Thread:Byfield/@comment-24916335-20150524184323/@comment-220364-20150525000438

With the images the tendency I saw was to go for "in character". Those would be either screen shots from the show/film or promotional stills of the characters, so that's what I've carried on with. It also seems a bit more related to the focus of the database rather than to pull out a publicity shot of the actor as them self. It keeps the context of this person played this role. And that's partly why I'm thinking about galleries, there have been enough cases of actors who portrayed multiple role and/or character that have a very obscuring mask and a civilian ID in the same film.

Also, the image are still landing on the list page. For space and consistency they are limited there to 55px by 55px. This keeps the text even and minimizes the instances of the image being longer than the text. On the Actors: pages I set the limit to 250px, which is consistent with the max width in the infoboxes. With all of that in mind I've tried to go with 400px square focusing on the head and shoulder or upper torso. That are reads best, most of the time, on the list page. It also gives a level of consistency to the article pages. And "tried" is the operative word since I tend to search for the images through Google. There have been a number of times that the good images I find start out under the 400px threshold, and a few that are under 250.