File talk:Mario's Painting LM.png

Dolphin Emulator Recapture
This picture needs to be recaptured, but in Dolphin Emulator. Note that Dolphin can't emulate the portrait blur effect yet. Click here for details. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2015 (EST)
 * The quality is fine, although it could use a reupload. Otherwise, it doesn't need the image-quality tag. 20:03, 20 November 2015 (EST)
 * The question is how to let people know to reupload the image? The quality is indeed using a video signal that can potentially degrade. See here. I see this kind of artifact in the image. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2015 (EST)
 * The tag is there for horrible quality images, and I don't think it's as bad as the other images in the category, but I'm not sure otherwise how we'll garner attention. I suppose you can put it in your to-do list or something, since I don't think this image is going to get reuploaded as higher quality in any short time. 20:22, 20 November 2015 (EST)
 * I guess I was borrowing my mentality from Bulbapedia. They want the best possible quality pictures. No leniency. As for the to-do list, it is on Dolphin Wiki's Luigi's Mansion page. Once the bug has been cleared, I'm sure someone will update the image. It might be me but who knows if I'll still be interested in Dolphin by then. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * Generally speaking, our image enforcement is far less stringent than Bulbapedia. While they'll delete low quality images when there isn't any replacement available, we're more than willing to tolerate a lower quality image for however long it takes to get a higher quality one, particularly if the target article has no images or is otherwise missing an important one. That said, I feel that the current images quality is fine, but if you have a better one, try linking it here first and we'll go from there. -- Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 04:35, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * I don't think that while they'll delete low quality images when there isn't any replacement available is entirely true. I've seen some really bad images but they ended up keeping them until the condition set forth in their version of the image quality template is satisfied. They even do this with images that have the tiniest imperfections. I agree with this approach because it is better to have an image with varying degrees of faults represent what the words are saying than to not have the image at all and be clueless reading the article. The template only affects the image. It's doing no damage to the integrity of the article that references the image and does no damage to the image that references the template. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * That sounds draconian. And they'd still technically delete that image given the conditions are entirely satisfied, even if the image is only slightly imperfect. Just to let you know, as Ghost Jam said, this wiki is far less stringent on how we deal with low-quality images, which does explain why I'm surprised at the image-quality tag and that you're surprised that I removed it. Yeah, it doesn't damage the article, but my only problem is that it gets categorized with other images that are bad, and this one still does its job even though it's not crystal-clear quality. 16:10, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * Maybe they did that draconian thing a long time ago (Bulbapedia started in 2004) and realized at some point that it was doing more harm than good. I started contributing to that site around four years ago. Seems like they have a somewhat relaxed policy with images but would still prefer a higher quality image whenever possible and tag an image that could use an improvement. I can only guess. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * I suppose we can just leave it tagged, but I think other confused editors might remove it again. So I still think you should at least keep track of it in your talk page or something. 18:19, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * The template had its optional parameter specify to look at the talk page of the file. Maybe I'll restore the original edit and include the link in the description. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * Fine by me. It's good we come to an agreement. 18:38, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * Almost 6 years later, and we see resolution to this issue -- 12:03, June 6, 2021 (EDT)