User talk:Drducker - Revision history

Boobs Online: /* Fair use images */ new section

2012-12-31T23:18:26Z

Fair use images: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, 31 December 2012
Line 182:		Line 182:

	I agree that this has gotten a bit too large to be handled in the User_talk space, so I've migrated this to, consolidated in, and continued at: [[Help_talk:How_should_the_articles_be_written]]. [[User:Drducker\|Drducker]] 04:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		I agree that this has gotten a bit too large to be handled in the User_talk space, so I've migrated this to, consolidated in, and continued at: [[Help_talk:How_should_the_articles_be_written]]. [[User:Drducker\|Drducker]] 04:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

			== Fair use images ==

			Hi. Under the terms of fair use images, they should only be used within articles. Therefore please could you remove any fair use images on your user page. Thanks. [[User:Boobs Online\|Boobs Online]] 18:18, 31 December 2012 (EST)

Drducker: Consolidating Discussion

2008-07-07T08:45:38Z

Consolidating Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:45, 7 July 2008
Line 178:		Line 178:

	I prefer References, then pay sites, then external links, though this may just be because I'm used to Wikipedia-type formatting. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 21:22, 6 July 2008 (EDT)		I prefer References, then pay sites, then external links, though this may just be because I'm used to Wikipedia-type formatting. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 21:22, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

			----

			I agree that this has gotten a bit too large to be handled in the User_talk space, so I've migrated this to, consolidated in, and continued at: [[Help_talk:How_should_the_articles_be_written]]. [[User:Drducker\|Drducker]] 04:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

The Honorable: /* Refs to foot */

2008-07-07T01:22:14Z

Refs to foot

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:22, 7 July 2008
Line 176:		Line 176:

	::: Please answer on this page, I'll ask The Honorable to join the discussion. It's too difficult to follow messages on different pages, so I think it's a good idea to continue here. - [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 20:47, 6 July 2008 (EDT)		::: Please answer on this page, I'll ask The Honorable to join the discussion. It's too difficult to follow messages on different pages, so I think it's a good idea to continue here. - [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 20:47, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

			I prefer References, then pay sites, then external links, though this may just be because I'm used to Wikipedia-type formatting. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 21:22, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Prophecy: /* Refs to foot */

2008-07-07T00:48:20Z

Refs to foot

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 7 July 2008
Line 169:		Line 169:
	::: I know that the blank space vanishes when the article gets longer, but it creates at least one superfluent blank line which is somewhat disturbing the layout. But this should be a minor issue. My two problems are:		::: I know that the blank space vanishes when the article gets longer, but it creates at least one superfluent blank line which is somewhat disturbing the layout. But this should be a minor issue. My two problems are:
	* Most of the things you do reflect what I'm thinking too. References at the very bottom - the same, I tend to preferring them at the bottom like you. I was used to see them directly after the article when I joined here and I saw that Wikipedia does it the same way. Well, the question is: I support the idea of Boobpedia becoming an autonomous system of its own - with its own rules, mostly due to the specific subject. We have developed our own templates, we have cooler bioboxes, we have started a fancier chronology system (which just found its way to the main page today) - but should we really differ in the case of references? Hm... perhaps the only reason why Wikipedia has them at the end of an article is to make it easier for new editors who are not familiar with p and br and CSS.		* Most of the things you do reflect what I'm thinking too. References at the very bottom - the same, I tend to preferring them at the bottom like you. I was used to see them directly after the article when I joined here and I saw that Wikipedia does it the same way. Well, the question is: I support the idea of Boobpedia becoming an autonomous system of its own - with its own rules, mostly due to the specific subject. We have developed our own templates, we have cooler bioboxes, we have started a fancier chronology system (which just found its way to the main page today) - but should we really differ in the case of references? Hm... perhaps the only reason why Wikipedia has them at the end of an article is to make it easier for new editors who are not familiar with p and br and CSS.
	* Ok, '''if''' we say: We have the possibility to make it better than Wikipedia, with a more stringent article formatting, ~~bacause~~ we started later - how do we		* Ok, '''if''' we say: We have the possibility to make it better than Wikipedia, with a more stringent article formatting, because we started later - how do we
	** convert the existing articles?		** convert the existing articles?
	** get new and existing users to follow that rule too? If a new user comes from Wikipedia, he/she will certainly adapt the Wikipedia style first. So even if we converted all existing pages (we don't have bots so far), I see a problem that new users won't follow this rule and we'd still have inconsistent layouts. But ok, if there was a new style guideline (I see that it becomes more necessary every day), and if it was linked at the important places, we could get it right...		** get new and existing users to follow that rule too? If a new user comes from Wikipedia, he/she will certainly adapt the Wikipedia style first. So even if we converted all existing pages (we don't have bots so far), I see a problem that new users won't follow this rule and we'd still have inconsistent layouts. But ok, if there was a new style guideline (I see that it becomes more necessary every day), and if it was linked at the important places, we could get it right...

Prophecy: /* Refs to foot */

2008-07-07T00:47:41Z

Refs to foot

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:47, 7 July 2008
Line 166:		Line 166:

	:: Er - do you really think it's a good idea to force the references at the very very bottom of an article? When I said that I'd like to have them at the end of an article, I meant that they should be the last section, but not forced to the bottom with white space between the article body and the references. I think we should not get too far away from Wikipedia standard. We should have the references at the end of an article, but not forced to the bottom. If articles get longer, this could produce unwanted empty lines. And we don't know how it looks when a page is printed. If an article gets longer, the references are at the end anyway, and I think we should not confuse readers with forced-to-bottom references. Just my opinion though. I wouldn't like my articles to be edited this way. I know what you are thinking about, though. I worked in the field of print publications formatting, and there it's normal to have the references at the very bottom of a page. But I think Wikipedia has developed its own standards in some cases, due to the "endless page" concept for example that print media don't have. Mainly I'm afraid that this would cause greater inconsistency, because there'd be thousands of pages to convert. I clearly vote for references at the end, but not forced to the bottom of a page. Perhaps ask The Honorable and other editors who write many articles for their opinion. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 14:49, 5 July 2008 (EDT)		:: Er - do you really think it's a good idea to force the references at the very very bottom of an article? When I said that I'd like to have them at the end of an article, I meant that they should be the last section, but not forced to the bottom with white space between the article body and the references. I think we should not get too far away from Wikipedia standard. We should have the references at the end of an article, but not forced to the bottom. If articles get longer, this could produce unwanted empty lines. And we don't know how it looks when a page is printed. If an article gets longer, the references are at the end anyway, and I think we should not confuse readers with forced-to-bottom references. Just my opinion though. I wouldn't like my articles to be edited this way. I know what you are thinking about, though. I worked in the field of print publications formatting, and there it's normal to have the references at the very bottom of a page. But I think Wikipedia has developed its own standards in some cases, due to the "endless page" concept for example that print media don't have. Mainly I'm afraid that this would cause greater inconsistency, because there'd be thousands of pages to convert. I clearly vote for references at the end, but not forced to the bottom of a page. Perhaps ask The Honorable and other editors who write many articles for their opinion. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 14:49, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

			::: I know that the blank space vanishes when the article gets longer, but it creates at least one superfluent blank line which is somewhat disturbing the layout. But this should be a minor issue. My two problems are:
			* Most of the things you do reflect what I'm thinking too. References at the very bottom - the same, I tend to preferring them at the bottom like you. I was used to see them directly after the article when I joined here and I saw that Wikipedia does it the same way. Well, the question is: I support the idea of Boobpedia becoming an autonomous system of its own - with its own rules, mostly due to the specific subject. We have developed our own templates, we have cooler bioboxes, we have started a fancier chronology system (which just found its way to the main page today) - but should we really differ in the case of references? Hm... perhaps the only reason why Wikipedia has them at the end of an article is to make it easier for new editors who are not familiar with p and br and CSS.
			* Ok, '''if''' we say: We have the possibility to make it better than Wikipedia, with a more stringent article formatting, bacause we started later - how do we
			** convert the existing articles?
			** get new and existing users to follow that rule too? If a new user comes from Wikipedia, he/she will certainly adapt the Wikipedia style first. So even if we converted all existing pages (we don't have bots so far), I see a problem that new users won't follow this rule and we'd still have inconsistent layouts. But ok, if there was a new style guideline (I see that it becomes more necessary every day), and if it was linked at the important places, we could get it right...

			::: Ok, to cut it short: Generally I agree with you. Until today, you and me seem to be the only two users who really care about layout - that gives us the chance to set up some rules (that can be edited if there is no consensus). And perhaps you are right - somebody has to start it, otherwise how can editors know there can be a nicer style than on the existing pages.

			::: Please answer on this page, I'll ask The Honorable to join the discussion. It's too difficult to follow messages on different pages, so I think it's a good idea to continue here. - [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 20:47, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Prophecy: /* Refs to foot */

2008-07-05T18:49:20Z

Refs to foot

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:49, 5 July 2008
Line 164:		Line 164:

	: As for the guidelines: I already set up a few guidelines, and we have the help namespace for this. But it was not developed any further since the establishment of Boobpedia. There's only the two pages Help and FAQ in the navigational box, but they are outdated. I'll start to rewrite these one day, taking into account the new de facto rules that have since been established. If there is no consensus, the rules will be edited, so it won't hurt anyone - but there'd be a start. It could be simple - with How-tos that explain how to start a simple new page (that already has a predefined {{tl\|Biobox new}} in it. I wrote an e-mail on that to Hexvoodoo, but never got an answer. But hey - why not simply start these pages. When they are ready they can replace the old FAQ and Help pages - with better navigation and instructions if you are searching for something. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 07:52, 4 July 2008 (EDT)		: As for the guidelines: I already set up a few guidelines, and we have the help namespace for this. But it was not developed any further since the establishment of Boobpedia. There's only the two pages Help and FAQ in the navigational box, but they are outdated. I'll start to rewrite these one day, taking into account the new de facto rules that have since been established. If there is no consensus, the rules will be edited, so it won't hurt anyone - but there'd be a start. It could be simple - with How-tos that explain how to start a simple new page (that already has a predefined {{tl\|Biobox new}} in it. I wrote an e-mail on that to Hexvoodoo, but never got an answer. But hey - why not simply start these pages. When they are ready they can replace the old FAQ and Help pages - with better navigation and instructions if you are searching for something. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 07:52, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

			:: Er - do you really think it's a good idea to force the references at the very very bottom of an article? When I said that I'd like to have them at the end of an article, I meant that they should be the last section, but not forced to the bottom with white space between the article body and the references. I think we should not get too far away from Wikipedia standard. We should have the references at the end of an article, but not forced to the bottom. If articles get longer, this could produce unwanted empty lines. And we don't know how it looks when a page is printed. If an article gets longer, the references are at the end anyway, and I think we should not confuse readers with forced-to-bottom references. Just my opinion though. I wouldn't like my articles to be edited this way. I know what you are thinking about, though. I worked in the field of print publications formatting, and there it's normal to have the references at the very bottom of a page. But I think Wikipedia has developed its own standards in some cases, due to the "endless page" concept for example that print media don't have. Mainly I'm afraid that this would cause greater inconsistency, because there'd be thousands of pages to convert. I clearly vote for references at the end, but not forced to the bottom of a page. Perhaps ask The Honorable and other editors who write many articles for their opinion. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 14:49, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Prophecy: /* Refs to foot */

2008-07-04T11:52:27Z

Refs to foot

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:52, 4 July 2008
Line 158:		Line 158:

	[[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 18:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)		[[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 18:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

			: Aimee Sweet: Agreed. This is exactly how all my articles are. For myself, I even set up guidelines where which header has to be, so you'll always find the same order of chapters in my articles. But without the double blank lines between the headers like in Aimee Sweet. And references at the very end. Like I said, Wikipedia says References should be "near" the end, and articles place them above External links, but I did not find any reason for this anywhere. Even External links could have a footnote theoretically, and it would be stupid if you'd have to look '''up''' to see the '''foot'''note.

			: So I'll reconvert my articles and put the references back at the very end. It always annoyed me anyway.

			: As for the guidelines: I already set up a few guidelines, and we have the help namespace for this. But it was not developed any further since the establishment of Boobpedia. There's only the two pages Help and FAQ in the navigational box, but they are outdated. I'll start to rewrite these one day, taking into account the new de facto rules that have since been established. If there is no consensus, the rules will be edited, so it won't hurt anyone - but there'd be a start. It could be simple - with How-tos that explain how to start a simple new page (that already has a predefined {{tl\|Biobox new}} in it. I wrote an e-mail on that to Hexvoodoo, but never got an answer. But hey - why not simply start these pages. When they are ready they can replace the old FAQ and Help pages - with better navigation and instructions if you are searching for something. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 07:52, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Prophecy: /* Refs to foot */

2008-07-03T22:20:27Z

Refs to foot

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:20, 3 July 2008
Line 151:		Line 151:
	Hi Drducker,		Hi Drducker,

	I noticed that you moved the References section down on some ~~page~~. Well... When I started writing articles here, that was my opinion too: As every section above can have references, it's normal that the references section is at the very end of an article.		I noticed that you moved the References section down on some pages. Well... When I started writing articles here, that was my opinion too: As every section above can have references, it's normal that the references section is at the very end of an article.

	Then another user started to move the References section above the External links section in some of my articles - I was quite upset, because he labelled his action lapidarly with "Cleaned up". I never got a response to my question why, but I started to look at Wikipedia pages. The rules there are: "near the end of an article". Then I looked at a lot of pages, and to my astonishment, the External links section was always after the References section. So I started to convert all my articles. References at the end (like before), but still above External links.		Then another user started to move the References section above the External links section in some of my articles - I was quite upset, because he labelled his action lapidarly with "Cleaned up". I never got a response to my question why, but I started to look at Wikipedia pages. The rules there are: "near the end of an article". Then I looked at a lot of pages, and to my astonishment, the External links section was always after the References section. So I started to convert all my articles. References at the end (like before), but still above External links.

	No I see another guy who has the same opinion like me before. I really don't know... Could there be a reason to have the External links after the References, or should we just let Wikipedia do what it wants and have our References at the very end of an article?		Now I see another guy (you) who has the same opinion like me before. I really don't know... Could there be a reason to have the External links after the References, or should we just let Wikipedia do what it wants and have our References at the very end of an article?

	[[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 18:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)		[[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 18:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Prophecy: New section: Refs to foot

2008-07-03T22:19:18Z

New section: Refs to foot

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 3 July 2008
Line 146:		Line 146:

	:yes, using BR instead of DIV is better. since the whole thing is driven by CSS, a more powerful tag like DIV has the potential to mess up formatting somewhere. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 14:26, 2 July 2008 (EDT)		:yes, using BR instead of DIV is better. since the whole thing is driven by CSS, a more powerful tag like DIV has the potential to mess up formatting somewhere. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 14:26, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

			== Refs to foot ==

			Hi Drducker,

			I noticed that you moved the References section down on some page. Well... When I started writing articles here, that was my opinion too: As every section above can have references, it's normal that the references section is at the very end of an article.

			Then another user started to move the References section above the External links section in some of my articles - I was quite upset, because he labelled his action lapidarly with "Cleaned up". I never got a response to my question why, but I started to look at Wikipedia pages. The rules there are: "near the end of an article". Then I looked at a lot of pages, and to my astonishment, the External links section was always after the References section. So I started to convert all my articles. References at the end (like before), but still above External links.

			No I see another guy who has the same opinion like me before. I really don't know... Could there be a reason to have the External links after the References, or should we just let Wikipedia do what it wants and have our References at the very end of an article?

			[[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 18:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Hexvoodoo: /* BMI */

2008-07-02T19:04:21Z

BMI

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 2 July 2008
Line 136:		Line 136:

	:::i caught this discussion just today. my opinion is that "slim" is the best choice, and that we should stick to "average" instead of "normal" (which infers other categories are abnormal). --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 14:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)		:::i caught this discussion just today. my opinion is that "slim" is the best choice, and that we should stick to "average" instead of "normal" (which infers other categories are abnormal). --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 14:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

			:::of the list you proposed, Waif, Slim, Normal, Chubby, BBW, i prefer simplifying and rewording that to Slim, Average, Chubby, BBW. of the three other body types, Toned, Athletic, Muscular, I think Toned and Athletic are very close and the present Athletic category should be fine. so my full list would be Slim, Average, Chubby, BBW, Athletic, Muscular. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 15:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

	== div tag ==		== div tag ==