Why the heck is this image in the lead? Surely there is something more representitive of the city than a picture of a bank. The last of the three images in the infobox would be more suitable, I think.
Sven ManguardWha?08:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Fine, I'll be blunt. I think that the image should be deleted because it serves only to promote the bank: it's not a scene of the town and is not representative of distinctive architecture (either to the area or in general), flora or fauna of the town, people of the town, or events and culture of the town. It's just a plain image of a bank, placed in the lead of the article. Is that all the town is? Surely the other images would be better, unlike this one, they serve an encyclopedic purpose in this article. Now the image is not even accurate, let's just toss it.
Sven ManguardWha?08:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Simply archiving the image here does not promote anything. If you want to change the article then that's where you need to start a talk page discussion.
Jojalozzo00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)reply
This kind of image (all of them...) reports what was at a given place in a given moment. If (or ehen) eventually the
Pisa tower collapses we will not delete all images, we will update - when needed - to say "Pisa tower *before* collapsig" (better: Pisa tower in year YYYY). Though not the best venue for that, I agree its use as the lead image for the town article is likely a poor choice, at least I see no evidence of it being more than just another bank, not exactly anything unique or distinctive. -
Nabla (
talk)
18:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)reply
* I am not familiar with the place and have no knowledge of any prior discussions. I will agree however that I see nothing distinctive about the bank picture, and that the ones at the bottom are more appealing. Is this controversial somehow?
Elinruby (
talk)
00:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)reply