clickable, even with an alt text.) Of course, you would have to upload thumbs for each and every image.

Well, if we have photographer templates that can create a header, they can also be used to produce a list entry. I have something in mind like {{performer|Shinobu Hosokawa|list=1|thumb=1|altname=1|birthday=1}}, which would produce a fancy line with all the data and a thumbnail. We already have {{Nationality}} which produces a line with an icon, for example  Japanese. And if a picture or other data changes, you would only have to change the template.

Disadvantage: You would have to create a template for each model. And: This works fine on pages with lists of only a few models. On a page like yours, the server would have to process a lot of templates (for each model mentioned on your page) which might slow down loading. But I don't think this would be too critical. For instance, on Years, the server has to check for each of the 140 years if a corresponding page exists, but it does not slow down loading significantly.

Prophecy 21:18, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Odd problem

I really don't know... I did not even edit anything, I couldn't log in all the time. I only wrote a short message while Boobpedia was up for a moment, but that's all. I'm glad it wasn't my fault this time. :-) This leads me to thinking that it's not really the templates which cause the problem. Don't know... I need server logs or something, but I don't get any answer from Hexvoodoo so far. Hope you didn't lose any data.

Prophecy 19:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Film series categories

The answer is simple: We have all these Big Naturals models, Double Penetration Cum In Your Face Double Ass Double Pussy models and so on... Only because these are affiliate links. Why should models that are part of film series be excluded, just because they are perhaps known to a minor public? I think it's useful. It helps readers search for other models connected with these series. Just tell me which categories you have in mind and I'll do the work for you. Prophecy 18:38, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

That's what I wanted to suggest. I'll look where this category fits best and you can do the rest. Prophecy 19:04, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Didarganj yakshi

Wow! Again one step towards the all-including encyclopedia. Fine idea. Prophecy 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks...

There's so many of these ladies that needed a place here. In my collection of pics. Some of them I dont even know their names. Since there very little or no info on them what so ever. But thanks for the acknowledgement. I try my best. I was thinking about starting a article on a big-bust Japanese model recently. But I have very little knowledge of them. Apara 21:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

I wonder if you can help me out. I was browsing through Harrison Marks models and discovered Rona Scott. With more detective work, I unsurfaced some pictures. But under the name "Roma Scott". While looking between them both, they look nothing alike, well to me. Do you know if she used both names, Harrison decided to twick her name or they're completely different people? Apara 01:30, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah I've seen Russ' movies more than Harrison's, on format that is. I guess I'll go with Roma. Thanks anyways. Apara 03:07, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I've think I seen this movie bootlegged or another one. I've seen screen shot of The Naked World of Harrison Marks. It's has an official release on a format.

Databases

Yes, good idea. I'll put that on my to do list. I already thought of it, but because I was not familiar with the link syntax I postponed it so far. Thanks for the explanation. Should be possible to add this with the next update. For the time being, removing the flags from the biobox had A priority so that Boobpedia does not have to calculate so much. When I have reinstalled a simpler version of the flag system, I'll go through this (and your category request).

Prophecy 08:34, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Gaston Lachaise

What a great contribution!

Some notes:

• You may have noticed that the non-performer verion of the biobox does not add the "xxx births" and deaths categories. This is to keep the birth years of performers and non-performers separated. Thanks for already establishing the appropriate categories. The trick is: Add the {{Events}} template to your categories (like I already did now). As soon as a general article on the date (or year) exists, a link to it will be displayed, and there you can (manually) add the data of your non-performer (like I did now).
• Category for Gaston Lachaise. We did not have a sculptors category so far. We have now. Please note that non-performing artists have their own categories, like Category:Photographers (non-performing), in opposition to Category:Photographers. To easily add a link to the non-performer category in the biobox (just to write the word "photographer"), you can use the {{Np-photographer}} template, or here the {{Np-sculptor}} template. Saves typing and is not cunsuming much server load. :-).
• Torso (Lachaise): I think we should name it like "Russ Meyer actresses" or "Russ Meyer films" (a category or article still to be created, as we only have one Russ Meyer film article so far): Gaston Lachaise torsos. The article could be included in a category like "Gaston Lachaise sculptures". You might not know it, but the category header for artists automatically looks for fitting categories and displays them. Like for Gaston Lachaise:

Apart from this, I think that an article about multiple works of an artist cannot contain an infobox. I recommend deleting the biobox from the article and including the picture in the article body.

• The parameters influenced by and influenced are meant to contain people's (other artist's) names, not general streamings in art. Well, it's my fault, I did not write the documentation for the non-performer part of the biobox so far. :-)

I already made the changes as described above. Hope you don't mind. As we really get into fine arts now, this is all still very new and a little bit of work has to be done to have a good start. But I'm already glad to see that my non-performer biobox is already able to cope with new types of non-performer artists.

I'll categorise the pictures of the sculptures later and include them. At the moment, Boobpedia is getting slow again - better save this message to you before it gets lost...

Thanks for the great idea, looking forward to more contributions of this kind!

Prophecy 11:18, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Please do not create the categories as I am busy right now reorganising them. Your idea had a fatal impact (but a fruitful one!) on the existing media, images, photos and films categories as well. I think when I'm done reorganising them, we are fit for the future. As for your list of Gaston Lachaise sculptures: Go ahead. The new categories are made for lists, articles, subcategories as well as images of the sculptures. See Category:Katja Ehrhardt fashion for a first start. It's exactly the same: There is an article about one single garment, there are media, and a list of notable Katja Ehrhardt garments can be included as well. Prophecy 12:05, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia

Of course I noticed your remark with the first Gaston Lachaise edit. And I can only say that I fully support it.

Ah, by the way, before I forget it: Is the Sculpture of 1927 really called "Torso"? It has a head, arms and even legs, so per definition it is not a real torso. If Lachaise named it like this, it's ok, but if it was you who gave it the name, I recommend renaming it to "Sculpture" and moving it into the Gaston Lachaise article itself.

Back to Wikipedia:

• Look at my articles on Anna Semenovich, Alina Gross, Gréta Istvándi, Marie-Claude Bourbonnais or Tania Kliukvina. All written from scratch. There is no other source in the whole internet with such an amount of sourced information and so many aspects of these models. That's what I have in mind: To be better than Wikipedia, because we are the experts, not them. There are only two or three other articles of mine where I copied the Wikipedia text for a start. But only with the aim to replace it later by my own text. The reason why the articles on Barbara Schöneberger and Natalia Mühlhausen are still stubs is, because I don't want to copy the existing articles (Barbara Schöneberger) or because I have such an amount of information on my hard disc which can be found nowhere else (Natalia Mühlhausen) that I first have to put it in a right order before publishing it. So I think the path you go with Gaston Lachaise is just right. Start with a small stub, but it's your own - our own. And:
• Personally I think the Wikipedia stub on Lachaise is not even decent. It does not even contain whole sentences. You will do it a lot better. I rely on you!
• Discourage copying from Wikipedia: My opinion too. It has become a bad manner here to fill the bioboxes without sourcing and writing either nothing at all in the article or just copying the text from Wikipedia - and leaving it alone then. The copied articles are never updated.
• Delete WP tags for articles deleted on Wikipedia: Of course! As there is no source, why refer to it?
• Wikipedia hostile towards Boobpedia: Don't know; I don't write on Wikipedia. But as long as we just copy their texts and do not produce anything on our own, it's at least understandable. The contributions of our editors seem to be limited on adding gallery links or film titles to filmographies. But if we write more own articles, they have to recognise us some day - because our articles are better.
• Personally I think we should have something like a "featured article" too. I know, we do have this already, but the criteria for election is more than dubious: One admin (nothing against The Honorable, but it's true) selects an article that contains a so-called interview with few writing or interviewing skills, and that pushes the article to the front page. Well, an interview is already against the rules of an encyclopedia, but I support this idea, nevertheless. Because there are so few sources on our subjects. It's okay. But an interview with questions like "When did you recognise that people like your boobs?" does not make an article well written. And imagine some serious reader coming to Boobpedia, used to featured articles on other Wikipedias: If he sees one of our featured articles on the front page, he must think: "Oh my God, if this is already a featured article, of which quality will the other articles be?". Again, nothing against Boobpedia interviews, but I think we have reached a stage where we are no longer dependent on interviews as unique quality criteria. Unfortunately I only noticed us two who really write articles. But if none of these articles makes it to the front page, how should other editors (or visitors) know that we can do more than just collecting body data without sourcing it and adding a few gallery links to an article? I think I'll make a suggestion some day that other articles should be featured on the front page. I don't care if the current featured articles bring money because Boobpedia gets some affiliate link payment for a model on the front page. It damages our well-deserved image as experts in our topic. Imagine a well-written article on Gaston Lachaise on the front page some day. Better than Wikipedia, better than other sources. Because we are the experts.
• Wikipedia copying our articles: Be proud! We are close to what we want to reach. The better our articles become, the more we will find them copied in other web pages. Not only Wikipedia. When looking for information on some models, I noticed quite a few web pages like model directories, blogs and such that wrote something about a model. But if I read the Wikipedia article first, I quickly saw that they only copied the text from Wikipedia - sometimes even without mentioning it. What if they copy our articles some day? Because we have more (and better sourced) information? That's why I still support the "missing sources" banner. But I agree with you that it should be placed down in the references section. I already changed this in quite a few articles.

Huh... I only wanted to reply short sentences to each of your points, but I got carried away. Summary: I couldn't agree more! Write high quality articles, read sources, give the people something they don't find anywhere else. I want your articles on the front page (and mine too). :-)

Regards

Prophecy 15:03, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

P. S.: I know your ill mind. In case you are planning articles on other sculptors - just type "new page" in the search box. Or go directly to New sculptor. And as I know that you'll be adding pages on painters some day, I'll prepare New painter as well. :-) Prophecy 15:51, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Go ahead. Everything for Russ Meyer is prepared. I wrote a short article (from scratch, by the way), and all the categories exist - with a nice navigable header (that Wikipedia does not have. Also the idea to categorise images like articles is not common I think. I only have seen few images on Wikipedia categorised). Fill Category:Russ Meyer films! :-) Prophecy 16:25, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Really, you met him? I envy you. Well, take care to not add to much original research. :-))))) I think the server works quite well now. Since I took away the complex flag feature, it only crashed once, but today it's really fast. Prophecy 16:36, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

on the point of featured articles, i don't have a problem with that. we can certainly have featured articles as well as interviews on the main page. we can have a nomination process in the future, but for now an article can be recommended and i'll feature it. i'm thinking a japanese article would be great, since we haven't had one on the main page for a long time. --Hexvoodoo 13:31, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Right-- I have absolutely no qualms about the interviews. We're not Wikipedia, and don't have to be so absurdly squeamish about certain things as they are. So an interview is "OR"-- so what? Moses didn't come down from Mt. Sinai saying "Thou shalt not do Original Research"... "NOR" is an artificial barrier WP puts on their editors which prevents real experts from contributing. Our interview subjects are "experts" in the field, so go ahead and interview them. If some of the questions seem a bit silly, well, remember, this is an ecyclopedia of boobology. A little silliness and fun should not be taboo. I've thought a "Featured Article"-- as in featured for its quality-- is an excellent idea here also. Besides showing off the good work that is done here, it would encourage more good work. Dekkappai 13:43, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Just in case...

...you want to add a new sculptor or painter: New sculptor and New painter are your friends. :-) Ready for use now.

I'm also thinking of a quite revolutionary new feature: As for Russ Meyer, we have his page with the biobox that containts data, and we have his template {{Russ Meyer}} which contains data. Editors usually don't know that there are two pages they have to change or add data in; I think this can be avoided. What if you only had to add {{director|Russ Meyer|infobox=1}} to a page to have the biobox and {{director|Russ Meyer|header=1}} to have the header? The template would be the only data container for him, and the article itself would only contain the little line to display the whole biobox. Of course, there should be a hint that his data has to be changed inside the template, but I think this makes work on articles easier, because they do not have a huge header with all the biobox data anymore. I'm testing this for films now as I see that you are expanding Russ Meyer's filmography which is a huge amount of formatting work. I already thought of this before, you might remember. But now I have a clear idea of how it should look like. And it's universal. Except for performers (this would result in too many templates, and there would be no real use, because performers usually don't have their own categories). Every topic can have different manifestations:

• {{film|Supervixens|infobox=1}} could be used on the article page.
• {{film|Supervixens|director=1|year=1}} could simply give "Supervixens (Russ Meyer, 1975)".
• But the main improvement would be {{film|Supervixens|list=1}}. Filmographies could simply be coded like this in the future:

{{filmography start}}

{{film|Supervixens|list=1}}
{{film|Up!|list=1}}
{{film|Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens|list=1}}
{{film|Pandora Peaks|list=1}}

{{filmography end}}

This could be used for all your Japanese filmographies too. Never again any formatting. Never again any changes to multiple pages the film is mentioned on if a release date has to be added.

As you are the master of filmographies, please tell me if this would be a relief for you. The only disadvantage I can see is that you'd have to create a template for each film. But of course, there would be a page like New film that does the work for you and creates a predefined film template you only have to fill with your data - that's all.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Prophecy 09:14, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

i have reservations about this one. it would take up processor time to render all the templates, and we just got out of a pretty bad server meltdown, so i'm weary about adding a bunch of new templates. on the other hand, and dekk probably knows more about it than i do, if this solves a lot of manual work it may not be a bad idea. it is possible to do a text search and unless a film is mentioned on dozens of pages (highly unlikely), it should be relatively straight forward to just edit its info directly. unless a title has to be changed many times, it's probably less work overall than having to create a template for each title. the last point is that new editors would find it a lot more intuitive to edit information directly. we don't want to turn pages into arcane pieces that few understand. --Hexvoodoo 13:27, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I see good and bad points to it: I've replied at Prophecy's talk page. Dekkappai 13:35, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi Dekkappai, hi Hexvoodoo. First about Hexvoodoo's concerns: Of course I thought about processor time and if this wasn't just another cause for a server meltdown. But it isn't. Calling one single template does not take much time if it's a simple template (like these ones will be). Just compare all the affiliate link templates. It does not matter if there are hundreds of them in an article. As for the planned film template: If you call {{film|Film title|list=1}}, it does not even call the biobox at all, but diretly jumps to a simple list entry template. This is why I experimented so much with the photographer and director templates. I was searching for a solution to cut processor time to a minimum for all template calls of this kind. And the new nationality call will work exactly the same. Once a nationality is needed, it directly calls only the data for one single country - with no test of all the other 65 nationalites, and also no calculation of display modes that are not needed. It's all one concept that works for all purposes. Of course everybody can add "normal" filmographies like before. That's why I talked to Dekkappai first. Firstly because he has written by far the most and most exhaustive filmographies, second because it's notably his filmographies that do contain many links to other articles and such and would require a lot of work if you wanted to keep track of changes.

Now to Dekkappai's thoughts: no need to show me your skeleton file - this is exactly what all the subpages at New performer do: create a page and insert a skeleton file. Actually I was inspired by your technique, but I knew that other users are probably too lazy to keep a separated file on their hard disk. That's all. :-) For a performer, you go through the page, press a button, and you've got a new page. As your skeleton file contains more data than the mere New performer page, your file fits better for your personal purposes. Keep it. But for other users, New performer is fine. I already saw it used for new pages (I can recognise if a page has been created with New performer), and I saw that far less basic mistakes where made. Only if you want to add a new sculptor or new painter, New sculptor could be useful, because it not only creates the skeleton article itself, but also the needed categories (like Category:Gaston Lachaise sculptures), with all necessary categories already included, so you don't have to compare to other pages and see if you got the categories right.

And - it creates the template. This is where you said that you don't get it right, but for the films you did. It's only quite hard to imagine that a sculptor, a director or just a film are exactly the same for me - an entity that can be mentioned inline, can have categories where it appears as a header, can appear as a list entry or can have an article where it appears as an infobox. You already got the film template concept well - it's the same for a director. Once he marries and changes his name, you only have to change his template, and it will appear in his article, in headers and on all pages that merely mention him inline in their article body.

But above all, thanks for your film data input. That's exactly what I needed. You remember, I already asked you and thought about things that are needed for a filmography entry at different occasions. I did not think about the fact that director pages need a different format than filmographies on performer pages. But this is absolutely no problem:

Performer page:

{{filmography start}}
{{film|Film title|list=1}}
{{filmography end}}

Director page:

{{filmography start}}
{{film|Film title|list=1|cast=1}}
{{filmography end}}

Concerning the names and often differently transliterated titles: I thought of it too. There is the same problem for photographers. So far, the concept only worked with the exact name, like "Gréta Istvándi" for example. This is kind of against the English notation rules for articles, but with the new concept it's not necessary any more, because film title, reference and article name can be different: Your filmography can look like this:

{{filmography start}}
{{film|GAS-092|list=1|cast=1}}
{{filmography end}}

But the GAS-092 template contains all that is needed. It will display the original title in the filmography entry, although called by a unique identifier.

Addition: Ah, by the way: If you decided to write an article about one single GAS film, you would have the same naming problem, wouldn't you? Perhaps even an article name like "GAS-092" would be best, and you could create a redirection with the English translation. Like you did for most of your performers, with the reversed lastname-firstname order. Prophecy 18:44, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

As for the special field of the Bomber Girl series: Would it be possible to include this information just in a "Notes" field like in other filmographies where it exists?

Just thoughts of mine...

After all, all this is just for bigger filmographies like yours, where it is likely that single articles for the films are created. Other filmographies might be better if typed in normally. I just thought of at least a smaller character size so that your filmographies are easier to read. I'll experiment on this later. Or perhaps I just got carried away. A simple table class which automatically formats a table as a filmography would already help. Hexvoodoo, I need the CSS code of the main Boobpedia file for this! :-) Prophecy 18:47, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Prophecy 18:37, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

I was going to mention, several of these videos-- Image:TFC-4089.jpg for one-- link to several articles. They can link off a series list, and then into each actress that appears in the video. One reason that all the actresses linked to in the image description do not link to the video image is the time it takes to enter all that info into each separate filmography. So yes, definitely, there would be many advantages to a template approach to videos like this. About the Bomber Girl data being put in as a "Note" field-- yes, that would work just fine. Oh also-- besides directors and performers, film/video series have a slightly different format requirement... Dekkappai 18:51, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Different formats: Every entity has its entirely own definition of how it should look like. A film entry in a filmography can look entirely different than a director header, for example. Prophecy 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes-- I re-read the first part and now I think I understand: The template calls the film data file, and then we put in which fields of data we wish to display. (I'm a bit slow sometimes :-) On second thought though, about putting the links to the videos in each actress-- now that I've got Filmography format more-or-less standardized, it's pretty simple to just copy and paste the entry from one actress to the other. The only time-consuming part is removing the article's actress from the cast list, and inserting the name of the article from which I copied the data... This is the one part of a template which causes me concern... Dekkappai 19:16, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm afraid, it's me who did not quite understand you this time. You mean if there's a film with five actresses and you want to put the link to the film on the pages of the five actresses? If this is the case, there is no more work to be done: You put {{film|GAS-092|list=1}} on the page of each actress. It will be part of the filmography on the respective page. No more need to edit. If you add cast=1 (although contradicting your previous note that the cast is not necessary on actress pages), the cast will be listed - but with the name of the actress being black, with no link. Just like Category:Russ Meyer films for example. The link "Russ Meyer films" is black in the header, because you already are on the page. The other links are blue, changing to black if you load the page in question. Or did you mean something different? Prophecy 19:47, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

It's a bit confusing :-) OK, what I mean is: Say we've got "Video 123, Vol.29" Directed by X, and starring actresses A, B, and C. The film template should go in the "Video 123 series" article, and it will include title, director, the entire cast (among other fields), and the cover image. At Director X's page, the film template will include Title "Video 123, Vol.29", all the cast members, a note that the video is part of "Video 123 series," and the cover image. At actress A's article, the film template will include title, director, and only actresses B & C-- because listing "actress A" in the filmography would be redundant-- it's her article... And here I am wondering what Queen Victoria's cup-size was... ;-) Dekkappai 20:10, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok. It's like I thought. You can direct whith the parameters what you want to have displayed. Article: infobox=1 -> entire infobox. Director page: list=1, cast=1 -> Filmography entry and entire cast (all links are blue). Actress page: list=1, cast=1 -> Filmography entry and entire cast (but with the link to the actress you are viewing the page of in black, so you see: Ah, it's this actress I am viewing the page of). This is common practice for all lists that appear as such on pages. There is no way to sort one special actress out. And it's not desirable either, I think. You see the whole cast, but the page you are viewing is clearly marked as black (unclickable) and bold. Concerning Queen Victoria: No way I write an article about her. I'm pretty sure you can get into serious trouble with the Royal Family if you write an article focusing mainly on her bust line. :-) Prophecy 20:47, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah, OK-- she'll be blacked out instead of left out... I've been doing it as "With actresses B&C" but I guess your way will be fine. By the way-- will this all work within a film infobox? And do you have one in mind? I'm kind of holding off on starting the Meyer films because of the lack of an infobox... About the Royal Family-- I dare them! I'm a U.S. citizen!... on the other hand, Eleanor Roosevelt had a nice figure didn't she?... Now I am asking for trouble. :-) Dekkappai 20:55, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

1. Yes. All this will work within an infobox. The film template is the infobox in some way. Perhaps I'll explain it in another way. There's only one data container, let's say template {{GAS-092}}. The future {{Film}} template will not contain any data, it is only something like a data displayer. And it's the parameters of the data displayer that determine how the data is displayed. If you write the data container for GAS-092, you fill in the data on the page like you are used to fill the data into a biobox - with all the parameters like name, director, release date, cast and so on. But the data container itself is never used on any page. It's only the {{Film}} template that sucks the data out of the container and displays it the way you want. So if you write an article about Supervixens, instead of adding a big biobox at the top of the article, you simply write {{film|Supervixens|infobox=1}}. Done. It displays the data of the data container, but with the outer appearance of an infobox. After this line you can directly start writing your article.

2. Infobox film. Exactly. We don't have one. And I have planned one. :-) It was while planning it that the idea of the {{Film}} template came to my mind. Because I already have it for photographers, but with two data containers: The article itself and the photographer template. If photographer data changes, I have to change it in the article and in the template. I wanted to save you from that double editing work, that's why I planned the film template first. I have several infoboxes in development, most of them already with colour schemes. The Honorable has to unprotect the existing film template first, because it was used for another purpose, which I already replaced. Then I can start the work on the template. The film infobox will be an integral part of this work. If I'm ready, you have an infobox (which you can use separately, by the way, if you are not convinced of the template idea), a template and a how-to page. Oh, I saw he already unprotected it. Ok, give me some time... Prophecy 21:15, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

OK-- sounds like a good idea to me then. I cast my vote in favor. I'm setting up film article stubs for the major Meyer films, and will plug in the data once you get these templates set up. I'll let you go to work on them now-- Great idea, and good work! Dekkappai 21:19, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

One last thing: Please do not add the Category "films and videos" to the stubs. I only added it for the time we only had two film articles here. The films and videos category will otherwise get overcrowded. Now as the number of film articles increases, they should only be listed under "Russ Meyer films". The double listing was kind of temporary. Prophecy 21:22, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Oops-- will fix that :-) Dekkappai 21:23, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Slight change of subject: Here's a woman who was 5' tall, with a 66-inch bust[1]... Who's ready to start a Queen Victoria article? :-) Dekkappai 19:28, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Need input

Please have a look at Template:Infobox film/doc. You wanted to have some Japanese databases added to the biobox. If these databases not only list actresses, but also films, here's your chance to have them added to the film infobox too. :-) For a start, I only need the names for the parameters. Feel free to add them directly into the page. Prophecy 22:00, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. No need to be afraid. The page I showed you was the documentation page with no functionality at all. It contains only text and the template example. :-) Prophecy 22:18, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Databases: I'll include JMDB. (and additionally Web I-dic later in the biobox). They are uncommercial and you suggested them before. As for AV-Channel: The links are too different.

Cast: We are touching the boarders of notability there. My opinion is: If there is a non-busty woman in the cast, she should not be mentioned in the infobox. It's the general Boobpedia restriction. The same like I don't list non-busty models of my photographers and non-busty wearers of my bras. Even if the model list of my photographer would be more complete like that. As for a Meyer film with no busty women at all: Difficult. I'd say: List the film in the filmography, but don't add an extra article. I wanted to add an article about Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" once, because there was one busty model who had a guest appearance. I was keen on having a disambiguation page for Eyes Wide Shut (film) and Eyes Wide Shut (body). But this was so far-fetched that I dropped the idea of an article about the film completely.

Thinking further of the cast: Yes, we should only mention busty women there. If it had to be complete, we would have to mention the male actors too. You did not want to list them in the infobox, did you? Prophecy 22:46, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Convinced. I changed the "busty actresses" parameter to "starring". The best way will be: Add the whole cast to the biobox, but only make links for the busty women. As for the non-busty film: Of course it should be listed in his filmography, but it doesn't deserve an article I think. It's enough to include a few sentences in the Russ Meyer article itself to be complete. You can have a look at the draft template at Template:Infobox film/testcases. Website and Databases still have to be included, the rest already works. Prophecy 01:42, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

My bad. Of course it was Britney Spears. Prophecy 01:59, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Be sure that you get no infobox for songs! Prophecy 02:06, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately JMDB seems to include the year of the film in the link, am I right? So we'll have to add the whole link in the biobox, same as for IAFD. The infobox is ready now. Test it. Prophecy 02:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I already put it to Supervixens. Looks ok. Please suggest another section title for "People and Companies". I wanted to pick only "People", but films are mainly distributed by companies. Something like "Participants", "Contributors" or so. Perhaps you have an better idea as a native speaker.

One last thing: You may have noticed that I added Category:Films to all your film articles. This is no longer necessary, because the infobox categorises the article following the entry for the type parameter. That's why I reverted your "videotape" and "DVD" suggestions, because I think a "Videos" and a "Films" category are sufficient. I thought of an additional "Available on" at first, but I think this is not necessary either. People know how to get their copies.

A category you still have to add is Category:Russ Meyer films. As there can be more than one director, the infobox is not able to make a difference if two or more directors are entered in the director field. And I thought it wasn't necessary to add director2, director3, producer2, producer3 and so on... Prophecy 02:35, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Staff

Staff is good. I'll take that. I think you can count the distribution company to the staff too, in the widest sense. Ah ,i saw you added an ID in some of your filmographies. IDs are commonly given by distributors, aren't they? So the placement after "Distributors" was ok? Prophecy 02:43, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Please help

In her article, Mariko Morikawa's Japanese name is 森川まりこ. In Big Tit Monastery, she is mentioned as Mariko Morikawa, 栗原リョウ. Are these some simplified and traditional variants? I thought these exist only in Chinese? Or is it simply a mistake? Anyway, the signs look very different to me.

What I wanted to do is to set Mariko's Japanese name in brackets, because otherwise it looks like an additional actress. I always write additional foreign letter versions of names in brackets - see Anna Semenovich (Анна Семенович). But I did not know if the Japanese signs in the Big Tits Monastery infobox were her name at all. :-)

Regards

Prophecy 08:42, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah, so it's a second actor? I inserted a line break then to clear things. Concerning Mister Cummings: Well, if he insists... :-) But I'm sure someone will edit it later. Wikipedia lists him with capitals too, but I don't care in this case. It's kind of cool. Prophecy 10:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I guessed that the e. e. way might have been adapted by later writers, but I did not know. Well, I these new facts are pretty unambiguous. I'd change the name to capitals... Prophecy 12:47, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

That's what I said. We (you) can do better than putting a few words together which do not even form a sentence, together with a simple list of museums. Prophecy 14:26, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Not, I think. First I want these flags back in the infoboxes. :-) Prophecy 14:39, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

There's no need for a ref field. Except for type and country (and who needs to prove that a film is a film), every field is free text; even the relase date field. So you can easily add - oh shit! What if you really added references? They would appear in each filmography line too! Hm... I have to think about it. Normally I'd vote against one single reference field, because there can be different references inside one infobox. But we have a serious problem I have not thought of. Either we have a corresponding ref field for every field (which can be stripped of if displayed in a filmography) or we don't allow references in the infobox at all - which would be silly, because we cannot prevent thoughtful users from adding references - even if it's in the template which contains the data for the biobox.

You have found a serious problem. Which is unsolvable I think, because Boobpedia lacks functions to analyse text and filter out ref tags. :-( Prophecy 15:40, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

This is not the problem. Only one single ref field is easy. But we can have the information who is the director from one source, information about the cast from another, and the release date from yet another source. Makes three references in three different lines. If the references shall be at the right place (i. e. the line they refer to), we have to have three reference fields. And as practically every field can have a reference, this would double the fields. Which makes it harder to handle for unexperienced users. That's my problem. Or we say: Ok folks, we've got one references field, put in how many references you like, but don't put them into other fields. I can tell you what happens: No one will read the note and they will be happily adding references to the lines they think appropriate. Or not? It's somewhat strange to have one single field for all references so that the reader must read all references in order to find the right one. Or do you think that's nonsense, because there never are more than two or three references which can easily be sorted out by the reader? I need your help. Prophecy 15:55, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Which is kind of misuse for performers... :-) You can easily add references to most of the lines that are not automatically converted into other content. See Gréta Istvándi for instance. The documentation of {{Biobox new}} lists all parameters that can be referenced. But actually - who cares. I'm glad that there are references in your articles and bioboxes, and if one source explains all the rest, it should be ok.

Regarding the film infobox, I came to the same conclusion. There is not much to be referenced. Only the two sections in the middle, and as you said, most sources contain all this data. Thanks for your thoughts. I'll add the field, together with a comment that references in other fields should be avoided. Inside the reference field you can add as many references as you like. I saw that you sometimes have two of them. Plan: The infobox shows all references, while the simple filmography entry doesn't.

But hey - wait! What's wrong with a filmography line having references as well? I just saw that you use references in your filmographies, too, and it makes sense! It would have been silly to ban the references from filmography entries. If we have sources for certain data, and if we have templates in order not to retype all data at different occasions, it would have been really stupid to have all this, but having to retype references if we want them. Sorry for writing so much, the ideas are coming while I'm writing. So here's the solution: No, there will be no reference field. It's like I said: You can add a reference at the end of every parameter you like, except for type (and the release date, because I'll change this parameter for better use in the future). So you can add a reference behind every single line or just after one line - nobody cares. It all works well. And as I know you love your ref field and as I'm planning to have the release date like the birth date, with month, day and year separeted (makes it possible to display something like "Supervixens (1975)" later, you will get your ref field too. :-) There will be a release ref field. If you prefer one single ref field for your references, you can use this one.

It's very fruitful to work with you, I enjoy this.

Thanks

Prophecy 16:37, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

What is, again, strange, because you can't reference all the performance fields! :-) But anyway, like I said: You will have one ref field, and you can paste your ref there if you want. If others prefer to reference certain lines with certain references they can do so too. Ah, by the way: Please have a look at April 2. Is the sentence about Russ Meyer correct? Sounds somewhat strange to me. Feel free to correct it if you have a better style in mind. Prophecy 16:51, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Forgot...

...that a film can have several release dates. So the way to convert only one release date like the birthday for performers does not work. So it stays as I said: It's not important whether you add a reference in a special reference field (which will be added behind one line anyway) or write it directly after the line. Place your ref behind the line you deem most appropriate. Everything is allowed.

(And just to confuse you a little and see if I explained myself right: There will be no infobox anyway. :-))) You just type all the data in the data container, the film's template. But it works the same, you will have the same parameter lines as you are used to within the infobox.)

Prophecy 17:08, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Color and alternate titles

Done. You may want to have a look at {{Infobox film/testcases}} to see the fields in action. Simple implementation, y/n for color and free text for alternate titles. Prophecy 08:12, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Depends on how you want it to be. If you enter nothing, the line is not shown at all. And yes, if you enter "no", "0", "bw" or whatever, "Black and white" is displayed. Ah, I saw you already discovered it in Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!. I added (shorter and more visual) flags in the infobox, tell me if you like that. Do not substitute your countries in other bioboxes, though, as I want the country template to be used in as few infoboxes as possible until the change of concept (less server time). Prophecy 14:25, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Just a short glimpse: The inline version of the film template is ready. I only created a short test version of the Supervixens template so far. Infobox and list entry do not work yet, but you can already write

• {{film|Supervixens}} -> Supervixens
• {{film|Supervixens|year=1}} -> Supervixens (1975)
• {{film|Supervixens|director=1}} -> Supervixens (Russ Meyer)
• {{film|Supervixens|year=1|director=1}} -> Supervixens (Russ Meyer, 1975)

Prophecy 15:10, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

• Oh, the inline version came from my photographer templates: Their location is displayed, and as they can move around, it would be impossible to change their location on every page they are mentioned on. For the film template, it only has the advantage that if the release year is unknown and someone finds it later, it's automatically added on all pages that mention this film.
• Use colour parameter or not: I don't care... IMDb lists the colour fields for all films (there are modern b/w films too), but you are right, 99,9% of the modern porn movies are filmed in colour. Personally, I like the little colour icon, so I'll probably use it if I ever write a film article.
• As for the flags: You are right, that's why the country name is displayed along with the flag in the country field (flag is only disabled so far). You can easily change it by skipping the notext parameter. {{country|UK|nolink=1}} (without parameter) gives " United Kingdom". The main reason why I added them to the alternate titles field was that I thought the formatting was somewhat difficult to read because of the line breaks and the titles going over several lines. The flags are something like a dot ("*" in code) (which cannot be displayed there easily, unfortunately) and make it easier for the eye to find a new line. Another advantage is that someone might write "Great Britain", another "UK" and so on. This would all be unified. I added the country names in the infobox for Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, please have a look if this looks better for you? Prophecy 15:59, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Addition: I'll remove the country names I think. The lines would become too long. The flag idea came from Wikipedia, where most films have more than one relase date, preceded by a flag. Your concerns: Well, we mostly do not have any exotic countries for big boob movies (and I think it's not that interesting which name a film has in Guatemala), so I think the flag will be enough. Boobpedia for education! Learn the world's flags! :-) No, but seriously: When I work on the {{Nationality}} template, I'll implement that the country or nationality name is shown when you move your mouse over the flag. For now it only shows "Flag of xxx.png" which is already not bad, but not as cool as it could be. Would that be a good compromise? Prophecy 16:09, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Good idea. I'll think on this. No flags in alternate titles, flags in foreign release titles. Prophecy 16:17, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

I think it's better to only have one single alternate titles field. I saw that you added "USA" for USA alternate titles, that's better in my opinion. By the way, you can have a look at {{Supervixens}} to get an idea how work progresses. If you edit a film template, you always see the results if displayed as infobox, inline or filmography line. Infobox is now ready too, working on filmography soon. And: Please add the parameter main release year to your edits in the future, as this year is the one that will be displayed if the film is displayed inline. No need to do it now, because you'll never write in bioboxes directly again, only in templates - if this all works. :-) Prophecy 17:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)