Talk:Ultrabay Slim Multi-Burner Plus Drive
i don't like the idea of including large scale pictures for everything. While i can see the benefits of it, i think it wastes too much server space.
I want to ask for other peoples opinions here. I'd recommend including only small scale pictures comparable in size and style to the ones included in the model categories or like on the UltraBay Plus Devices pages.
What's other peoples opinions?
126.96.36.199 14:14, 30 Sep 2005 (CEST)
For the record, the two pictures are ~60K each. If each and every one of the (currently) 479 pages that are "probably legitimate content pages" had a similar load, the total disk space for images would be around 60MB. --Thinker 18:20, 30 Sep 2005 (CEST)
please don't feel offended. I'm just very (i know - overly) picky about consistency here. The server space reason is just one of the objections i have, actually the most objective one. I'm also worried about a consistent quality and "look&feel" of the pictures and pages (i.e., they should be included as thumbnails on the pages with a large scale version when one clicks them). However, this can be achieved i.e. by a templated way of integrating them and i'd be happy to look into that myself. But I just wanted to get other peoples opinions about it before I'm doing anything.
Wyrfel 00:08, 1 Oct 2005 (CEST)
Sure, whatever you feel is best.
By the way, the reason I took the trouble with those pictures is that it took me a while to figure out the "Plus" designation part and whether that specific drive is or is not a "Plus" model (the abbreviated notation on the drive is confusing).
--Thinker 08:51, 1 Oct 2005 (CEST)