Forum:Standard Image Size

I would really like it if articles had a standard image size for images. What do you think?

Landscape
For landscapes (that's when the images is longer horizontally than vertically) I was thinking they should be 220px-250px. I'm actually leaning toward 250. --YazzyDream 21:02, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

You know what, 250's definitly too much. I'm gonna say 230px.


 * Well, I don't know if it's good idea or not, maybe just to write filename.ext, leaving the default size, though I agree that sometimes such pics look too small. I suggest to wait someone else's reply.Ruxax 18:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Portrait
220px?

Check out Ace's page as an example. Any other size suggestions? Or is this a bad idea entirely? --YazzyDream 21:02, August 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just 2 notes:


 * 1) Image with Minimerry on Usopp's page now looks much bigger than other images on this page. You should lessen its width.


 * 2) Pretty unknown thing, but one can specify height of a thumbnail writing something like filename.ext or both width and height (of circumscribed rectangle), like filename.ext Ruxax 18:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that is useful to know. So for portraits... we can just choose a height. Hm, well, I just tried it on the minimerry pic, and 230 works for that too. Haha, I think it looks neater that way. I think it's something we're gonna have to choose at out descretion. For really long images that would work, but for images nearly the same size as landscape images would work with 230px. YazzyDream 19:34, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

These, vertical images are killing me. I don't think a standard is possible for these because they vary so much. I'm just gonna say to use your best judgement to make the page look as great as possible. Ha. --YazzyDream 20:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Character box
This has bothered me for a bit too, but shouldn't we have a certain size picked out for these as well? --YazzyDream 21:02, August 16, 2010 (UTC)