Not to start another large-scale discussion when there's already one that's currently going nowhere (we all know what that is, I don't think I need to mention it), but I've noticed that in certain articles, particularly in their "Relationships" section, images that have nothing to do with the subject of the article are used. For instance, look at the relationships section of Harry Potter's article. I would warrant at least half of the images there do not feature Harry at all, but rather just a generic image of the person that particular subsection is talking about. Images should complement the text, and these sorts of images do not do so. If you want to see what that character looks like, their main article with plenty of pictures of them is just a click away. There should be an image showing them interacting with Harry (or whoever the main article is about), and thus show an example of their relationship, or no image at all. This issue also shows up outside such types of sections, particularly with articles whose subject isn't visually seen much or at all. For instance, Cuthbert Binns has a couple random images of Hogwarts Castle and a picture of Umbridge that seem to just be there to arbitrarily break up the text, and articles like Molly Weasley II or Victoire Weasley just have images of their family members we have seen seemingly because someone felt these articles had to have an image.
- Well, they say that "an image is worth a thousand words," but I agree that it can be worth a lot less depending on the context, or in some cases could only cause confusion. I think the picture of Umbridge that you mention on the article for Binns is a good point. What does Umbridge have to do with Binns in particular from the information that we're given? Nothing, from the text we're given - in fact, we don't even get to hear anything in the book about Umbridge inspecting Binns's lessons - only the fact that Umbridge was not in his class doing inspections on the day that it was announced that she had become High Inquisitor. So yeah, images simply for the sake of having images - not necessarily a good idea. ProfessorTofty 02:50, June 2, 2012 (UTC)