Template talk:Biobox new

Standard Boobpedia bra size ("E" vs. "DD")

I'd like to hear your opinions about the bra/cup size field in the new biobox.

The problem was: Models often give their bra size as 34DD which is actually a 34E. That makes it diificult to sort or search the models by bra size. It has already been discussed if Boobpedia should introduce something like a "standard Boobpedia bra size" (can't find the discussion right now). This was given up because of several reasons.

The new biobox now offers the possibility to solve that problem:

It has a new field: bra/cup size. Here's what you can do with it:

• You can enter just DD like before.
  Result:  Bra/cup size:  E  (same as DD cup) . Category "DD cup" is added to the page.
• You can enter the whole bra size using the Bra template:
  {{bra|34|DD}} gives  Bra/cup size:  34E (75E)  (same as DD cup) . Category "DD cup" is added to the page.

As you see, the original cup size (DD) given by the model is preserved and added as a category to the page. No information is lost.

But the new biobox could also add a second cup size category:

• It could add a simple "E cup" to the page which would result in the page being listed under both "E cup" and "DD cup". This could be confusing.
• It could name the second category in a way that marks it as something .like a "standard Boobpedia cup size" which can be clearly defined on the responding category page.
  • People who just love their DDDs and GGs could browse the "normal" cup size categories like before.
  • People who are interested in more comparable standardised cup sizes could browse the "standard Boobpedia cup size" categories.

So:

1. What do you think?
2. How should this category be named? The name shouldn't be too long, perhaps "E cup (Boobpedia standard)". This makes a clear difference to the "normal" cup size in the category list at the bottom of an article.

Regards

Prophecy 07:23, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, I want to say something about the presentation of these elements. I think most people who look at the infobox look for the cup size and not the bra size. But right now it's actually easy to find the bra size and hard to find the cup size ("Original: X"). I think it should be vice versa like in the old infobox. -Biguns 10:59, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your feedback. But the cup size is always there. It's always the letter behind the band size. If a model says she has GG, her cup size is actually H. It's just that the template does not neglect the fictional given cup size too (and GG is fictional, mostly invented by guys at Big Tits Round Asses and such). I saw a few Boobpedia editors changing measurements like DDD to F. The bra size template prevents this. It converts DDD to F, but leaves the DDD intact (and gives a category only for DDD so far). The question is if it should add a category for F too. Marked as "Boobpedia standard" or something like that. Vanessa Montagne put it in nice words: Above all, dancers do that: They make their cup sizes more impressive by making them double or triple. All serious measurement tables say that DDD is F. Prophecy 14:57, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

More types of Performances

Please add these types - I'd do it myself but I'm afraid to break the complicated code (read: the long IF statements):

• solofingering
• lesbianfingering
• fingering
• fingeringmen
• handjobmen

Keep in mind fingering is softcore compared to fisting, so they're really two different things. -Biguns 10:54, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I have a different opinion. Among many editors there was confusion about what "hardcore" meant. Sometimes they added: Hardcore: Only with women or something like that. But hardcore was meant only as vaginal penetration. There was no field for that, therefore I split the fields up into four clear categories:

Shown: Everything the model shows, without any sexual acts. All the fields were there already, but mixed up with the others. "bush" was not clear. Sometimes a model that happened to have her (closed) pussy shown was tagged with "bush", but some etidors meant "pink" by bush. So I added "pink".

Solo: Solo meant masturbation all the time, but it was not clear. So the Solo section means all sexual acts only done with oneself. "solofingering" clearly falls under this category, which means that it is already there. But you are right, the explanation wasn't clear enough, I added a "fingering herself" to the documentation page for solo.

Lesbian: Any sexual acts between women. As "lesbian" was already there, it now shows "Softcore" which makes it more clear. If there was penetration, I lesbian fingering is contained in softcore. If there were dildos, lesbiandildo is there. It's not the question if something is considered hardcore or not, but only: Sexual acts between women.

Boy/girl: Any sexual acts between women and men. Hardcore always meant "Vaginal penetration". If not, there wouldn't have been a field named "anal". This was not clear to many editors, so now it clearly shows Boy/girl: Vaginal or Boy/girl: Anal. You are right, there is no field for "fingering with a man" or "Softcore with men", but I think that would become to fine a differentiation. As for handjob, I don't know. Is this an important category?

I only tried to preserve the old fields so that no data is lost or now appears under a false category. The rest was to categorise it and add fields in the other sections if there weren't any. Prophecy 15:15, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Categories

The categories pose a problem. For example, just because someone did one bondage scene (maybe even in a mainstream role), now she's a "bondage model"? -Biguns 10:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, exactly. Just like "Bukkake models" wich was already existent befpre. The definition is on the category page: "Models and porn stars who have appeared in a bukkake scene." There are quite a few models there that are really not pure bukkake models. I just followed the terminus that was used: specialty + "models" to keep it consistent. I think that is clear. Besides, the article text should mention more about the model so that the reader can see what she does "normally." Prophecy 14:50, 1 June 2008 (EDT)