File talk:North Strathfield Bank.JPG
RfC: Image up-to-date-ness
[edit]
This building on Concord Road isn't owned by the Commonwealth Bank anymore, it's up for lease. What do you think we should do with this image? User:Bodman456 | Come talk to me or ask me a question! (I don't bite ;D) 06:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Can't we just alter the description with the relevant details? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 13:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please check the change I made (Commonwealth Bank building) to address this issue. Jojalozzo 13:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just update the description (presumably we have some kind of evidence for the change?) and tweak the caption in the North Strathfield, New South Wales article. No? bobrayner (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Bobrayner - it would be a reasonable solution. --Fox1942 (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Bobrayner, a simple change to the caption seems the best solution. LK (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- 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 Manguard Wha? 08:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why is this question being asked here instead of on the article talk page? :-) Jojalozzo 21:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- 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 Manguard Wha? 08:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- 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. Jojalozzo 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- 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 Manguard Wha? 08:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why is this question being asked here instead of on the article talk page? :-) Jojalozzo 21:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
* 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)
