Talk:Van Antwerp Building

Skyscrapers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

I feel that the previous image that was up here better represents the building as it currently stands. The view is better, the image centers on the building, and the building name is prominently displayed on its side. I am considering changing the modern view picture to the other located on the commons here: VanAntwerp.jpg Avhell (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is an altered image. Although it does show the side well, it is taken from the rear of the building and the first floor is missing from the frame. But, upload an unaltered version of the image and I may feel differently. Altairisfar 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the current image does not best represent the building in the article, as it is unclear to anyone not familiar with it. I am of the opinion that if a better substitute cannot be found, then a better course of action would be to remove the current "modern view" completely to avoid any confusion. Avhell (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What confusion? It seems to have been judged good enough for illustrating the building by our local mainstream newspaper. The Press Register used it on Wednesday: Van Antwerp Building facade deemed unsafe; some streets reopen around building. Altairisfar 01:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is not well represented in the image, as compared to some other candidates available. Again, someone not familiar with the area might not understand which building is which in the image. The local newspaper using an image from this article about this subject is not an indication of anything other than laziness on the local newspapers part. If you need help, see Begging the question for examples of circular reasoning. If you have no better reason for keeping this image, I think a change might be in order? Avhell (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then go take a better, encyclopedia-quality image for the article, i.e., the front of the building, with the first floor in frame, and without the "artistic" processing. Altairisfar 14:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your inability to address my points above, I have removed the modern view for the time being until a better image can be found. If I am downtown again shortly, I will take a better image of the building and upload later. What image are you referring to about "artistic" processing? If you are referring to my earlier image of the building, aside from being a Pinhole image, there wasn't any processing, but that is a bit off topic from this talk page. Avhell (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]