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) | ||
Revision as of 16:25, 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)
