File talk:Screen grab of the Time Cube website.png

Image version

The original image is bad: it mentions Wikipedia. That is completely inappropriate.

The replacement image is better: it actually explains what Time Cube is.

The important, noted aspects of the site are still represented by the replacement image: 30pt centred text and endless blather.

In summary, there is no good reason to keep the old image in favour of the new one and good reasons to ditch the old one. GDallimore (Talk) 21:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in my edit summary: you can just crop the old one to remove the mention of Wikipedia. The main problem with the new version is that it reflects how TimeCube.com looks after Gene switched to creating the website in Microsoft Word. When he still made it in Netscape, as he did when Time Cube was more popular, it looked a bit different: he switched font color and decoration more often, and left the choice of font to the browser. Woseph (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is how it looks now. And the sources don't comment on the changes in colour. And cropping the Wikipedia mention would lose the top quarter of the image and leave very little. If this article is to survive AFD, people need to stop treating it like a joke article as the person who chose the original grab did. GDallimore (Talk) 22:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]