Talk:Flag proposal 2009: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Admin is happy to pay for high res images without them being blown up from low-quality alternatives. Here is IsmAvatar's list of original proposals: http://www.ismavatar.com/flag/ [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | Admin is happy to pay for high res images without them being blown up from low-quality alternatives. Here is IsmAvatar's list of original proposals: http://www.ismavatar.com/flag/ [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
==Multiflag== | |||
When I originally proposed the Multiflag, it was simply a possible 3d representation of the AmaroSymbol, rather than having to create a background color for the flag. Thus, I don't really see how it is a separate proposal from the AmaroSymbol. | |||
Revision as of 06:24, 12 March 2009
High res
I just noticed - we need a larger, high res image of at least one version of each concept for the main showcase. I saw that some of the images had lost their texture in the process of conversion, which is fine for the extended gallery. The Admins 16:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we also need more than one high-res image for some concepts? The Admins 17:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Admin is happy to pay for high res images without them being blown up from low-quality alternatives. Here is IsmAvatar's list of original proposals: http://www.ismavatar.com/flag/ The Admins 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Multiflag
When I originally proposed the Multiflag, it was simply a possible 3d representation of the AmaroSymbol, rather than having to create a background color for the flag. Thus, I don't really see how it is a separate proposal from the AmaroSymbol.