From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]

Banner currently used in this article
Suggested new alternative banner

I've created a new alternative banner for this article from a new panorama picture uploaded recently to flickr (which has the right license of course). I think the new suggested banner, apeals more for tourists, and therefore would be a better choice in a travel guide. What do you think? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been to Tetouan, but why do you think a view of the city has more appeal than an admittedly fuzzy street sign with Moroccan tiling? I find the part of the city to the right of that street somewhat appealing, but not the part to the left of it, and even in the part to the right, there are some buildings in the foreground that are a bit boring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
As you said, we currently have a fuzzy street sign which means nothing to the traveler. it's just a bad picture. the current banner in use wouldn't have been used as picture within the article as it has absolutely no significance and is in poor quality. Sure, if I was sending a paid professional photographer to Tétouan I would probably ask him to try and do the impossible in order to market Tétouan as a great tourist destination in the photo he would take for our Wikivoyage banner... unfortunately we have to work with what we find available for us on flickr/wikicommons. I believe a photo of the skyline is still much better. Skyline photos are common in Wikivoyage banners (see for example the banners in Casablanca and Cairo). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't love the Casablanca banner, but the Cairo banner is better. It's not only a skyline but a skyline as seen from a fortress or something (I don't know Cairo, so I don't know what it is the photographer was standing on). Some cities have great skylines; others don't. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
So you are basically saying you prefer the old banner or that we'll get a National Geographic high quality type of photo which would be worthy replacing the current awful banner? (...and that my suggested alternative banner wouldn't even be considered by you as a temporary replacement/improvement until we'll get that high quality National Geographic type photo you want to see here?) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. You need someone who knows the city to express an opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I waited a day but so far only Ikan Kekek shared he's opinion on this matter. Danapit, Hobbitschuster, Syced, Andrewssi2, PrinceGloria, and PerryPlanet - if possible, please share your opinions here as well. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I wondered what the problem was from the thumbnail, but then took a look at the main article and yes it is very fuzzy! Strange because the original image isn't so bad and sure a crisper banner is possible. In any case the proposed one would be an improvement --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
If you ask for my opinion (sorry for not answering earlier, I just didn't notice the discussion), I find the new banner is an improvement, because the original one has technically a much worse picture quality. Danapit (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Origin would be better if it had a good resolution. Unfortunately its resolution is bad, so my opinion is that ויקיג'אנקי's banner is better here. Cheers! Syced (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)