File talk:MKSCCongratsScreen.png

Reason for Tag
If you compare File:MKSCCongratsScreen.PNG with File:Mario Kart Super Circuit 5th Place.png, you will notice a slight blur with the originally tagged image. Also the file size shouldn't be that big for an image of 240x160 PNG. PNG's compression works best with solid colors. The blur means no solid colors. The image could be sharper. Unfortunately, I am not skilled enough to triple star. That's why it was tagged. -- 20:48, 7 January 2016 (EST)
 * Yeah but I don't think it's bad enough for the tag. The quality difference is barely noticeable unless you know where to look for it or you know about it; bigger file-size also shouldn't mean that there's an image quality tag. Sure you can tag this image, that's where I'll agree that we do need a better quality image (even if multiplayer play via emulation is probably not possible, I could be wrong), but I do take issue with being nitpicky and tagging acceptable images like this. 21:00, 7 January 2016 (EST)
 * File size was being used as an example of my knowledge how to get the best screenshots possible. It's just a pattern I have noticed with screenshots pertaining to NES, SNES, Game Boy, and Game Boy Advance. Images generated from emulators of those systems have very high compression for its pixel density compared to other sources. That's a red flag moment if the file size is higher that usual. Also it seems you and take issue with my tagging. I would like a moderator's opinion if I am using the tag right. -- 21:30, 7 January 2016 (EST)
 * I can see what Wildgoosespeeder points out about the image, but I am afraid I don't believe this warrants a quality template. The image achieves its purpose and the difference is not easily noticeable, the template should be reserved for images which any or most users would find fault with. If you do wish to re-upload the file, I don't think the triple star is necessary, as long as it's a first place it should be good. It should also be noted there's an ongoing discussion here, which you might want to join. -- 23:09, 7 January 2016 (EST)
 * My sort of tagging is a behavior I have adopted from Bulbapedia, which I like how they handle images. I have been thinking about this because this sort of situation has been brought to my attention several times in the past by and ; should another template exist? It seems like users want to use  for really big offenders of image quality. Maybe a tag should be created for images that could be a tad better?
 * Also I have been thinking about registering on the forum for quite some time now. You guys seem to be a pretty cool community. -- 23:44, 7 January 2016 (EST)
 * I can totally get behind that point; if images can be improved, then they should. I think another template would work, but to do that you'd have to go through a Proposal. And you definitely should, apart from being a cool community there's a good amount of wiki collaborations discussed since it's easier to do so on a forum. -- 23:49, 7 January 2016 (EST)
 * Uploaded new image. No need for the tag anymore for right now unless there are more disputes.
 * Before I create the proposal, there's a few things that need to be addressed. There are several different categories some images that could use improvement can fall into IMO: JPEGs and 1-frame GIFs that really should be PNG, Images that could be a bit better (what this image talk page was about and quite a few images I have already tagged), and the already existing Category:Quality requested (should be renamed). Also what else should the proposal cover? Should the categories I mentioned be covered in more detail? Those kind of things. -- 00:42, 8 January 2016 (EST)
 * I'm admittedly not an expert in images but I think those categories are fine. The Category:Quality requested category should remain in place for images that are low quality (if a rename should be needed, "Low-quality" might work). The best thing would be to use one template that encompasses all and then use a variable to explain what can be improved. -- 10:27, 8 January 2016 (EST)
 * That last sentence, we already have a parameter where we can specify in words whatever we want, like what is wrong with the image and/or what to exactly do to improve the image. I guess what we really need to do is create two additional categories and update the template to accept an additional parameter as a way to filter where to send the image to be categorized, unless separate templates are still desired. Do I have permission to create a sandboxed version of  ? I also get the feeling this discussion should be moved because it is no longer about File:MKSCCongratsScreen.PNG. -- 15:23, 8 January 2016 (EST)

No, a second template and category would be overkill. Besides, having templates plastered all over the place is actually something we don't want, so if something's merely "okay, but could be better", just leave it. Odds are, readers won't think much of a small image or whatever on their own (most generally only look at thumbnails on the articles anyway), and they're not pressing matters, so why bring attention to it? Better to save the requests for help for the images that actually are terrible and/or need replacing asap. - 00:15, 9 January 2016 (EST)
 * I still think if images can be improved, then we should encourage users to upload better versions. Unlike at the top of the Mario article, this would be a template most users would never even see, and it's even below the main content of the page (the image), so it doesn't draw attention away from it. If we can be better in a specific regard, we should. Maybe not even a template is necessary, a category would do the trick. -- 00:28, 9 January 2016 (EST)
 * Well it's like writing on MarioWiki. Most of our writing has room for improvement. Hell, even featured articles actively promote improvement on them, even if they are great quality. The same analogy applies to images. We don't need an extra template or a category saying that the image can be improved. Editors should already know that if the image can be improved, they will apply the improvement to it. The templates, like the writing on the wiki, is reserved only when images are noticeably bad. And then, there lies the issue of what images would qualify for an extra category like that, where editors will argue what qualifies on there or not, because it's blurry what the definition of in between image-quality and ok images. I think it's just superfluous work and I think it's too much trouble for what it's worth. I think this is the sole reason we don't observe "good" articles, only "Featured Articles" on MarioWiki, like what various other wikis do. It's either good image, or images that need tweaking asap. 00:35, 9 January 2016 (EST)