User talk:Prophecy

Citing

Actually, my citations are pretty basic, especially compared with Dekkappai's. :) The Honorable 01:16, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

I just wanted to let you know that you're doing a fine job. The article on Arkadia, for one, is very nicely done. The Honorable 21:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

---

Thank you! It was my first article. I don't know how these talk pages work so far, so this is a test. I hope you get my reply.

Hm... I got here because I'm often using Boobpedia as a reference for my Natural Big Tits Directory I'm running on FreeOnes:

Current version (may be followed by newer posts in the future): http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=2107943#post2107943

As you can see, I have listed many many models who aren't on Boobpedia yet, so now that I managed to write my first article, I hope that I'll find the time to write more. I only have to take care that I do not make circle references. :-)

I have an important question/suggestion:

What always struck me is that Boobpedia hasn't got a category for "Bra size". It's always difficult to add a bra size (consisting of band and cup size) to an article, because it doesn't really fit in the "measurements" entry, and in "cup size" it's not correct either. But I think it's very important. A woman wearing a 40D bra hasn't got really big breasts compared with her overall body measurements, but a 32D cup can be considered as quite big. So my suggestion is:

Why not make a template for the bra size? (I don't know how to do this so far) The cup size can be included in this template, so it remains searchable. Something like:

{ { brasize|band=34|cup=D } }

The band size can remain optional (if possible), so if people only know the cup size, they can just enter the cup size.

This way we could avoid all the various entries in the "measurements" field. Correct data for a woman with a 34D bra would be for example:

measurements: 38-26-36 (with no cup or bra size added)

bra size: 34D (because 34 + D as fourth letter makes 38, following the generally known method to calculate a bra size which Boobpedia lists itself)

People could still enter "free" data if they are not familiar with bra sizes, but for those who like to be correct, the bra size template would help a lot. I think a page named "boobpedia" should offer this possibility.

Regards

Prophecy

I'll have to think about that, as I'm not sure I understand bra sizes well enough to do something like that yet. :) Also, I've taken bnarod.ru off the spamfilter for now -- I assume they're just a free hosting site? The Honorable 09:13, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for Rimma! I just edited the page now. As for the bra sizes: Perhaps I'll make a suggestion when I know how to do templates. Or am I not allowed to define one as a normal user? --Prophecy 14:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Sure, regular users can create templates too. I suggest studying Wikipedia's templates -- since there are so many, there's bound to be something there that you can build on. The Honorable 01:32, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Biobox

I've added ModelMayhem (and YouTube) to the biobox; just add modelmayhem=whatever-their-id-number-is. The Honorable 13:39, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

This is great, thank you! Just a little thing: Model Mayhem is written in two words (see top banner at their page, only the URL is written in one word. Would be nice if you adapted this in the biobox text (ModelMayhem -> Model Mayhem). Thanks! Prophecy 15:52, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Quotations

Italicized quotes are fine. Personally, I prefer indented but non-italicized, but italicized quotes are so common here and on Wikipedia that it's pointless for me to singlehandedly try and change things. :) The Honorable 19:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

FreeOnes

Either of your suggestions is fine. I don't think FreeOnes has an affiliate program of their own; I always assumed they were mostly a collection of affiliate links to other sites. Not that there's anything wrong with that... The Honorable 21:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Redirects

For identical/similar names that are uncommon, like Samantha Fox, I usually do a disambiguation page à la Wikipedia. For common first names, disambiguation pages probably wouldn't get kept up to date, so I've been moving articles about, say, "Jane," to "Jane (example.com)" and deleting the redirect, so that someone searching for "Jane" gets the search result, and not just whichever Jane happened to get their article at Jane. (If I'm not explaining this well, let me know. :) The Honorable 20:44, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

• That's exactly how I would handle similar/identical names. Ideally there would be *some* way to differentiate multiple Isabellas; if there's only one who's well known as just "Isabella," "Isabella (adult model)" might work as an article title. Also, how many SuicideGirls have "common" names? Reagan and Apnea come to mind... :)

Japanese bra sizes

Thanks, Prophecy-- Actually, I'd seen your work in this area and was about to leave a comment. Sorry, I don't know how the Japanese sizes convert-- My wife is Korean, and they use A-B-C over there for cup-sizes, but metric for the measurements. (B was the highest commonly-available size at local shops when I lived there, so my wife had to make her lingerie purchases around the U.S. posts ;-). One thing I wanted to point out about the Japanese though is that they give an upper-bust, and an under-bust measurement, which is the ribcage. (This would be very useful in calculating actual boobage-- and I remember for a short time in the late '80s there was a time when magazines would give a difference between the two in their statistics). For example THIS profile of Aki Tomosaki gives her bust measurement (100cm) and then cup-underbust measurement (G-cup, 70cm). This is a fairly common way of listing measurements-- especially with the bustier models-- so implementing it in your template might be a good idea. Sorry I couldn't be more help in this fascinating area of research, but I encourage you to continue, and will take time to look into your template and its usage. Cheers! Dekkappai 18:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm looking around Google for some help here, Prohphecy-- THIS might help you out. Dekkappai 18:40, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Prophecy-- Feel free to add your template to the articles. The G/H-cup difference in Aki Tomosaki's profile is probably because I got the H off another profile. I believe in sticking pretty close to the sources, but if one source is more accurate than another, feel free to use the correct one. If the official profile is "incorrect," though-- I think like John Ford in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance-- "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." If "fact" differs from the profile, I say we still put the profile measurement in the article, maybe with a note as to its accuracy... No big deal to me either way though. Dekkappai 19:03, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

No-- that G does mean cup-size in Aki Tomosaki's profile. I don't know where I got the H, maybe a video cover... Right-- Fuko's P-cup is a publicity gimmick. Ran Masaki probably pioneered the bust-size exaggeration in Japan. I think the bust-exaggeration really started with Kimiko Matsuzaka's "110.7" centimeters, which was a typographical pun on "ii onna"-- "Good woman." Then the cup-exaggeration thing really started with Mariko Morikawa's "Q-cup", which was, no doubt, a take-off on the old Ultra-Q TV science-fiction show, the precursor to Ultra Man. I guess companies need their gimmicks to sell, but all these models are perfectly lovely as is, without the hype. A Fuko by any other cup-letter would be just as sweet... :) OK, I have to log off for the day-- keep up the good work! Dekkappai 19:38, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Bra size template

Allow me to give you a hearty "holy crap!" :) Nice job.

I can protect the template from being edited, but this would lock you out too (of course, Hexvoodoo or I could unlock it for you if you needed to edit it). Let me know if you do want it protected, and it will be done. The Honorable 21:08, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Metric / U.S. bras

Hi Prophecy-- I've noticed a couple of the Japanese subjects have the Metric (G, for example) cup-size in the infobox, and then the U.S. size ("D cup") at the bottom under categories. This seems a good compromise on the situation, since they're known by their metric measurements to fans of the genre, and U.S. fans, just looking for a nice, Japanese D-cup, can still find them by browsing the category. Sound OK? Dekkappai 16:53, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Engrish

Tragically, yes, I am a native English speaker. Who hasn't been getting enough sleep lately. :) The Honorable 23:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Heading titles

Your article format is fine. I don't have a strong preference for what to call the section of the article about posing in front of a camera, but you raise a good point about "Career" being too broad. My Naughty Alysha changes were due to sloppy reverting, not because of any preference about the section title. The Honorable 10:21, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

You're right about the italics; I missed the italics on "RadioX." With regards to the photographer stuff, a biobox just for photographers might be a good idea. What are your plans with the {{photographer}} template? The Honorable 20:12, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Instead of a biobox just for photographers, I've been thinking about a general "non-performers" biobox that could also be used for directors, artists, etc. Also, you've done some impressive work on the photographer templates, though I worry that you're getting carried away from the main point of Boobpedia, i.e., boobs, and their owners. :) The Honorable 13:46, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

My idea for the nonperformer biobox is to use a cut-down version of the regular biobox -- taking out measurements, what sex acts they've performed on camera :) , etc. That way, if they do go in front of the camera, an editor can change the template name from [currently-untitled-biobox] to biobox, add the new fields, and it's done. The Honorable 14:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Media licensing

For Creative Commons photos, I would upload it with "none selected" for the license, and then add the appropriate CC info. Also, I'll see if we can add Creative Commons as a proper menu option. The Honorable 20:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

• Choosing "none selected" doesn't add a template, like the other options do. If you add the CC license information in the summary, or go back and add it after uploading, all should be fine. The Honorable 18:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Pin up models

Thanks Prophecy, I try my best what I can gather and share it here on Boobpedia. I'm sure everyone here appreciates my work, but thanks for the acknowledgement.-Apara 20:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Angelique

I tend to agree with you -- I think the biobox photo should be representative of how they are best known. But I'll let you and Biguns sort it out. :) The Honorable 15:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Angelique photo

Where can I find the photo spread of Angelique in latex? I like all of the work you have done to her page! Msjayhawk 21:28, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Home page

I had to call it something, and that was the first thing that came to mind. :) How about "official website"? The Honorable 16:46, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Specifically assigning a color for the table header seems to work. I put in #ccc just to get a different color, but you can play with the color if you want. The Honorable 22:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Steve Diet Goedde bio

It looks like the Wikipedia bio is mostly plagiarized from his site. I would suggest stripping it down to something more basic until an original bio can be written. The Honorable 19:57, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

photographer categorization

hi prophecy. i wasn't able to work on boobpedia for some time, so i'm just now catching up. i have seen your work on putting photographer categories in model pages. may i suggest that these categories be named slightly differently. for example, from Category:James Bertoni to Category:James Bertoni models, and James Bertoni to James Bertoni models. we have done this for directors, and it's best to keep things consistent. it's also less confusing than having just a male name as a category. --Hexvoodoo 19:59, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

tables

I think that's caused by Wikipedia and Boobpedia using different CSS. You'd have to ask Hexvoodoo, because my CSS knowledge is limited, and I don't think I have access to stylesheets here anyway. :)

There's no policy here about table formatting -- Big Naturals has internal borders (sort of). The Honorable 16:07, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Vanessa (Montagne)

I don't know. I've asked on Vanessa's user page. The Honorable 19:45, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

• Good detective work. The Honorable 20:29, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

If Vanessa deletes the information again without explanation, I'll block the account from editing. That should get her(?) attention. The Honorable 13:31, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

nude model redirection

since there are many articles that use the nude model redirection, and it has always been used in place of adult model, i don't think we should redirect that to fine art nude models. in fact, we probably shouldn't change the redirect for nude either, to keep things consistent. in cases where we are referring to fine art nudes we can expressly state that. --Hexvoodoo 16:39, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

there are a lot of current articles using nude model - see Special:Whatlinkshere/Nude_model. --Hexvoodoo 16:46, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

even though all of them could be changed, i don't think we should. most people outside the fine arts community think nude model is the same as adult model, and it's also very descriptive to add "art" or "artistic" for links where they are supposed to go to fine art nude model. --Hexvoodoo 16:50, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

yes the category themselves don't need work, but the very fact that we have so many instances of nude model referring to adult models signifies that they are commonly (mis)understood as the same thing. academically you may be right, but realistically we have to follow the masses. in places where you want nude or nude model to go to fine art nude models, it's not a bad idea to add art or fine art to the terms anyway. --Hexvoodoo 16:58, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

for one, sometimes an editor uses nude model to break up the monotony of saying adult model all the time. secondly, it's not really about a battle of the percentages. it doesn't have to be 50 50 in usage for us to consider the two terms as equivalents. thirdly, i know that you are willing to do the work, but i always have to consider the impact this has on the project and the visitors. while it only helps to add art or artistic as descriptive terms, redirecting all "nude" or "nude model" to fine art nude models has the potential to confuse readers. i don't think these terms should have their redirections changed. --Hexvoodoo 17:12, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

one last point for consideration is this google trends. there are several times more searches for nude model than for adult model. since it's obvious that more people search for porn than fine art nudes, the masses do in fact consider nude as a porn/adult term. --Hexvoodoo 17:18, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

i like your last idea. that should work well. --Hexvoodoo 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

is there a way to show that message only when someone gets to that page through the nude model redirection? right now it's there even when visiting adult models directly. --Hexvoodoo 17:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Biobox

I've added the BGAFD to the biobox.

Also, any suggestions for the biobox layout are welcome. There are probably better and more compact ways to present the information; it's just a matter of someone figuring it out. The Honorable 21:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

.svg

That's Hexvoodoo's area -- I don't have access to any of that stuff. The Honorable 18:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Test biobox categories

You could comment out the categories in your test biobox...

<!-- [[Category:YouTube]] -->

...and then re-enable them when you need to test them. The Honorable 16:41, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Height template

Done. Be sure to let me know when you're done tweaking it. The Honorable 21:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

New biobox

I haven't played with it much yet, but so far it looks good. The Honorable 13:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm missing the field 'measurements'. Has it been removed? bnatic

Image:Question book-new.gif

Where did you get Image:Question book-new.gif? I'm assuming it's a free-use type of icon, but we need to know its source. (Fair-use claims probably won't work for navigation icons). The Honorable 19:56, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Re:Filmography at Fuko's and other pages.

Thanks for the note on my work, Prophecy. I've noticed that you are working quite hard on templates formats, etc. but because of my extremely limited time here, I haven't been able to see exactly what it is you-- or the other editors here-- are doing. I took a look at the new biobox just now and I think it looks great! The more we can get away from Wikipedia-type formatting and into formatting specifically suited to Boobpedia, the better I think.

If you follow my editing history, you'll notice I don't contribute for a day or so, then I add to articles in a frenzy within a half-hour or hour at the most. This is because I have no home Internet connection, and my time for BP-safe editing is extremely limited. I do most of my real article-writing off-line at home, then in the hour I have during the day, I upload that work, and then do my researching and image-searching, which I work through later at home. This is the reason my editing may not be in synch with what is going on here at Boobpedia. I'm mostly feeling my way in the dark-- just making up these table formats, citation styles, etc., on my own as I go along. I contribute more to work-safe Wikipedia, in similar subject matter-- Japanese erotic cinema-- so I model a lot my work here around that-- with the exception that images are tolerated here, especially in the filmography tables. I don't have time to read through BP rules and guidelines, or even other editors' work... I would like to, but I can't. If you point me to any key guidelines or formats, I'll copy the info and study it at home to use in my own editing. As far as making a general BP-wide standard table format-- I think it's a fine idea. You can get see what format I have come up with during my work here from some of my recent work at these articles like Saori Sekihara, Boku no Oppai, or Rin Aoki. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve this.

My general editing/article-building procedure has been to start with a list-- Big Breasted Japanese AV Actresses‎ or List of Cinema Unit GAS DVDs, for example. These lists-- especially the video series-- allow me to upload a lot of video covers, which can be displayed at the main series article, and then easily linked into the filmographies of each of the actresses. As I blue-link each actress on the list, I work through their own filmographies and find new series and new actresses... Then I start on a new series, which leads me to more new actresses, etc... I try to keep updating the main lists with the new information/new actresses as they come into my view, and later as I take time to read through video descriptions later to fill out careers/biographies of these actresses later. Because my time here is so limited, my work is slow, but I have found this a good, orderly and interesting way to work through the Japanese big-boob genre-- a subject which can be very difficult to research.

About the image redirects: I wanted them to be clickable to different images-- It looks like the images on your page are regular thumb-to-full clicks. For these videos at The Bomber Girl series, I wanted to have the front-cover images on the main article, because the full front & back cover doesn't really look good in a filmography table. But I did want to have the full front & back cover images displayable through clicking on the thumbs-- for obvious aesthetic reasons :-) I didn't know how to do this, but the Honorable recommended a redirect. If there is a better way of doing this, or anything else, point me to how to do it, and I'll be happy to employ it. Keep up the great work! Dekkappai 17:03, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Livejournal in biobox

It did work for me, but I'm not sure if every browser can deal with underscores in a hostname. Just being cautious. :) The Honorable 16:30, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Removing Categories

Hey Prophecy

Yeah I never really agreed with it either. So I went to look how many where under that category. 270 or so, I thought it would be a bigger amount. But of course I found some articles mislabeled. Also the new biobox works great. Definitely more organized than the previous one. Apara 04:06, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Birthdays

I've been wanting to do something with birthdays, but it would have been clunky with the old biobox. We could go ahead and do categories for the birth dates, and then figure out if there's a way to automatically post them on the front page. (The main page is updated manually -- I can edit it, but I usually leave it to Hexvoodoo.) The Honorable 18:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Just don't go creating 366 categories before we make sure everything works. :) The Honorable 18:12, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Categories ahoy

With all the template and category work you've been doing, I'm starting to think you're a bot. :) The Honorable 22:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:) The Honorable 23:04, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Kelly Monaco

No, no, everything's fixed, I think. The Honorable 19:05, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

template:cl

It has been unprotected. The Honorable 19:16, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Dates

Good point, I hadn't thought of other things that the dates might be used for. Maybe someday we'll have date and year articles like Wikipedia, listing major events in big-boob history. :) The Honorable 22:09, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Reverting Cup Sizes

Yeah, I wondered why no one caught on about Msjayhawk's changes to cup sizes and adding them by observing. So I decided to look through them all. After I did the "large areola" clean up. Apara 23:28, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Old vs. new biobox

Don't worry, I'm not very attached to the old biobox. I threw it together quickly and was never quite happy with how it looked. I will probably replace the old biobox with your new one soon, but I want to wait a bit more to make sure that everything works okay.

As for our Tammi Tyler fan, I think I'll wait until he finishes the article before cleaning up after him. :) The Honorable 23:54, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

No problem, I hadn't protected it yet. :) The Honorable 14:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

the direction of boobpedia

hi prophecy, sorry i didn't get back to you sooner. i'll try to answer the last few questions from you, then discuss something i have in mind.

i could allow svg file uploads, but i see that you've already used gif equivalents so that may no longer be necessary.

if another editor seems to have missed your edit summaries, it's best to try communicating through user talk pages first.

i like the new biobox you have made. very good job! i think we can retire the old one and move the code for biobox new into biobox.

let's talk about something i've had mind for a while now. i have seen a lot of work done by you on various aspects of boobpedia - most of which i agree with and really like, but i do have a few concerns:

1. wikipedia does a lot of things right, but i never liked the disturbing trend of many of its articles having increasing disclaimers of how the article is deficient in one way or another. "policing the articles", as i call it, instead of improving content detracts from the core mission of a wiki. i don't want boobpedia to become just a clone of wikipedia with a different subject. realistically, a lot of information in boobpedia can never have the same level of attribution and references as more general subjects can. by tagging articles with disclaimers like "needs reference" and categories like "unsourced since june 2008", we will just end up with a bunch of articles permanently disfigured. it is quite clear to see what is referenced and what is not referenced by looking at an article. wikipedia has ended up with a lot of these useless disclamiers because of an imbalance between policing and content development. when they see unsourced information, rather than looking for a source, they put on a tag and hope for others to do the actual work. i would rather boobpedia editors do it the opposite way.
2. boobpedia's main goal is to serve up information on busty women. it's not really a general wiki on adult subjects, therefore i consider things which don't directly help readers locate information on the models/actresses to be impediments. this is why we still have so many top level cup size or physical attribute categories, even though in the past there have been attempts to clean things up by putting them into subcategories. i think the contents category is unnecessary - most readers are here for the articles, and don't quite care for things intended for regular editors. it's probably best if we just have a category called Maintenance and put all editor-related things in there. i have time for editing this week, so i'll do some organizing of the categories.
3. the last thing has to do with templates. i'd like to minimize the number of templates to those which are absolutely necessary. we don't have nearly the same server resources as wikipedia and can't have unlimited templates. whenever possible, please consider alternatives to adding another template. even manually using an article's title in place of {{PAGENAME}} helps in the long run. if a template is only going to be used in a small number of pages, it's probably better to manually input the information ourselves.

please let me know what you think. keep the discussion here as i'll invite the honorable to come and join us. thanks and keep up the good work! --Hexvoodoo 17:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi Hexvoodoo,

thanks for your reply. Here are a few remarks for me:

1. .svg: I'd appreciate very much if you allowed them, because it takes a lot of work to convert .svgs to .gifs, and .svgs are endlessly resizable. It would save a lot of time if they were allowed.
2. Disclaimers and unsourced statements: I am not a Wikipedia user, it was Boobpedia that got me into all this. :-) Now that I've read a lot about the Wikipedia headnotes, I know that there are many Wikipedians just passing by and leaving a tag instead of finding the information. But: There are some users just passing by and writing down cup and bra sizes judging by their eye. I think this is such an important information for a site like Boobpedia that we cannot leave information on boobs unsourced. So far it was only me who tagged a few articles. Result: A few users checked these articles, found the user who added cup sizes at will and corrected all of the articles! Boobpedia has become a source for many forums and is cited there - that's why we should be reliable in this field. The creation of {{Ambox}} was just a start to see how it works. The tags do not have to be put at the top of a page, and they do not have to be so big. As for my intention with the tags: For most of the articles, I put them in the pages to better find them later, because I wanted to add information. Boobpedia has become so big now that it needs tags like these. I could write a clear note (like at Wikipedia) that {{Unreferenced}} should generally not be used, but the information has to be added. Besides, we should be aware that the articles start to contain statements about living persons. These persons see when users click on links in their articles and become aware of the fact that they are listed here. Kevin Hundsnurscher added to his article, and Ulorin Vex asked to be categorised in another category than Category:Adult models. I just deleted a few statements about alcohol and drug problems of Xanthia Doll, because I could not find any sources - before this causes problems. I think this is fair, and if a tag at the top of an article can help improve it, it's fine. I only put {{Unreferenced}} on articles that had much text, but no sources at all. Most likely copied from Wikipedia, but I did not have the time to check that. Adding a {{GFDL}} to the article helps, and the tag can be removed. Please do not delete {{Ambox}} and related templates, and do not remove the tags from the articles - I want to work on them later. As for me, they are very helpful.
3. Categories: I did not change any of the top level catgories, and I wouldn't, just because of the reasons you mentionend. It's fine that Boobpedia has a "Browse categories" link in the navigation bar, while Wikipedia doesn't. I agree with you that we should leave the top level categories as they are (I only categorised some of them under additional categories), but please do not change anything. You do not need to reorganise anything anyway - all editor related categories are already in "Contents/Boobpedia administration" and nowhere else. I really need these categories, because otherwise I cannot keep track of my templates and development tools. The Contents category: I created it today, for the purpose of having one root category for all the others. Contents is now placed at the top of the category page so that it's somewhat outside the "regular boob categories" visitors may look for, but still easy to find and in a prominent place for admins and editors who are looking for tools. And for visitors who prefer a structurised approach when they look for information. I think that's a good comprimise - It's the only new top level category; the rest remains unchanged. My suggestion: Leaving the top level categories untouched, but also leaving the "Contents" category where it is. There were quite a few categories that were "sunken" in other categories or could not be found at all. I took them back to the surface, and that was a huge amount of work. I'd appreciate if this structure could be maintained. As said - you do not have to reorganise anything, because it's already done. No top level category has vanished, all editor related categories are under one single category, and many of the more "hidden" categories can be found easier now. Please notify me if you plan to reorganise any of the subcategories so that I can explain my reasons for specific classifications.
4. Templates: Ok. That's why I even suggested replacing all biobox templates by a metatemplate the type of which can be triggered with somehing like type =. But these are future plans. By the way, if you have a look at my templates, you will see that 90% of them are high-use templates that are on 300+, 500+ or 1,000+ pages. I try to only create templates that really help people and can be used for many purposes.

One more question: Is there a way that I can be granted the right to edit my own templates that have been protected? I introduced the /sandbox system to reduce server load, but I don't want to bother The Honorable or you all the time to unprotect and reprotect templates when I have finished my work on them.

Regards Prophecy 18:11, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

References I'm guilty of neglecting of using when I make my articles and/or find information. When I first started making articles, I never really got the use of it. After observing other editor’s articles. I'm starting to become more aware of the use and most likely starting to use them. One thing I also notice was the over use of some categories. I did a "sweep" of some categories the past week. I noticed how some articles are uncategorized, especially with "large areolas". Also had to revert some cup sizes on many articles from users who determined what the articles cup sizes were by just observation of the model's pictures. Basically when I'm saying is, the un-source template is useful and helpful (especially with cup sizes) for such articles that seem to be edit without references and just by observation. Apara 20:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the invitation, Hex. I'll offer a few thoughts, but haven't really had the opportunity to read through all of the above, or to view how these issues are being worked out in articles throughout BP.

One thing that has always bothered me about Wikipedia is the ratio of talk to article-- for any one line of actual article text there are dozens of lines of talk, Afd, rules, interpretation of rules, RfC, RfA, and all the rest of that power-play garbage, which is often irrelevant, if not actually detrimental to actually building the encyclopedia. BP is a refreshing change of pace to that, because here, basically, I just research, contribute, and occasionally share a thought or two, on topic, with another editor. I hope BP remains this way. That said, except for the recent interactions with Prophecy, and questions I've asked Honorable, I do feel like I'm working in the dark a lot here. So I think a group discussion on where we are, and where we go from here is a good idea at this time.

I think you deserve lots of credit for the new biobox, Prophecy. I mentioned to you before also that I think this is the direction BP should head-- to customize all the more generic Wiki features into BP-specific formats. Your biobox takes the generic Wiki format and highlights just what is of interest to the general BP user.

The more techie issues and questions are beyond my knowledge, so I leave them up to you and the others to work out. I'm certainly more a "content" guy than a "format" guy-- another thing that is getting me into a bad position at WP... but that's another story. I completely agree with Hex on the maintenance templates. At Wikipedia the behind-the-scenes (the editing) so often shows itself onstage (the articles), which is not good. I haven't seen the maintenance templates. But, though they may have worked out fine this time, there is still the potential of WP-like indefinitely-templated/defaced articles. We should be able to come up with a better way of noting work that needs to be done. Projects are a good Wiki-concept which might work for BP for maintenance issues. One of Wiki's problems, I think, and its virtue, is that it is so spread out. There, the project system has helped, I think. Articles can be watched by an umbrella group, and worked on by editors with interest and knowledge in that particular area. Maybe we could create a "maintenance" project-- a page which lists maintenance issues in certain articles-- ("So & so is unsourced")-- which editors can scan from time to time and work on.

Exactly. That's why I created this: Category:Boobpedia maintenance It's already there. :-) Articles tagged with the templates appear here, and I simply love to go through and see what I can add. Already fixed a few articles. Prophecy 19:28, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Although maybe, in the case of maintenance, just pages listing issues would suffice. One for "Copyedit," one for "Sourcing," etc... When an editor notices a problem, but doesn't have time to work on it, he could list it for those who do. Though BP is probably not big enough for more specific projects at the moment, it would be nice to be able to create them eventually-- "Japan Project," "Playboy Project," "BBW Project," "Russ Meyer Project," whatever... And these projects would help with maintenance issues.

I'll be happy to give input on any of these issues, just understand that my BP-safe online time is extremely limited. Uploading an researching will get priority, but I'll contribute to discussions when I can. (Also, I need to get off my butt and get that damned home Internet connection fixed!) Dekkappai 19:20, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

(Reply to Prophecy above) Ah, well that's where my inability to enjoy BP at my leisure puts me at a disadvantage in any discussion... If your templates are just categories listed at the bottom of pages, I see no problem with that. But if they are big, Wiki-style banners plastered across the top of the article, I'm against that. Maybe I should just hold off comment here until I can get the home internet working again. :-) Dekkappai 19:53, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually they are at the top of articles. But I just started it to see what others think. It would be no problem to put them at the end of an article. Only for unsourced boob measurements I am of the opinion that they have to be on top of a page. But anyway - I was the only one so far who has tagged articles, mostly for myself to find them later - and to leave a sign for others and encourage them to improve the articles. I don't think that they are a problem, because no one uses them - and I'll use them only in very limited cases. As I said, I already removed the tags on some pages after having fixed the sourcing issues. Prophecy 19:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Addition to the categories topic: Just one day after I introduced and reorganised Category:Boobpedians, people start adding their user pages and also adding their native languages. Before, the old "Boobpedia users" category was practically deserted. I think it's great if we can establish more of a community feeling like that. To Hexvoodoo: It would be great if you added yourself too so that we have the administrators complete. Please add the following cagetories to your user page if you like:

[[Category:Boobpedians|Hexvoodoo]]

[[Category:Boobpedia administrators|Hexvoodoo]]

[[Category:Boobpedia bureaucrats|Hexvoodoo]]

If you are an English native speaker, you can also add

[[Category:English native speakers|Hexvoodoo]]

Thanks and regards -- Prophecy 05:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

email

btw: please send me an email through the contact link in the navigation bar. i have another project you may be interested in participating. --Hexvoodoo 17:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Biobox hybrid

Ok. I wasn't sure what to do in that situation. So I changed it to "new". But now I know. Apara 01:03, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Re:Server will slow down for a few minutes.

Thanks for the note, Prophecy. Obviously you know by now, I was done uploading before you sent it. I'm glad you enjoyed the list too-- I was a little leery about uploading some of these Japanese BBW lists, because I know they're not to everybody's taste. (I like a woman of some substance myself :-) Wait till you see some of the amazons on another list I've been working on... big, powerful, buxom gals!... next I'll have to blue-link some of the more promising models on today's list. The work never stops! Dekkappai 19:01, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and yes-- your edits to the list are correct. I just cut & pasted them in a hurry while online and forgot to fix them. Cheers! Dekkappai 19:03, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Possible metric cup size converting

Hey Prophecy
I was looking through the Bra article just a few mins ago. When I came across this. Since converting metric cup sizes was some sort of a problem. I thought this might help the situation. Especially in Dekkappai's case. I figured you probably knew of this link or not. I just thought I'd fill you in. Apara 20:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I came across this page on my own, and generated a table out of the data. It's here: User:Drducker/BraConversionChart. Seems to be a one-to-one conversion, if the source document is accurate. Drducker 06:52, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

That's what I thought. "C metric" seems kind of small to me. Apara 21:55, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Vanessa Del

I found it on the Big Tits Curvy Asses site. I'm not sure how to calculate band sizes. So I just leave them blank unless I find info. Apara 23:01, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

How do you calculate band sizes? If it were possible. Apara 23:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Nina Hartley

I defaulted to "birth name" because I wasn't sure if that was her current name. I do see your point, though. The Honorable 21:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Natali Demore

Hi Prophecy, sorry i don't know about, i'm sure You would have done it much better, but well. The new biobox is much better than the old, I congratulate You.

Greetings.--Kamui99 05:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

OK! ;) Thank You, But I think that All your articles are very complete and very well elaborate. Besides all your girls are dreamed. You're doing very good work, Congrats!

--Kamui99 05:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Measurements

Hi, Prophecy. Since you're the formatting guy, maybe you can help me. The measurements, at least as I am using, seem pretty clunky. For instance at the article I've just started on Iori Kuroki (take a look :-) I give measurements as "130-90-110(cm) / 51-35-43(inch)" There must be a better way-- either by tinkering with the infobox (or maybe you already have, and I'm not aware of it), or by agreeing on a standard way to do this sort of thing. Dekkappai 15:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Prophecy. I'll keep it in mind. As long as we've got the information up there, I suppose, the formatting isn't all that crucial. We can clean it up later. Meanwhile, discoveries like Iori Kuroki continue to inspire further research. :-) Cheers! Dekkappai 15:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

DP

Sure. :) The Honorable 20:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

"This date in boob history"

I like your date idea, Prophecy, and it's just the kind of thing I'll be able to work on easy at home-- I'm still getting used to the novelty of having easy Internet access again, and still spending more time surfing than writing, but I'll settle down and try to contribute Japanese info to those later. Cheers! Dekkappai 16:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

No image available

Not sure of the proper reply etiquette here, but hopefully this is right "enough".  ;)

I was actually hoping somebody might get a bright idea to change the template like that; I hadn't had a clue about how to do it myself, but I see that template code isn't super complex programming.

So, in short: Cool.

Drducker 09:15, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Minor formatting issue

Hi, Prophecy. If you look at Rui Akikawa, you'll see a minor formatting issue-- or at least I do on my computer. The filmography over-writes the lower part of the biobox. This problem will be solved as the text of the article expands, but still, if there's a way to fix it, let me know. Keep up the great work! Cheers. Dekkappai 19:58, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Prophecy. The best solution, of course, is to fill out the article with text, and I hope to do that when I can. Until then I'll try your "clear all" suggestion. Dekkappai 12:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

160px

I change it from 160 to 180. Because of the lines going through the main article picture and biobox. They seem unnecessary. Apara 07:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

The headlines "Big tit movies" "Free galleries" (go through main picture) "References" and "External Links" (go through the biobox). I use Internet Explorer 7. Apara 08:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

From what I remember, the lines did go across with the old biobox also. I'm not sure why it comes off when I make changes to the article. Minor changes does the trick. When I use a iMac computer. The lines don't appear. Apara 22:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

First I thought it was a common problem. Thinking the formatting of the article was off. But seems to be rare in some cases. I'll take it up with The Honorable or Hex. Apara 22:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Big Naturals help

Prophecy, I have been unable to find any other photos of this model, maybe you would have better luck. Shandi (Big Naturals) --Bustanut 13:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is in the members area. It is the only thing left for the deleted women. It just so happens that every other woman has pictures still on the internet. --Bustanut 20:19, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Height and weight templates

Referencing here: User_talk:Drducker#Height_and_weight_templates & User_talk:The_Honorable#New_weight_template

I had thought that sub-template referencing was probably a performance hit actually, but figured the gain of factoring out all the implicit conditionals in what I've dubbed "default-folding" of parameter names, and only doing so once (versus 4x for pounds, and 5x for kilos), would offset it. In thinking it through a little more after your comments I guess the "default-folding" is in application time (using existing in-memory data), and the template call is in network time (accessing the DB for the text of the page), so I can see how that could still be problematic.

There are two ways I can think of potentially achieving some gains in performance, though the first is without the code elegance:

1. Do you know if "default-folding" uses a short-circuit style conditional? If so, we could see a performance boost by changing the order of the parameters being folded so that the most commonly used parameter name is first. (In the weight template case, I'd guess "kg" for the kilogram params.) Like so:

   {{{kg|{{{kilo|{{{kilos|{{{kilogram|{{{kilograms|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

2. I haven't been able to find some way to make an assignment inside a template; Maybe you know of some way? I'm thinking something like:

   {{#assign:newparam=value}}

   which would allow for having the folding only occur once, and still be inside the same template. Weight could look like this: (obviously with the spacing fixed to remove rendering artifacts)

<includeonly>
{{#assign:p={{{lb|{{{lbs|{{{pound|{{{pounds|}}}}}}}}}}}} }}
{{#assign:k={{{kg|{{{kilo|{{{kilos|{{{kilogram|{{{kilograms|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} }}
{{#if:{{{round|}}}|{{#assign:r={{{round|}}} }} }}
{{#if:{{{p|}}}|
  {{#if:{{{k|}}}|
    {{{p|}}} lb ({{{k|}}} kg)|
    {{{p|}}} lb ({{#expr:( ({{{p|0}}}/2.2) round {{{r|0}}} ) }} kg)}}|
  {{#if:{{{k|}}}|
    {{{k|0}}} kg ({{#expr:( ({{{k|0}}}*2.2) round {{{r|0}}} ) }} lb)}}
}}
</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}}
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

BMI

Referencing: User_talk:Drducker#BMI

You are correct that "Thin" has some negative connotations, though only very slight. I've actually thought the body type stuff, if based off BMI, should stick closer to the "official" boundaries. The BMI calculator listed in the biobox template description has these categories:

Underweight

BMI < 18.5

Normal weight

18.5 <= BMI < 25

Overweight

25 <= BMI < 30

Obesity

30 <= BMI

I've seen the underweight-to-normal boundary at 18 also, and that keeps things a little simpler. I also think we could break down the Normal category into two, and so my proposal would be:

Thin

BMI < 18 (18)

Slim

18 <= BMI < 21 [18-21)

Normal

21 <= BMI < 25 [21-25)

Chubby

25 <= BMI < 30 [25-30)

BBW

30 <= BMI [30)

Band size as an indicator has some potential, though my thoughts are that it (as well as waist/hip measurements) serves as a measure of relative proportionality. Which is to say, it can lead you a bit astray on it's own for determining body type. Also, given how fast and loose some models play with their measurements, it doesn't have the same level of reliability.

I'd also like to propose that the other body types (Athletic, Muscular) be used as modifiers, ie a model could be labeled as "Normal Athletic", and that a third possibility be added: "Toned"

Toned

Well toned body

Athletic

Defined musculature present

Muscular

Exclusively for intensive body-builders

Drducker 15:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I still think it would be better to keep the under BMI=18 category, simply for the flexibility it affords, though perhaps finding a new term would be better; Some that I found: lank, lean, skinny, slender, svelte, slight, delicate, waif. Of them, I like "Waif" (or maybe "Waifish) best as the under BMI=18 replacement. So that would mean the full list would be: Waif, Slim, Normal, Chubby, BBW.

The template I'm working up for doing body type automatically, should be able to figure the Muscled modifiers with a single parameter. The final template call should look something like: {{bodytype|m=1.60|kg=55|muscle=Athletic}} which should result in "Normal, Athletic (BMI:21.5)" with appropriate category linking additions, etc. I want it to handle meters or feet-inches, pounds or kilos, etc. and that's why it's taking me a while. As it's rendered output should hit the "free text" rendering in the biobox template, there shouldn't be any need for a change in that template when it's done.

Drducker 17:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Waif is a term that came to the fore in the fashion industry. Think Twiggy, or Kate Moss. The word originally referred to orphans, and the undernourished. See: Wikipedia's entry

Drducker 17:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

User:Define Babe

I've blocked Define Babe and added definebabe.com to the spam blacklist. Feel free to delete any link to definebabe.com that you find. The Honorable 20:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Boobpedia down

Just curious why Boobpedia has been down for several minutes at a time the past few days. Is traffic increasing that much and causing an overload on the servers? --Bustanut 18:59, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

It's not problem at all. I was just curious was all. Thanks for the info. --Bustanut 19:50, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Kylie Scott

Any idea who this is? I have never heard of her before Kylie Scott. --Bustanut 01:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT) I was thinking the same thing. I just wanted to make sure the name that is givin on the website is the correct one since I have not been able to find anything else on her. --Bustanut 01:31, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Eyes Wide Shut/templates

Eyes Wide Shut: I deleted the disambig notice for Eyes Wide Shut (body) because there isn't an Eyes Wide Shut (film) article, and I didn't know the film had any noteworthy bustiness. :) I think doing articles on specific latex outfits and bras may be too tangential to the point of Boobpedia, though.

Templates: If they're useful for multiple articles, developing additional templates is fine. The Honorable 18:20, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Articles on bras and bodies are OK, if the bras are reasonably well-known, and are designed for large breasts, to accentuate large breasts, etc. or something like that. So, under that new rule that I just made up :), the Arabella bra is an appropriate article subject, but the Eyes Wide Shut body isn't. The Honorable 19:54, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not entirely convinced about the Eyes Wide Shut body -- transparent bodies accentuate big breasts, but so do wet T-shirts and tight blouses. Where should the line be drawn? The Honorable 23:46, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Arabella (bra)

Hi, Prophecy. I notice a Sayuri listed as a wearer of this bra. Do you have a link to an image? "Sayuri" is a very common given-name among Japanese models, and I can think of several who deserve articles here. I might be able to identify this particular one with an image. Also, if you're starting articles on bras, off-hand I know that Wacoal is the major Japanese manufacturer. They're not big-bust specialists by any means, but I wonder at which point BP becomes "exclusionist" with regards to boob-lore... Keep up the great work! Regards. Dekkappai 19:39, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, SAYURI!!! Yes, I've been collecting whatever I can on her for years... Pretty sure I've seen her in video/DVD appearances too. I've got her marked for an article, one of these days... So many boobs, so little time! Cheers! Dekkappai 19:56, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Samanthas

I think they're different -- Topheavy says their Samantha is British. The Honorable 23:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Minor formatting issues 2

Hi, Prophecy. Has the table problem been fixed? The one where you lose the lines if there is no info in a field? If so, I can start removing those "."s I put in to avoid that... Also, the problem I mentioned above, about the filmography tables overwriting the biobox-- It doesn't seem to occur on different computers. I use Firefox here, and it occurs whether I put the "clear all" at the top or not... Dekkappai 03:15, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi, Prophecy-- I thought you mentioned how I was able to get the lines in the tables before... (User_talk:Dekkappai#Filmography_at_Fuko.27s_and_other_pages. "you are the only one who managed to get vertical lines in your tables so far") The way I got the lines was to put a "." in a field if it was empty. For example, look at Chiharu_Mizushima#Partial_filmography. I don't have info in the top listing for "Company" and "Director". If I left it blank, I wouldn't get the table lines, so I put in the "."s. Recently, however, I've been getting the lines without the "."s If you look at the third listing at Oppai label, I don't have the performer's name. I didn't put a "." in it, but it looks OK. I took it from your note above, tha tI wasn't the only one having trouble with the vertical lines-- has that issue been fixed? Regards. Dekkappai 12:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the feedback, Prophecy... That's odd about the lines though-- I used to not see them unless I put something in every field, and this was on several different computers... I'm an old guy with not much programming skills anymore (Cobol, anyone?) so I'll leave the filmography CSS coding up to you when you get around to it. Also, I'm not sure if I've finally settled on the "ultimate" Filmography format-- So let me know when you start work on this, as I would like to have some input and suggestions to make. (For example, the Japanese video templates might require special fields, such as the Video ID number, which is a standard way of identifying these things-- I've finally started using those numbers to identify the cover images, which saves a lot of inconsistent translating/naming and possible accidental duplication.) Anyway, I'll continue plugging away on article/content and leave the coding up to you experts :-) I'm glad you enjoyed those "Oppai" girls-- yes, they look very article-worthy, every one of them! If you like the short and chubby girls also, the recent discovery I am most enchanted by is Usagi Minagi-- I've been lucky to find a bit of information on this relatively obscure-- but quite entrancing-- subject. My next step is to go on a blue link-ing spree with so many of those red links I've been putting up in these lists. Keep me updated on coding/formatting changes, and keep up the great work! Cheers! Dekkappai 14:29, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Prophecy-- since you're doing work on bras (with regard to bras, as with my editing, I focus more on their content than their format ;-), you might want to check out THESE pictures of our new subject, Miyabi Hayama. You might be able to squeeze her into one of your articles. Cheers! Dekkappai 16:04, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I haven't followed the discussion much, but, personally, I'm in favor of any boob-related info/articles here. Articles on bras-- even plain old, non-big-bust bras-- or any other boob-specific lingerie seem appropriate to me, as they're boob-related. Just my opinion though. Dekkappai 16:15, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

A request

Hi, Prophecy. Since you're the guru of the new biobox template, maybe you can add a "Shoe size" field? Even Wiki's female adult template has one, so I don't see why ours shouldn't. Personally I don't care much about this bit of information, but it is included in many Japanese profiles-- Usagi Minagi, for example, wears a 23.5cm-- so it must be considered an important statistic there... I think I've included "shoe" fields in some of my article/bioboxes in the hope that some day this info would be visible... Dekkappai 13:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

please help me out

yesterday the server was down for a while, and a reboot had to be done. the server load was 132% at the time. since you are familiar with most of the templates, could you please go over them and see if you could simplify them and substitute manual input whenever possible?

a case in point: i came across this page recently, Angela Little. it's a typical short article, yet it uses many templates, not all of them are necessary. when you get the chance, please assess the situation and see if we could bring down the server load. thanks --Hexvoodoo 14:45, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Pardon me if this is a stupid question: But does that apply to citation templates as well? I use them a lot, but several professional/academic editors at Wikipedia whose opinion I respect have advised against using these. I've thought about writing the citations out manually, and it wouldn't really be any trouble to do so (I have an article & citation skeleton files that I cut, paste & alter when starting up articles-- I'll just change the way they're set up). So, if this will help, I'll stop using the citation templates. Dekkappai 18:07, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

The reason why the server was down was simply me, and it was a mistake. It only happens when a high use template is saved. Unfortunately I had the original {{Nationality}} open and saved a silly testing change to this one instead of {{Nationality/sandbox}}. So once saving the mistake took a lot of server load, but as it messed up all bioboxes at the same time, I had to quickly revert the edit. So the server hadn't finished changing all pages yet when I already started the reverting. This was too much. The use of templates on pages as such isn't causing as much trouble as saving them. The problem is: Wikipedia has a queue for this. The server slowly works it through when it has the time; and when there is too much server load, it simply does not update all pages at once. The Boobpedia server, however, does not seem to have a queue and tries to update all the pages at once. This is why saving a high use template causes massive server action. Once the conversion is finished, everything is ok.

I noticed that the Boobpedia wiki software seems to be a lot older than the current wikipedia one. Is it much work to update it? Things like this would not happen any more. (Actually I don't know if Boobpedia even has a queue, but at least it's not that effective as the Wikipedia one).

Concerning Angela Little: Well, Drducker has developed BMI and Eye color templates. The only additional template by me is {{Bra}} (which was an early idea by me, started to experiment, but was adopted by almost every other user very quickly. In my opinion, it has enriched Boobpedia, because it has solved many problems: Bra sizes in the measurement field, combining bra and cup sizes, allowing a proper classification and so on). {{Weight}} and {{Height}} were already existing when I joined Boobpedia and were by far the most used templates here. All other templates are - sorry - Boobpedia affiliate link templates we did not develop.

The alternative could be (as you mentioned in an e-mail, Hexvoodoo) to write out all height and weight and bra size measurements. But: I added and tested {{Height}} on quite a few bioboxes where height was written out manually. Two thirds of them were calculated wrongly. Same for bra sizes. Hm... The rest of the templates you see at the bottom when you edit a page is all inside the new biobox. They make the new biobox what it is. Deleting all the templates out of it would mean that articles would not be categorised in such an exact manner any more (if at all) and that the code would become completely unreadable. It would at least double the size of the biobox, or even more.

I don't have access to server statistics, but I still believe that simply calling and reading a page with these template is not that crucial - it's saving a high-use template which causes the server to crash. Editing {{Height}} for example ends in a catastrophe every time you try it. I normally do all my work on templates in sandboxes, but this time it was my mistake, sorry for that.

I don't see a way of removing the templates inside the new biobox without turning back time half a year and return to the old "non-functional" biobox.

Regards

Prophecy 19:05, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

48 bra size?

When I was observing the Karola page. I noticed it says "48ZZZ". When I entered it in to the bra size template. I got an error. I know her bust size isn't 48 inches, unlike someone like Virginia Bell who does. Can 48 be added or needed rather? Apara 02:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually I had Karola in mind when I asked about the 48 band size. Since it said 48ZZZ on her measurements. I only brought up Virginia Bell, because I was comparing the difference between bust size and band size. I see why the template only goes so high as 46. Now I'm aware. Thanks for clearing up that also. . Apara 19:47, 3 July 2008 (EDT)