User talk:Bignole/Archive/2009/July
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter
The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive edits
Their seem to be some disruptive edits to Arcee about the hive mind IP User talk:120.28.148.83 seems to be putting Chromia and Moonracer in despite this being cleared and their being no reliable source of this up long ago(They only appear in the toy line as everyone knows) and I need help to make sure it isn't re-entered. Iv'e warned him but he may return and I need an extra set of eyes, as he may try again, Ironhide is another possible place he may return as he has added false info there as well. Please and thankyou. The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Bignole. I was wondering if you would not mind weighing in on this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
Apologies that this is a few weeks after the event, but I don't think anyone else has bought it up with you, and I feel it needs addressing. On User talk:Geni#Speedy deletions you said "Please do not remove speedy deletion tags. Only Admins can do that. If you disagree with a nomination, then you need to place a {{hangon}} tag below the deletion tag.". This is not entirely true. Anyone can remove speedy deletion tags other than the original author of the page. WP:CSD states "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add {{hangon}} to the page and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page. To avoid speedy deletion, make sure that articles provide both content and context.". If I have misread the situation and you already knew that, then I am sorry! I hope you don't take offence at this, but I felt it needed to be clarified. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not answering you soon!
Hey, I so sorry for not answering you sooner, but I really couldn't. So thanks a lot for the guides. I am not experienced as you but I also used Google for finding useful information about the certain character. I spend couple of hours searching the Google News archive and I indeed find useful information. But in the matter of Google Scholar, I haven't got any idea that it can be useful. So thanks a lot! Really thanks! And also thank you for that guide, I have already ran into him but I've never actually read it because I found it boring and not useful. So thank you again for everything. Also, when it comes to Grey's Anatomy, I have that cover, we have a project and are doing great by now. But I need help for Gossip Girl characters! Can you sort of help me. You probably don't watch the show, but the articles are similar to those on Smallvile. The thing is the character appeared in a novel, and on TV. So Gossip Girl has just ended the second season but I have only watched the first four episodes of the first season. So that means that I'll soon start working on them. But until then, whenever you can, can you re-model them and maybe sort of deal with the introduction. Whatever you can! Because I really need help from someone more experienced. Ok so that's it, thank you a lot again and see you soon. ---Max(talk) 12:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Hi Bignole. I've recently made a request for A-Class review on WP:FILMS for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but no one has responded. I've added some more and replaced references for the article, and was thinking about taking it to FA soon, not immediately, but soon. I think all the article needs now is a copyedit. Thoughts? --TaerkastUA (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
DVDs/Nielsons
Quick question: Why are both the DVDs and Nielson ratings listed twice? R7604 (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It's listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Smallville_episodes Which I find a little odd. R7604 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Per:this edit, where in the statement does it say they're using Variety as a reference? ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 02:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry
Hey apologies for getting after you earlier. I was barking up the wrong tree. Thanks for hanging in there, though. That was good of you. Wish me better luck next time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Smallville
With respect to the Smallville episode lists, what is the best page for an overall discussion of using Wikipedia's template on those pages? —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I used—and still recommend—the template for a number of reasons: 1) the template allows linking to the individual episodes from other articles, 2) use of such templates makes the overall appearance and formatting of Wikipedia more consistent, 3) the template's usage is customizable with respect to colours and content which covers the formatting concerns raised, 4) in my experience templates are no harder to use than tables, and I have seen them equally used and misused by less experienced editors. —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe I wasn't looking at some of those links too closely, but it's good that you fixed the rest. The article's in great shape, and I'd recommend taking it to FAC after a peer review, a copyedit, and maybe replacing some of the sources. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can understand not wanting to head to FAC...yet. It can be extremely difficult to get a current television series to FA—and then maintain it. For The Office, it was an FAC for a while, but it just deteriorated over time as the seasons went on, anons added trivia details, and upkeep seemed to end. It looks like it will be a couple more years before this article goes to FAC then (if there are several more seasons). I guess that's the great thing about working with films. They're appear once in theaters, you wait for the DVD release, and then you're usually able to have little problems with comprehensiveness, unless there are subsequent controversies, sequels, interpretations, etc. I'm willing to bet that there would likely be issues with some of the gossip/blog sites. Even though they're interviews, they're likely going to be pulled up in any FAC. I had issues with that with Little Miss Sunshine. Some interviews with important details only occurred on these no-name sites, and I usually just had to remove them. As this show continues to move on, I'm sure more respectable sources will always pop up and hopefully be able to replace unreliable ones. I wouldn't worry about changing them out now, especially if FAC is way down the line. I was very impressed in reading the article, and kind of wished I had seen the show. In the first season, I figured the show would bomb, so didn't watch any episodes. I probably won't catch it unless they start streaming all the episodes on Hulu or something. Anyway, keep up the good work in maintaining the article, as it shouldn't have too many issues at FAC when the time comes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I watched all five episodes this weekend (while reviewing articles), and although I liked the characters, I wasn't too impressed with the dialogue and new villains that popped up every episode. There seemed to be too many deaths for the small town. I'm sure the show improved over the seasons, so maybe I'll catch the other episodes down the line. Anyway, I just reviewed Spider-Man 3 for Sweeps and found a few issues that need to be addressed. I wanted to let you know since you're one of the main contributors. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Freak of the Week", I like that. I'll keep an eye out for succeeding episodes, or if my Blockbuster queue ever gets dull. I can most likely fix the issues in the article, but figure you, Erik, and Alientraveller would want to take a look first since you all had a good handle on the article before and after its release. The main issue was the sourcing issue, which I couldn't find details on. I can help fix the dead links later tonight. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I watched all five episodes this weekend (while reviewing articles), and although I liked the characters, I wasn't too impressed with the dialogue and new villains that popped up every episode. There seemed to be too many deaths for the small town. I'm sure the show improved over the seasons, so maybe I'll catch the other episodes down the line. Anyway, I just reviewed Spider-Man 3 for Sweeps and found a few issues that need to be addressed. I wanted to let you know since you're one of the main contributors. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can understand not wanting to head to FAC...yet. It can be extremely difficult to get a current television series to FA—and then maintain it. For The Office, it was an FAC for a while, but it just deteriorated over time as the seasons went on, anons added trivia details, and upkeep seemed to end. It looks like it will be a couple more years before this article goes to FAC then (if there are several more seasons). I guess that's the great thing about working with films. They're appear once in theaters, you wait for the DVD release, and then you're usually able to have little problems with comprehensiveness, unless there are subsequent controversies, sequels, interpretations, etc. I'm willing to bet that there would likely be issues with some of the gossip/blog sites. Even though they're interviews, they're likely going to be pulled up in any FAC. I had issues with that with Little Miss Sunshine. Some interviews with important details only occurred on these no-name sites, and I usually just had to remove them. As this show continues to move on, I'm sure more respectable sources will always pop up and hopefully be able to replace unreliable ones. I wouldn't worry about changing them out now, especially if FAC is way down the line. I was very impressed in reading the article, and kind of wished I had seen the show. In the first season, I figured the show would bomb, so didn't watch any episodes. I probably won't catch it unless they start streaming all the episodes on Hulu or something. Anyway, keep up the good work in maintaining the article, as it shouldn't have too many issues at FAC when the time comes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Nightmare portal
The nightmare on elm street portal is almost finished, more boxes could be used plus a few other improvements, assistance is appreciated • S • C • A • R • C • E • 00:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's only received about 200 views since creation, I want to make sure it's completely finished before getting any promotion • S • C • A • R • C • E • 00:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to start a discussion, also, if you'll see Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street Portal, and go to 'A' and 'F' you can see there's quite a bit of material, also, I am going to widen the amount of articles, etc. I changed the color text too. Thank you for you advice + feedback • S • C • A • R • C • E • 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion has begun at Craven's talk page • S • C • A • R • C • E • 23:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Per: User:Bignole/Sandbox, the thing on Freddy in the X-Files would be an splendid addition to Freddy Krueger#Other media, would you mind adding it? To avoid a reference, The X-Files (season 7)#ep151-712. Thank you! • S • C • A • R • C • E • 03:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, Billy and Mandy: Was that actually him or someone dressed up like him? I'm trying to divide appearances and impersonations • S • C • A • R • C • E • 03:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't know about the X-files thing, why is it in your sandbox? Also, I cleaned up the other media section, trying to make it not imply that it was actually him, in the couch gag, Robert Englund did the voice and the animated character wore a bladed glove, red and green sweater, brown pants and a fedora, that isn't Freddy? If you were to start a discussion on this on the Freddy talk page about removing it, you would get many against it. Also, the couch gag's episode article says it is Freddy and Jason. I tried Googling it with various search terms. See results here, here and here. Not much showed up. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 06:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like it to me, but I think a reference stating the image is official is absolutely required, especially since they're the only ones with the image, I am for keeping it, you can see I've uploaded a different version that is in favor of the fair use rationale (which currently doesn't exist), have you been on the author's talk page? Tons of deletion notices, no surprise to me. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 14:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, you beat me! I just finished adding a summary/rationale then I got the Edit conflict page • S • C • A • R • C • E • 15:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I changed the size for the infobox, the whitespace on the sides implies the image is to small for the box, I think 200px is appropriate for posters, not logos. Well I have to go for a few hours now, bye • S • C • A • R • C • E • 15:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's completed, it's a very, very broad covering of a rather narrow topic, there are thousands of possible random outcomes, I found every last article entirely relating to Nightmare. I've also found about 8 or 10 images, all free of course. Do you think it's ready to add the template box to the right to related articles? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 22:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it's ready, it can always receive miniature tweaks which at the moment, are unnecessary • S • C • A • R • C • E • 02:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Tom Welling
I read that Tom Welling will be a co-executive producer on Season 9. Will you plan to mention that anywhere? (third paragraph) http://www.tvguide.com/News/Smallville-Welling-ComicCon-1008424.aspx R7604 (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Could You Moderate A Wikipedia Editor Issue?
Hey, Bignole. I recently added a section to the YouTube wikipedia article about their new 3D video feature. They have confirmed that it is a permanent addition to YouTube however, another wikipedia editor, Ianmacm keeps deleting it, stating that it is not notable news. I disagree since it is a new permanent feature and that several notable YouTube users have taken advantage of the feature already. Another wikipedia editor defended me, however Ianmacm insists that it is not notable news and directs me to the Notable policies, but I don't see any policies there that say that this information cannot be added. Would you be willing to throw in your two cents to this argument?
Thanks :) RyanGFilm (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for that information. After I read those provided policies I thought they were talking about the articles themselves and not notability in terms of the information in an article, but I wanted to double check with you. I have re-added the 3D section back into the article with secondary resources unrelated to Google, or YouTube. Thanks again for the information and the help. RyanGFilm (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think I said this before, but in case I didn't, I want to thank you again for taking the time to help me out on the last few issues I've had. Even when you point out what I'm doing wrong, you do it with constructive criticism and point me out to policies to help me avoid doing something wrong again. Thanks, Bignole. RyanGFilm (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Films Award
|
The WikiProject Films Award | |
| I, • S • C • A • R • C • E •, hereby award Bignole the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. For your extraordinary work on the A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th film articles and The Last House on the Left articles. For your many, many uploads for many articles that were "posterless". For being the top editor on a wide range of film articles. Thank you
|
Smallville
Couldn't really get a good look at the costume, but what I did see looked very cool. Lol, you gotta love the screaming fangirl who shot the video. Also, Brian Austin Green as Metallo? Nice. Looks like Smallville is getting better and better. Paul 730 07:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's all black? I didn't even notice, the picture was too dark/blurry. I thought it was just shadowy. Hmm, I'd kind of rather they made it blue and red. Didn't they want to have a black costume in one of the movies, I recall seeing concept art for it. Yeah, the shot of him flying looked great. He looked cute with his little sideburns as well. :P Is Lois going to find out his secret this season, I heard that rumour and they're getting groiny in that trailer.
- Btw, have you noticed the Ianto Jones controversy that Zythe and I have been talking about? Basically, they killed off a bisexual character in Torchwood and the shit has predictably hit the fan. See the hilarious details here. Gotta love crazy fans. :) Paul 730 12:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll judge the costume properly when I see some decent photos of it. Oh, I thought he was floating in mid air and then flew away, I didn't see his feet on the building. Lois having visions of the future seems like a good plot device. I like how much the characters look like their comic book counterparts now, Clark in his glasses and Lois with darker hair.
- I think RTD was implying fans only care about Ianto for the eye candy/shipping, so they should watch Supernatural instead. I knew there was going to be backlash when it happened, but I never expected this much coverage. Personally, I don't mind that he's dead. I wasn't a huge fan of the character and he had a good death scene. I 100% agree with you that gays shouldn't get special treatment. Representing minorities is great but don't patronise us. If you ever have a chance to see Children of Earth, I'd advise it. It's only five episodes and would make a nice introduction to the Whoniverse (and by "nice", I mean grim and disturbing). Paul 730 13:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have to say, that "Red Blue Blur" name really sucks. What a mouthful. I'm sure there's some explantion, a literal red blue blur in a photo or something, but it still sucks. Chloe or whoever came up with it should be fired.
- Speaking of Angel, there's been some interesting upcoming developments in the comic book series. Angel's a celebrity now, and they're making a movie about him starring Nicholas Cage [1] [2]. There's even an issue where Spike and Angel go to a ComicCon style event [3]. I've not been very happy with IDW's handling of the Angel series, it's been very disjointed, but this story looks pretty fun. The canonicity's a bit vague these days though, since Joss left the series after After the Fall. Paul 730 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Lol, yeah, I'm looking forward to Spike's reaction to that. Well, Joss was never that involved in Angel when it was a TV show. Not to the same extent he was with Buffy. And he only co-plotted After the Fall, he didn't write it, whereas he co-writes and executive produces Season Eight. The Angel comics are just typical expanded universe comics now, but some of them are still quite good. Joss is busy with Dollhouse, and also the mysterious Cabin in the Woods, which you should keep an eye on as it's supposed to "change the face of horror" or something. Paul 730 13:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure CitW will be excellent and we'll both enjoy it. It's horror + Joss Whedon = exactly my cup of tea. And the taglines look funny. But I don't know anything about it, I'm not sure anybody does. I think the last film that changed the face of horror was Scream; Psycho, Halloween, and Scream are basically a trilogy of influential slasher films. Saw arguably did change stuff, but not really in a good way. I guess it got us out of that "MTV horror" phase that Scream created. I didn't even know CitW had a page until I linked to it just there, blame the zealous Whedonites. Paul 730 13:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Lol, yeah, I'm looking forward to Spike's reaction to that. Well, Joss was never that involved in Angel when it was a TV show. Not to the same extent he was with Buffy. And he only co-plotted After the Fall, he didn't write it, whereas he co-writes and executive produces Season Eight. The Angel comics are just typical expanded universe comics now, but some of them are still quite good. Joss is busy with Dollhouse, and also the mysterious Cabin in the Woods, which you should keep an eye on as it's supposed to "change the face of horror" or something. Paul 730 13:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Scream changed horror quite a lot. Horror had become a joke, and Scream ran with that joke. It made horror popular and mainstream again, how many teen slasher films were made in the wake and style of Scream? Horror became gentler and more tongue-in-cheek, something 80s horror fans still haven't stopped whining about. "OMG, I hate these teenybopper Dawson's Creek slasher films!!" Plus it rejeuvenated the old franchises, Halloween H20, Jason X, and Freddy vs Jason probably all owe their existance to Scream. It's massively influential.
- Halloween was influential because it refined the "rules". It's been described as the blueprint of horror. Texas and Black Christmas may have previously established the concepts, but Halloween perfected them and it's Halloween that the later movies were copying. And I think it was Friday and Nightmare that established the franchise element; Halloween didn't really become a franchise until 4, at which point the other series had been running for a while. Halloween ended up imitating it's imitators.
- Wow, I really disagree with you about the mask theory. I think Ghostface would be FAR more recognisable than either Michael or Jason. I think it would go Ghostface > Freddy > Michael >>> Jason. Most people my age in this country don't even know who Jason is, trust me, I've had to put up with the blank looks for years. They know the hockey mask is a stable of horror, but they can't put a name to it. Michael is more popular, most people know him. But Ghostface is univerally known because Scream was just far more mainstream. I think Scary Movie also has something to do with making Ghostface more recognisable. Paul 730 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're crazy if you don't think Scream was the cause for all those 90s slasher films. Summer, Urban Legend, all that shit. They might not have been as intelligent or had the same themes, but they were still very obviously influenced by them... all those Kevin Williamson teenagers being witty and cynical. Look at the difference between Halloween 6 and Halloween 7, are you telling me Scream - a huge box office and critically successful slasher film - being released between those two films had nothing to do with the jump in tone and quality? You can bet your ass JLC would have avoided Halloween 7 like the plague if slasher films hadn't become popular again. Horror was in the bargain bin because people couldn't take it seriously anymore; Scream made fun of the genre's cliches and so people were able to enjoy it again. Perhaps it didn't change horror, but it completely changed the way people saw it.
- Except most people my age don't recognise Jason because he's a relic from the 80s. So his appeal is limited to his generation as well. The mask in Scream is a massively iconic image as well, I think he can easily stand next to the horror trinity in terms of recognisability, he just hasn't been around as long.
- Wiki-related question: if a fan website is acknowledged by the media and discussed in an article, would it okay to link it in the ELs? I wondering whether to remove SaveIantoJones.com (vomits) from his article. Paul 730 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I still feel that every slasher film in the late 90s/early 2000s has an air of Scream running through it. What's Screams influence on H20? Let's see, the only reason it even exists is because JLC saw the success of Scream and thought "Hey, this could be good for my career." When was she ever interested in doing a Halloween sequel before Scream came along? Visually, it's similar to Scream (ie, not drenched in darkness like most of the Halloween films) and it's got decent actors for once. Hell it's even got the exact same bloody soundtrack as Scream. The original script also had references to other horror films (John: "Next you'll be telling me I'm related to Freddy or Jason.")
- Well, if you're going to play that game, Scream 4 is coming out so your hypothetical 10 year old will be raving about Ghostface this time next year. :P
- It's a shitty campaign website, but the article discusses it in some detail and it seems weird not to link it. Could it be linked in the body of the prose, or is it better off staying in EL? My worry is that's it's too spammy since that site has a clear agenda. (PS, damn wiki and it's fucking technical difficulties, I've been trying to save this message forever!) Paul 730 23:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, JLC just gushes about how much she loves the character. Which, considering how uninterested she was in playing Laurie past HII, seems contradictory. Don't get me wrong, I love JLC dearly and I'm grateful she made H20, but let's face it, she saw how big Scream was and she saw dollar signs. Hey, it's not my fault Kevin Williamson wrote the entire 90s. The fact he was hired for all those films says something about how impressed people were with Scream. Oh my god, are you kidding about the music? It's not similar, it's exactly the same music! That's one of the biggest nitpicks with H20 from fans. Look at the scene where Laurie, John and Molly are running down the steps to the car. That music is lifted straight from Scream. Apparently it was put there temporarily for the test screening and the studio liked it so they kept it, John Ottman was all pissed (and rightfully so). I've heard it's in Mimic and a few other Miramax films as well.
- Superman is Superman, a slasher movie is hardly the same. Whether it'll be any good or not remains to be seen. And there is such a thing as new characters. :P
- It's not a petition, just a campaign to "raise support". I think I'm going to remove it, as you say, if anyone cares they can Google it. Paul 730 01:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo45/Wyndam22/AngelMovieSpecial-ACover.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo45/Wyndam22/AngelMovieSpecial-BCover.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo45/Wyndam22/-2.jpg){kind=link}
Break
She wasn't offered a part in the film, the film was her idea. She was the one who approached Kevin Williamson and the studio, the whole film was her brainchild. So my theory is she saw the critical success of Scream and thought it would be good for her career to make a Halloween sequel since the genre was respectable again.
I think it's from the scene where Stu/Ghostface is chasing Sidney through the house, I'm not sure. Definitely one of the chase scenes anyway. I'm not accusing Mimic of anything, I just heard it had the same music. It bothers me in H20 though, because the actual Halloween score in that movie is great and should have been used thoughout. Using Scream music seems kind of... cheap?
Jason X was in development that long? I thought they made Jason X in five minutes and threw it out there as filler because they were taking so long plotting FvJ. I want to have faith in Scream 4, I'm not going to pre-judge it. Paul 730 03:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Infobox
It show grow large, I'm sure it can't get any bigger than half of the first section anyway. If someone is just looking for contents of the franchise (the point of an infobox), they're not going to want to read the entire article looking for links and what not. I can see why an infobox might be a problem but there should be some sort of sidebar, similar to law sidebars (example: the one at public domain). • S • C • A • R • C • E • 06:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
No actually the Manual of Style
is speaking about display sizes and certainly not uploads. (It of course says generally use the default to 180px but override to no larger than 300px when appropriate such as when the mass of details in an image would be too obscured.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, I think he was responding to a comment of mine that the images should be of equal size. There is a fair amount of - I will be avoid the obvious characterization - "biased" material being added or altered to favor one view or another, and making the images of equal size seems a good way to avoid the charge of one party or the other in the conflict being given an advantage. There is a reason why the thrones of kibgs were set upon raised platforms. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)