Difference between revisions of "File talk:Bivouac snow.jpg"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Well, maybe Hitchwiki doesn't care about picture size and has lots and lots of space to store all the file but frankly I think that uploading a picture of 2.64 MB and using only like [[Bivouac_sack|10% of it's size]] is abit too much - and pure waste of space. I suggest resizing all MB-big pictures down to 100-200Kb. Or maybe there is no issue about it? --[[User:Sigurdas|Sigurdas]] 02:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | Well, maybe Hitchwiki doesn't care about picture size and has lots and lots of space to store all the file but frankly I think that uploading a picture of 2.64 MB and using only like [[Bivouac_sack|10% of it's size]] is abit too much - and pure waste of space. I suggest resizing all MB-big pictures down to 100-200Kb. Or maybe there is no issue about it? --[[User:Sigurdas|Sigurdas]] 02:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
: Technically, this is not really an issue at the moment. Hitchwikis images use 185 MB of space - and there are more than 7GB left. Smaller pictures are more efficient of course, but I don't really mind ;) --[[User:MrTweek|MrTweek]] 14:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | : Technically, this is not really an issue at the moment. Hitchwikis images use 185 MB of space - and there are more than 7GB left. Smaller pictures are more efficient of course, but I don't really mind ;) --[[User:MrTweek|MrTweek]] 14:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | :: Hi. Normally I pay attention to file sizes. This time I didn't and was surprised when I saw the original picture loading, slowly taking up more space than my monitor. I only looked at the thumbs in the article and on the Imgage: site yet. | ||
| + | :: I now created a 600 x 400 pixel version which will probably be sufficient for most purposes and in case that someone needs a bigger version, they can still get the 2.64 MB version from wikimedia commons. I don't know if people who view the article using this picture will need to download 2.64 MB to see the thumb. That woulde be mean. If even if not, I think I'll upload the 600 x 400 pixel version out of a "be sparesome even if it's not necessary" ideology... (or for the times when hitchwiki will be full of interesting articles and pictures and every MB will be precious :-D) Thanks for reporting. --[[User:Kb|Kb]] 16:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:01, 18 January 2009
Well, maybe Hitchwiki doesn't care about picture size and has lots and lots of space to store all the file but frankly I think that uploading a picture of 2.64 MB and using only like 10% of it's size is abit too much - and pure waste of space. I suggest resizing all MB-big pictures down to 100-200Kb. Or maybe there is no issue about it? --Sigurdas 02:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Technically, this is not really an issue at the moment. Hitchwikis images use 185 MB of space - and there are more than 7GB left. Smaller pictures are more efficient of course, but I don't really mind ;) --MrTweek 14:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. Normally I pay attention to file sizes. This time I didn't and was surprised when I saw the original picture loading, slowly taking up more space than my monitor. I only looked at the thumbs in the article and on the Imgage: site yet.
- I now created a 600 x 400 pixel version which will probably be sufficient for most purposes and in case that someone needs a bigger version, they can still get the 2.64 MB version from wikimedia commons. I don't know if people who view the article using this picture will need to download 2.64 MB to see the thumb. That woulde be mean. If even if not, I think I'll upload the 600 x 400 pixel version out of a "be sparesome even if it's not necessary" ideology... (or for the times when hitchwiki will be full of interesting articles and pictures and every MB will be precious :-D) Thanks for reporting. --Kb 16:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
