Talk:Intermission screen

Today I removed two screen shots that had just been added to this article. While I have argued elsewhere that there is no limit to the size of an article as long as it is clearly organized, that does not mean applying data with a shovel. The three existing screen shots were already representative of everything in the article's lists, and more importantly, *not everybody has a T1 line and a 1600x1200 monitor*, so screen shots should be used carefully &mdash; they take up valuable bandwidth and may even screw up the formatting of a page. (Fredrik's gallery method can be used in articles which truly benefit from a large number of images, obviously, but I don't think this is one.)   Ryan W 15:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree with your removal in this article, at least you should have resized or moved them, for example to show the evolution of the Tower of Babel. Actually (in another article), the gif animation that shows this doesn’t support resizing. I think that these two screenshots are no such bandwidth eaters than galleries in other article. Ducon 16:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Ducon. Resizing the thumbnails would've sufficed. However, I'll wait until more opinions are expressed before I decide to rollback or not -- TheDarkArchon 21:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The evolution of the Tower of Babel is already linked to at the bottom of this page.
 * The two E2 thumbnails were 171K, whereas the gallery in E1M3: Toxin Refinery (for example) is 154K, which is more efficient by a factor of 7.
 * If you know a better way to compress the animated image, tell me its name, and I'll try to resize the image. (Actually, I could probably do it now, but it would look blurry.)
 * I appreciate the enormous number of images you've added to articles that really needed them. I just don't think this article is one.    Ryan W 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing the 256px thing would have make smaller images. Ducon 17:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. That takes it down to 102K &mdash; still a factor of 3.5 or so.    Ryan W 18:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that should say a factor of 6, not 7.   Ryan W 18:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And what’s the verdict? Ducon 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)