Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona

Lead image
A poor-quality, black-and-whtie photo of a 15th-century miniature doe what for this article, exactly? If we had no other options, and the article were long, I could abide it, since a long article without an image is intimidating (and looks boring) to most readers. This, however, is a short article, barely improved upon since the last major addition of text to the body in 2004, almost ten years ago. The only major addition since then is the infobox. The current lead image is here for the first time, since the one I replaced back in May is no longer in the article at all (although it was much better artistically and was colourful). The image I changed it to, which has now been relegated to half-size at the bottom of the infobox, was of his own signature, showing clearly how the count presented himself in his own official acts. It is contemporary and interesting. The current image is boring and centuries too late to be a likeness of RBIII (no relation to RGIII that we know of). So what is it illustrating? Nothing. Its purpose was mainly to spruce up a family tree. Its decorative, but that's not the main (usual) purpose of images at Wikipedia. We have no image that can claim to show what he looked like or what (near-)contemporaries thought he looked like or should have looked like. But we've got a signature from an era when folks like RBIII were generally illiterate. I've changed the image back, but, being in the spirit of the season, I've left the infobox. Srnec (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please if interested try to convince this person what he has failed in Talk:Petronilla of Aragon. And please you will never win your war against infoboxes, you can't claim that just because an article has never has something as a consensus to not have that thing, which is your general strategy in most of your edits. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never made such a silly argument. When I say there is no consensus, I mean just that. Not that there is a consensus against, but that there is no consensus at all. I am quite convinced already that I failed to convince other editors in that case. I am not convinced either that (a) my arguments failed or (b) the discussion at one talk page has established any encyclopedia-wide consensus on infoboxes or lead images. Srnec (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, coming in via the friendly invite by The Emperor's New Spy, I continue to hold the view I had in the Petronilla discussion, namely that the way I understand WP:LEADIMAGE is that it should depict the subject of the article, even if not contemporary or a likeness as such. The signature is interesting and absolutely should be included in the infobox, where it has it's own field. I do agree with Srnec that the image isn't very fancy, but this article is about a person who lives a thousand years ago. By the way, why not use the picture of the equestrian statue as the main image? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)