File talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 poster.jpg

File resolution
- who says maximum resolution is preferable? There is no such guideline. Do some tests. You will see that when you upload in the infobox size (220px) the quality on the article is much better. Also, why did you revert to the faded version? Did you miss the version with better color retention? Have you compared the images? Your uploads are always good but it seems you just want to be the uploader, rather than caring about the actual quality in this case. Cheers. —  Film Fan  12:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It is. That's why Wikipedia utilizes thumb nails or the actual size of every picture would be that small. We want the best possible image, when someone clicks it to see the details. Wikipedia has no problem resizing images for other thumb nails. Also the color retention is fine as it was, directly from the source. Also its funny that you say that, even though we are all volunteer contributors and can spend that time contributing where we please, but you are the one spends 90% of their efforts uploading non-free images.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what point you're trying to make there. If the image is bigger than the infobox image, one of two things will happen, and I believe there is about a 50-50 chance of either happening. You either get a desaturated mess like this, or an image with better (though not perfect) color retention but a lack of clarity, like this. How are either preferable to this?
 * Are you saying you think it's better to have a lower quality image in the article as long as people can click on the image to see a very slightly larger image in which they're highly unlikely to see any more significant details? The reason you can click on an image is not to see a larger version, but for maintenance and licencing. —  Film Fan  16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the slightly larger visibility is better than the slightly reduced version. Again, Wikipedia scales them down just fine for article viewing. If this were not case every non-free image and every free image in the commons would be thumb nail sized. I have never heard anyone suggest to reduce those images for better visibility in the article. The only reason we reduce these images in the first place is to deter reproduction.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you're just going to ignore the evidence before you? I really don't understand what benefit there is an extra 39 pixels when it reduces the quality of the image in the article. Yes, images are reduces for licencing reasons, but I'm telling you, and have shown you, that uploading images at infobox size provides optimal image quality in the article. Anyway, you're clearly not going to be persuaded by facts so I won't waste more time here. Have a nice day. —  Film Fan  21:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm telling you that there is no decernible loss in quality. But you're ignoring the fact that Wikipedia regularly scales down images for article viewing without concern of loss of quality. In fact, this would be the resolution that Theo's Little Bot would reduce the image to if it were left untouched.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not concerned about image quality. I am. That's the difference. "No discernible loss in quality" is pretty damn far from the truth. Bye. —  Film Fan  12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the color is a bit better on the other image, but still the larger size is better for viewing the details.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)