Editing Template talk:Improve quality
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Suggested rename== | ==Suggested rename== | ||
Presently, this template is named Image quality with the category Low-quality images. I would like to suggest renaming both to be Template:Improve quality and Category:Files needing improvement. This does three things: Expand request types to include animations (gifs), video, and audio, which generally are too specific to warrant their own template/category structure. The second that I have found generally is that it's a better presentation to users, particularly new ones. It does not necessarily suggest that the help provided by those users is low quality or bad, as it mildly does presently. Third, there are sometimes files that can be improved in quality without necessarily being of low quality initially. For example, an image that shows a Dwarf Bulborb might be a great, capture card quality HD image, but the angle that it was taken wasn't particularly stellar. It's by no means low quality, but could still be improved to some capacity. Let me know what you think. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 21:13, September 4, 2023 (EDT) | Presently, this template is named Image quality with the category Low-quality images. I would like to suggest renaming both to be Template:Improve quality and Category:Files needing improvement. This does three things: Expand request types to include animations (gifs), video, and audio, which generally are too specific to warrant their own template/category structure. The second that I have found generally is that it's a better presentation to users, particularly new ones. It does not necessarily suggest that the help provided by those users is low quality or bad, as it mildly does presently. Third, there are sometimes files that can be improved in quality without necessarily being of low quality initially. For example, an image that shows a Dwarf Bulborb might be a great, capture card quality HD image, but the angle that it was taken wasn't particularly stellar. It's by no means low quality, but could still be improved to some capacity. Let me know what you think. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 21:13, September 4, 2023 (EDT) | ||