Earlier today, I changed the image of Iverson to image 1, reasoning that Iverson is hard to recognize in the second image and there is no benefits of number 2. However, Shoot for the Stars (who changed the image to his own crop like he does to multiple images without consensus all the time) changed it back telling me to go in the talk page so here I am.
I reason that we should use the version of Iverson in 2008. Though out of his prime and with the Pistons, it shows Iverson’s distinctive eyes, headband, and his iconic cornbraids. On the other hand, the other image is not distinctive in quality. It’s quite literally a crop of Iverson showing only him wearing a hat and sunglasses. This could literally be any guy, this doesn’t show any of the features that distinct him from others. This is pretty ironic because his braids and headband are some of the most famous features of any NBA player ever.
Ultimately, there is nothing good I see about image 2 and strictly believe the Allan Iverson page should change its lead image Wcamp9 (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I agree, image 1 is clearly better, as it distinctly shows his headband and cornrows. Assadzadeh (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Image 2 might be a copyright violation. The uploader claims it and other images he has uploaded are his own work but the meta information of the images tells a different story. Alvaldi (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
- The permission was confirmed to be OK. See File:Iverson ReebokClassic.JPG.—Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Wcamp9, Assadzadeh, and Alvaldi: is there a consensus to use image 1 for the infobox? It still has image 2. Left guide (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I have no problem with image 1. Image 2 should not be used since it is most likely a copyright violation. Alvaldi (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Left guide Yes Assadzadeh (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
1
2.jpg)
.JPG)
