Talk:Raleigh

OK, to kick off discussion...

This article needs to concentrate on facts, rather than poking fun at Raleigh (which it does) or boosting the city (which it doesn't - but some people might want to do). I say the whole article needs a rewrite.

Additionally, while I totally empathize and agree with the frustration of TTA's lack of federal funding of the planned light rail system, I don't think we need the line about Global War On Terror, Inc. Best to keep politics out of a friendly resource for potential visitors. It's just the Southern way of doing things! 68.161.184.197 02:31, 22 October 2006 (EDT)

Unfair knocks on Durham.
I think both this and the Durham article make unfair digs at Durham. Durham's crime is actually declining... whereas Raliegh's is increasing. I don't think it's necessary to say "especially Durham". It sends the wrong message about Durham. I have lived there for the past thirteen years and it's a wonderful place to live and visit. The local news paints an inaccurate picture of crime in Durham.
 * If you feel the article is not fair to Durham, feel free to correct that. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:00, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The slams at durham are also bull: http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A31990 note the stats.

Alternative banner for this article?
In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג&#39;אנקי (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not all that crazy about either one. Raleigh's skyline is very dull and nondescript; you could easily mistake it for the skyline of just about any other mid-sized American city. I'd prefer some sort of unique view, but between these two, I have no preference. PerryPlanet (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that neither is good, but the new one is framed slightly better.. The old one cuts off some buildings kind of strangely. Texugo (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree that neither is very good. What bothers me about the new one is that it's glary. Not sure what to think. I guess I slightly prefer the new one, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I decided to take a crack at making a good banner for this page, and man, finding good images of Raleigh for a banner is hard. The skyline isn't very interesting, and there isn't really a "classic view" of the city that would come up as an obvious choice (I considered a shot down Fayetteville Street in downtown, but didn't find a freely licensed photo that quite did the trick). I toyed with the idea of doing a banner of the "shimmer wall" on the convention center, but it doesn't translate well to a close-up photograph and you run into FoP issues there. In the end, I tried to do something with the state capitol, since that's really the only thing Raleigh is known for (unfortunately, the state capitol building doesn't lend itself to great horizontally-aligned images either, but I at least came up with this). PerryPlanet (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The view of only the top of the Capitol plus the top of a lamp post and trees is a little odd to me, so I'm not sure whether it's better than the dissimilar banner offered by ויקיג&#39;אנקי or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the photo of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences Nature Research Center that's in the article could be made into a good and interesting pagebanner. The original file is 1,801 × 1,201 pixels, 809 KB. I have never learned to make pagebanners, but I duplicate the thumbnail here. Nature Research Center.jpg Kekek (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pagebanners need to be at least 2100 pixels wide, so the resolution of that photo is too small. Besides, the coloration of that image isn't all that good; everything's rather glary and overexposed. I don't even know what a good frame would be in that photo; at best, I'm only getting a sliver of globe (and not enough for viewers to tell that it's a globe) and then a bunch of faceless building. PerryPlanet (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2100 is recommended, but I believe only 1800 is required. Powers (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad, you are correct. Nevertheless, after downloading this image and playing around with it, I am more certain than ever that I can't make a good banner out of this image. The coloration of the globe and the building is too close; as a banner, your eye just sort of glazes over the whole thing and nothing about it stands out, and then you have the overexposed sky to boot. PerryPlanet (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving it a try. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, lookie what I just found! This would be easy to turn into a nice banner. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a high-resolution photo, but the structure in the nearest foreground is an ugly rusted one, so I don't find it superior to the current banner, overall. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Aw, I like the rusted structure. For me, it adds a bit of color and variety with all those dull highrises. But if I'm alone on this view, I won't act on it. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect User:AndreCarrotflower may agree with you. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but I like the banner of the state capitol building better than the current night skyline banner. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)