User talk:Drducker

No image available

Hi Drducker,

I saw that you created a pic for this purpose. Fine idea! But I think it's better not to add it manually to the biobox, because the "Image needed" category will not appear and you have to add it manually (like you did).

I'll program the biobox that it automatically displays your image if there is no image given, ok? So you won't have to add it manually, and the categories are still being organised automatically.

Regards

Prophecy 08:29, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Done. An admin will have to copy the new code to the protected template, so you'll have to wait a day or two for the changes to take effect. You don't have to add your pic manually now, it is automatically displayed if there is no photo.

Regards

Prophecy 08:59, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

By the way...

I saw that you created your userpage.

You can add

[[Category:Boobpedians|Drducker]]

at the bottom of your userpage to be listed in Category:Boobpedians and

[[Category:English native speakers|Drducker]]

to be listed in Category:Boobpedians by language. :-)

If your native language is other than English, just change "English" to your native language. If the new link is red (we don't have that many languages listed yet), don't bother - I'll create the category later, or you can create it.

Regards

Prophecy 03:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Conversion chart

Yeah, I already saw it on your user page, thank you very much.

Perhaps I'll create an article on this some day. Bra sizes vary from country to country, but we have to have some kind of standardised bra size here to make it comparable.

The table lists Japanese bra sizes as European ones. This is actually true if you really want to buy a bra in Japan, but these Japanese film makers simply invent bra sizes of their own - that's why we cannot include these "F metric" sizes so far - no one knows how to convert them.

The future "bra size" or "bra" article will take into account all differences, but I think the 34DD=34E and 34DDD=34F rule is the only one which can be realised here. If we took into account the different cup sizes in Britain, for example, the biobox would have to prove if nationality=British and then calculate another bra size. This would be confusing for users, and they would continue to edit the bra sizes of British models, because they would differ from the ones given by the models themselves (I always doubted that they have the same bra sizes, because British models always give bra sizes which appear to be bigger than you'd judge them by your eye.) And: We do not know if a (perhaps formerly) British model who is published in "Score" or other American pictorials is published with an American or British bra size.

Therefore I came to the conclusion that it would be really good if Boobpedia had its own article on bra sizes, explaining all the local differences to the visitors who are interested, but that we have to have a standardised bra size based on the data given by the model.

It was me who introduced the new bra size category and {{Bra size}} template while programming the new biobox. Before it was almost impossible to give a proper bra size in the biobox, resulting in much false data. Now we have something that is quite comparable, although the bra sizes of British models may still be in the wrong category in some cases - but as said, we do not know if their bra sizes are given in American, European or British standard.

Ah, by the way: Someone has already copied an article from Wikipedia, but left it alone with many things not suitable for Boobpedia: Bra. It does not even have a category, and I did not touch it so far, because it also contains some things that are not correct or precise enough in my opinion. Why don't you start working on that article and include your table? We really need an article like this.

So far, Boobpedia was only a collection of more or less well researched articles (the longer ones mostly being only copied from Wikipedia), but I think a site called "Boobpedia" should really become the reference for big boobs and have some well elaborated articles on the main topic itself: boobs (and how to cover them nicely in bras). :-) I'd be very happy if we could remove the GFDL (Wikipedia license) tag from the bra article one day, because it only contains our own research - well organised, with quotes, references and reliable sources.

Regards

Prophecy 07:10, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Height and weight templates

Hi Drducker,

you are right, {{Height}} and {{Weight}} are the two oldest templates on Boobpedia. I completely reworked {{Height}} a few weeks ago to display "1.70 m" instead of "1.7 m", but apart from this, they are still the same as they were in the beginning.

My first template was {{Bra size}}, and I did exactly the same like you: I split it into three templates, outsourcing major parts from the main template to make the main template more readable. Over the time, {{Bra size}} grew, and now it's not so tiny any more. It has become one of the most used templates on Boobpedia, and that's were the difficulty lies:

• On Wikipedia, there is a rule: Do not care about performance. It's the server administrators who take care of this issue. Unfortunately this is not the case on Boobpedia. I was busy creating template after template, metatemplates included in other templates, but with time I stopped outsourcing code in metatemplates. Reasons:
  • Someone who has programming skills like you is able to read templates very well, and the others do not care anyway.
  • PERFORMANCE. I exchanged some mails with Hexvoodoo and he told me that templates significantly slow down server performance. Unlike Wikipedia, server bandwidth for Boobpedia is limited. Above all, because it has to share resources with another project. I did not know that, but it made me think and write more "straight" templates.
• Now let's have a look at {{Height}} and {{Weight}}: They are even more used than {{Bra size}}. Height is used on more than 2,000 pages (which is a lot for Boobpedia) and Weight on more than 1,700 pages. Numbers still growing. Now if we only change these two templates and include another template call in them, it suddenly doubles server load in every single biobox containing {{Height}} and {{Weight}}. That's the reason why I'm even thinking of reverting {{Bra size}} and include the two outsourced templates directly in the code. My two subtemplates are only used by {{Bra size}}, and so will be your two subtemplates.
• Last point: While {{Biobox new}} is subject to frequent changes and improvements, {{Height}} and {{Weight}} are "static". They do their job, they have no bugs, and actually it is not necessary to make the code more readable - simply because they will not have to be changed in the future. The only change to {{Height}} was the display of "1.70" instead of "1.7" which I considered a bug, but what was in fact more a formatting and "nice to have" issue. I don't know if you work on Wikipedia too (I don't, it was Boobpedia that led me into all this), but when I was working on the first versions of {{Biobox new}} which I already included in my own pages, I thought: Man, what's wrong with my internet connection? Why does it become so slow when I save a new version of my template? Well, it wasn't my internet connection - it was the Boobpedia server which had a lot of work updating the template, although it was not included on many pages at that time. When I got the permission to work on {{Height}} for the "1.70" thing, it got even worse: It wasn't possible to save the template without causing the server to crash and produce a timeout. Working on Boobpedia was impossible for about five minutes. That's when I understood what Hexvoodoo meant by "Boobpedia server resources are limited". If you work on a template that is used on 1,000+ pages, it has severe consequences for performance.

That's why I think that the two subtemplates for {{Height}} and {{Weight}} are not necessary and should even be avoided. Although I admit that it would be cool to have them, but not for the price of causing double server load every time they are called.

Ah, one last thing, correct me if I'm wrong: The code of {{Height_npn}} cannot be copied to {{Height}}. It is not downward compatible, because it does not handle the "old" parameters. If the {{Height}} code was replaced by the new one, it would cause all heights and weights on 2,000 pages to be deleted:

test-{{height_npn|ft=5|in=6}}-test

gives

"test--test"

So the result would be a template that would exist aside the existing one, but could not replace it. It could be used on future pages, but as said above, I do not see a real necessity for it. On the contrary, I'd like to suggest to standardise all measurements in infoboxes and eliminate entries like "inches" and replace them only by "in" on the whole site. We do not have bots that could do the conversion job.

Just my opinion - with some facts. I hope I did not offend you. Let me know what you think of it.

Regards

Prophecy 07:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Ignore my last argument. I did not see that you wanted {{Height}} to call {{Height_npn}}. But the rest remains the same: It's two template calls instead of one. Prophecy 08:03, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Concerning "default-folding": I guess "lb" would be the first choice, because most of the models here on Boobpedia are American. As for the deeper syntax structure, I cannot give any hints. I don't know how wiki language is parsed, but Wikipedia has information on this.

Concerning assignments inside a template: Now that's something I'd love to have! But unfortunately there isn't such a thing as real variables inside a template (as far as I know). This would simplify great parts of every code. I've searched for this on Wikipedia, but did not find anything.

Regards

Prophecy 22:56, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

BMI

Hi Drducker,

another question... I noticed that you change the body type with admirable thoroughness, calculating the BMI. This is a good thing. But as you are a native speaker, I have a question: I think that "Thin" has a somewhat negative connotation. Like "meagre" or "bones stick out" or "heroin addicted". On the other hand, when I sometimes added "Average" to a profile that was obviously edited by the model herself, she changed it to "fit" (which doesn't exist as a category here).

So my question to you: If you see an infobox with a model labeled with "thin", what do you expect? Someone "SLIM" (i. e. positive connotation) or someone "MEAGER" (negative). I always thought "slim" would be the better word.

Curious to know what you think about that.

P. S.: I think the band size of a bra can be an indicator too. For me

• 28 to 32 is thin (28 and 30 really thin, 28 close to impossible and 32 for slim, but nice)
• 34 to 36 is average (just "normal", which I'd prefer to "average", because it's more neutral)
• 38 to 40 is chubby
• 42 to ... is BBW. Phew....

Yes, slim, normal, chubby and BBW, that'd be good.

Regards

Prophecy 10:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Your system makes sense. Although we should not touch the categories, there are thousands of models that would have to be modified (although we should follow it when changing the body type parameter like you already did). As for muscular and athletic, I share your opinion, too. But I'm afraid people would not accept an additional modifier (as they usually never read the field description), so this would end up in bioboxes containing funny data.

But I thought of something easier: If someone types in thin, he can do it - my biobox can transform it into "Slim", and when there is no "Thin" left on Boobpedia, people will automatically start to type "slim". I'd like to skip "Thin" completely. Big bust models are mostly not really thin, and if they were, "slim" would describe them sufficiently. This would be an underground revolution... But I think in every single biobox where "thin" is displayed, "slim" would also do the job - and mostly better. I've seen so many bioboxes where people entered "slim" which turned red, because they did not know that this category doesn't exist.

What do you think? Should we start with turning "thin" into "slim"? I could ask The Honorable to copy my code into the main template with my next update, so it will be seen Boobpedia-wide (2/3 of all pages already have the new biobox).

Regards

Prophecy 15:43, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Cool. I vote for "skinny" though. I don't even know what "waif" means, and I guess many non-native speakers are not familiar with the word. Looking forward to your template. Prophecy 17:12, 26 June 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). --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. --Hexvoodoo 15:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

div tag

the reason i removed the div tag was because it forced the navigation menu on the left all the way to the bottom, below the article. that effect may not show up in all browsers, but it broke the page in internet explorer.

it's also not necessary to add commented out headers. i want to keep the pages as lean as possible to minimize server load, and it's not a lot of trouble to add headers as needed. thanks for contacting me and for your good work so far. --Hexvoodoo 21:46, 1 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. --Hexvoodoo 14:26, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Refs to foot

Hi Drducker,

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.

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?

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 footnote.

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 {{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. 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. 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, because 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. - 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. 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. Drducker 04:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT)