Forum:Non-relevant images

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.

So, I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to see if others agree that these sorts of images add nothing to the articles in question. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 22:01, June 1, 2012 (UTC)