Difference between revisions of "CWCki talk:Priority Listing"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Image Resizing) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*Batch resizers don't give that good a balance between quality and such. No worries, I am working through the list and most of the larger files are done now. I should have the rest resized within a couple of days. Work permitting. --[[User:Fuckingstupid|Fuckingstupid]] 11:59, 26 July 2009 (CEST) | *Batch resizers don't give that good a balance between quality and such. No worries, I am working through the list and most of the larger files are done now. I should have the rest resized within a couple of days. Work permitting. --[[User:Fuckingstupid|Fuckingstupid]] 11:59, 26 July 2009 (CEST) | ||
::Why not just pay for some hosting that isn't completely shitty? Even $10 a month can get you some acceptable hosting, especially for a small site like this one. [[User:Fat Nigger|Fat Nigger]] 12:02, 26 July 2009 (CEST) | ::Why not just pay for some hosting that isn't completely shitty? Even $10 a month can get you some acceptable hosting, especially for a small site like this one. [[User:Fat Nigger|Fat Nigger]] 12:02, 26 July 2009 (CEST) | ||
:::Even with paid hosting, the size of some of these images is an inexcusable waste. --[[User:Fuckingstupid|Fuckingstupid]] 15:18, 26 July 2009 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 08:18, 26 July 2009
Okay, I made a list similar in the vein of Wikipedia's priority articles in terms of stuff that really needs to be done and what doesn't necessarily need to be done. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. --Champthom 21:40, 2 May 2009 (CEST)
Image Resizing
Anyone got a good batch image processing program? That could probably speed things up --Megaman 08:29, 26 July 2009 (CEST)
- Batch resizers don't give that good a balance between quality and such. No worries, I am working through the list and most of the larger files are done now. I should have the rest resized within a couple of days. Work permitting. --Fuckingstupid 11:59, 26 July 2009 (CEST)
- Why not just pay for some hosting that isn't completely shitty? Even $10 a month can get you some acceptable hosting, especially for a small site like this one. Fat Nigger 12:02, 26 July 2009 (CEST)
- Even with paid hosting, the size of some of these images is an inexcusable waste. --Fuckingstupid 15:18, 26 July 2009 (CEST)
- Why not just pay for some hosting that isn't completely shitty? Even $10 a month can get you some acceptable hosting, especially for a small site like this one. Fat Nigger 12:02, 26 July 2009 (CEST)