Wikidata:Property proposal/Cup size

Cup size edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

Not done

Represents	bra size (Q2608071)
Data type	Item
Template parameter	ru:Template:Порноактриса → `Фигура` (part of), es:Template:Ficha de actor → `medidas` (part of), ja:Template:女性モデル -> `カップ`
Domain	pornographic actor (Q488111)
Allowed values	Items to be created (instances of bra size (Q2608071)). Item names: A cup, A metric cup, B cup, B metric cup, ..., Z cup, ZZZ cup, matching category names in https://www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Category:By_cup_size, EU/US for most of items, metric for people from japan.
Example 1	Norma Stitz (Q2732)perimeter (P2547)72cmapplies to part (P518)underbustcup sizeZZ cup^[1]^[2]
Example 2	Veronica Brazil (Q10389878)perimeter (P2547)38inapplies to part (P518)underbustcup sizeF cup^[3]
Example 3	Asamin (Q9187796)perimeter (P2547)87cmapplies to part (P518)underbustcup sizeE metric cup^[4]
Planned use	as a qualifier (and only as a qualifier) for perimeter^(P2547) on inframammary fold level (band size)
Robot and gadget jobs	consider importing from templates, AFDB or IAFD
See also	perimeter (P2547)

Motivation edit

In Property talk:P2547 there was a suggestion to use perimeter^(P2547) to measure bra size (Q2608071), waist circumference (Q811148), etc. But nobody measures cup size in centimeters, the common way for storing body measurements in external sources looks like "34C-27-39". So cup size is an extension for band size (circumference on inframammary fold level). It would be unnecessarily novel and incorrect to represent cup size as a number. It is slightly different for Japanese models, as they use "metric cup size", but editors should just be aware of this. --Lockal (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Ping @Thierry_Caro, Thryduulf: I suppose nobody did not invent some other way to express this, and maybe you have comments. --Lockal (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)z[reply]
Support--Trade (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 06:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inherently sexist/misogynistic. Mike Peel (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I expect this to be a huge magnet for vandalism and BLP issues; everyone commenting here should probably also check out the Boobopedia article ID property deletion discussion, which is very relevant here. If this property is created, we need to add a constraint (maybe even an edit filter, if technically possible) to make sure this is only used for items with occupation (P106)pornographic actor (Q488111). Vahurzpu (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an established usage practice of cup size in multiple major Wikipedia language editions and external sources, considered by Wikipedia as reliable (incl. IAFD and AFDB). That clearly separates this proposal from "Boobopedia article ID". --Lockal (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Lockal: This is true, but we also need to consider that (a) the structure of infoboxes makes it harder to accidentally insert this into articles where it's blatantly inappropriate than on Wikidata, where constraint violations don't trigger anything in particular, and (b) Wikipedias have more resources to put into patrolling than Wikipedia, so BLP violations tend not to last as long. With regards to your comments about IAFD and AFDB: I can't speak for every language edition, but they're both listed at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Generally unreliable sources, and discussions on en:w:WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard come to similar conclusions, comparing them to IMDb. Private information about living people sourced to generally unreliable sources is bad. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Vahurzpu:, thank you for your answer! As an author of few functions of Template:Wikidata (Q8478926) (originated from ruwiki) and early ideologist of infobox system in ruwiki, let me share my thoughts on this. The first point of your answer does not apply directly to this property, but all properties instead. Even before Wikidata was created there were issues with statements, that caused big discussions about valid generic statements which users did not want to see in the articles, like citizenship. There also were huge edit wars on sex and gender identification (also because Russian nouns are gender-assigned). When Wikidata was integrated with Wikipedia using Lua, there were many discussions about whether ruwiki should ever use data from Wikidata. Points (a) and (b) were discussed many times and counter-measures were implemented, like tracking categories or "-" value, which mutes Wikidata. I don't remember any occasions of leaking blatantly non-related data, due to commonsense: infobox templates just never import unrelated properties. Regarding vandalism, due to constraints, intricacy and counter-measures I don't expect seeing this property as an issue for BLPs. There are too many low-hanging fruits for vandals (like occupation or birthdates); so many, that I don't even see the point to discuss vandalism potential for property with such a narrow scope. Your other point about sourcing is valid, but only works in a favor of this proposal. Here are few "good articles" from ruwiki: ru:Саванна Сэмсон and ru:Саша Грей. Both of them contain BWH-triples (34C-24-33 and 81B-66-79), both unsourced. This is an example, where centralized management with quality assessment in form of listeria lists and complex constraints is needed, which is not possible when data is stored in templates. --Lockal (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons Vahurzpu and Mike Peel gave. -Yupik (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crazy hat royal, AntisocialRyan, ImprovedWikiImprovment, Baidax, ChristianSW, Robin van der Vliet:, @Liuxinyu970226, Stevenliuyi, PMG, Deansfa, Baloubet du Rouet, Lazypub:, could you join, please? In my opinion this is a very basic property for group Wikidata property related to erotica or pornography (Q53671196), for which we already have a number of external identifiers for sourcing. And with correct constraints I'm pretty sure vandalism and BLP won't be an issue. --Lockal (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the definition quoted belbow, this is very clearly partisan canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose misogynistic. --IWI (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing wrong or shameful to be working in the adult industry. --Trade (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral On one hand, I see how this would be relevant for the adult industry, however the opposers have good points. I'm sure there are other useful pornographic properties that can be added, which I would support. AntisocialRyan (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the oppose votes explains very little. What am i missing? @AntisocialRyan:--Trade (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: It just gives a bad vibe... I definitely felt weird when I read it, but I see its sensibility so that's why I'm not supporting or opposing. AntisocialRyan (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikidata is not intended to make censorships, so I see no reason why this is "misogynistic". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. To be used only in cases that it is relevant. For example, in pornography and erotica, and if someone is trying to have the largest breasts of the entire world and the cup size matters because it's what is making that person famous. But it shouldn't be used in cases that isn't relevant, for example, mainscreen actresses, models, politicians and other famous people. We have to respect all people and we must respect the other people choices, even if we don't agree with them, because all people have the right to choose how to live their life because they have the power to make decisions. That is granted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!!! If you think if it is misogyny, you have the right to have your opinion, but still the other people have the right to choose how to live their life. Respect people and their decisions, please! --Crazy hat royal (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about instances where cup size have been stated by the subject in an interview?--Trade (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is okay if the instance has that property if the subject reveals and make it public. I just don't feel the need to have it in instances where it isn't relevant. Other relevant topics are, for example, breast reduction and breast reconstruction due to cancer, if it was made public. The subject decides what information wants to be public and we all shouldn't judge anyone. That's why I support this property, which is more relevant to adult industry and less relevant to other areas, but there are some exceptions that can be used. Like I said, breast reduction and breast cancer survivors, if the information was released to the public by the subject. --Crazy hat royal (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a list of identifiers that lists cup sizes? @Crazy hat royal:--Trade (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same as with other references - avoid self-published sources, unless written or published by the subject of the article. --Lockal (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I agree that there is potential BLP issue, and I think it should only be used for pornographic actors. Although it could very well be misused by misogynistic people, I don't think the property itself is misogynistic. But we do need constraints/abuse filter to enforce proper usage.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. And use on men too if data is available. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It'll definitely need a citation-needed constraint, but this seems like a potentially useful way to categorize porn actors. –IagoQnsi (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Three reasons: 1. Inherently sexist. 2. It's out of scope for Wikidata to store all clothing & body measurements; which (3) differ conceptually across countries anyhow.Prburley (talk)
#2 contradicts with summary from Wikidata:Property proposal/body measurements. There is a longterm request to migrate BWH measurements from infoboxes, there is a solution from 2017 about storing them as perimeters, but it won't work... And that's what I explained in the "motivation" section. --Lockal (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to migrate every factoid from disparate language WP infoboxes--"major" languages or not. Prburley (talk)
Migrating factoids are one of thevmain purposes of properties. Your claim have no consensua tTrade (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems... unnecessary and an invitation for a lot of abuse. --LydiaPintscher (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To be noted. The previous vote has been harvested by Mike Peel through this Facebook group. I am not sure whether or not this is tolerated on this wiki. I guess but I'm not sure, so I'll leave this message here just in case. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to post this on the Administrators Noticeboard for comment so everyone is aware about it. **To be noted. The previous vote has been harvested by Mike Peel through this Facebook group. I am not sure whether or not this is tolerated on this wiki. I guess but I'm not sure, so I'll leave this message here just in case. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You need to post this on the Administrations Noticeboard so the other admins are made aware of it.@Thierry Caro:--Trade (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Curious that pinging a bunch of your friends when the discussion is going the wrong way is acceptable (see 20:09, 26 October 2020), but this post somehow wasn't? Note that I'm not 'harvesting votes', I just posted a neutral pointer to this discussion, and a hope that this discussion can have a better gender balance (I think every comment before Lydia's was by a male?). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)][reply]
        It is pretty clear: en:Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. Pinging of the people (and I don't even know them, so stop calling them my friends) is transparent, neutral, limited and non-partisan. Collecting people in off-wiki sources over mass auditories with "attached personal opinion" is not ok and will never be. --Lockal (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        So how did you select the people you pinged if you don't know them? Note that the rules of enwiki don't necessarily apply here. I tried to write the comment without attaching my personal opinion, and note that the FB group is Wikidata-wide, not topic specific. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Troubling that you think that Wikidata admins can take action based on something someone says outside Wikidata. I also note that Mike's Facebook comment was worded neutrally, and did not call upon people to support or oppose the proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That group is one for active Wikidata editors. Why should they not be informed? They have every right to participate here. Gamaliel (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sigh. Yes it's distasteful in all respects and should be restricted to certain occupations, but yes, this is a badge of honor in some circles and so I think we should include it. Gah. Jane023 (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Without even checking I am assuming we already have penis length and this one is just late due to gendergap as always Jane023 (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jane023: We do not have penis length. Perhaps we need that if this somehow gets through? AntisocialRyan (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes probably - same reason. Jane023 (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a property for length, see Wikidata:Property proposal/arm span. --Lockal (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all of the above. Furthrrmore, the modelling method described is improper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andy and Vahurzpu. Mahir256 (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahir256: Vahurzpu has yet to respond to Lockal. You might wanna wait before drawing a conclusion. --Trade (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No. No no no. No no no no no no no. No. Gamaliel (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yikes, no. Even if this was a worthwhile attribute to store, the value is an extremely variable quantity anyway, and can depend massively on factors on the manufacturer's side (size variations between and within brands, country-specific sizing, etc.) and on the person's side (hormones, pregnancy, age, surgical modification, etc). GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are talking about something different (manufactured bra size). This proposal is about en:Bust/waist/hip measurements#Measurements and perception. Yes, the values may change over time and does not provide precise value, but format is acceptable in the industry (probably because this is enough to perception); this puts this property in the same family as eye color, hair color, height, mass, perimeter. And this is enough for educational purposes, as there are scholarly articles with \d\d\w notation without mentioning manufacturers. --Lockal (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done There is no consensus in favor of creating this property --DannyS712 (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor/norma-stitz-43102/

[2] ttps://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=normastitz/gender=f

[3] ttp://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor/veronica-castillo-2417/

[4] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20170510035557/http://blog.dmm.co.jp/actress/ogawa_asami/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]