Width clarification

[Abrexa]

I have a question - rules state images in post should be 400 px wide, more than that and you spoiler them. But, signature rules, which is part of the post, state the width may be 470 px wide, or spoilered. Isn't that contradiction?

Also, aren't either values relicts of monitors from 10 years back? Today, smallest monitors are 1366 px wide, for 16:9 format. Even 6 years old, 16:10 monitors had minimum 1280 px. Sidebar is 250 px wide, adding another 110 px for scrollers, etc, it seems to me images 800-1000 pixels wide should be acceptable, 750 pixels should be very safe. After all, OotS comic, that uses the same sidebar as forums is more than 700 pixels wide, and doesn't cause any problems. Can we ask for rethinking of that rule, please? :smallsmile:

[Rawhide]

I have a question - rules state images in post should be 400 px wide, more than that and you spoiler them. But, signature rules, which is part of the post, state the width may be 470 px wide, or spoilered. Isn't that contradiction?

Also, aren't either values relicts of monitors from 10 years back? Today, smallest monitors are 1366 px wide, for 16:9 format. Even 6 years old, 16:10 monitors had minimum 1280 px. Sidebar is 250 px wide, adding another 110 px for scrollers, etc, it seems to me images 800-1000 pixels wide should be acceptable, 750 pixels should be very safe. After all, OotS comic, that uses the same sidebar as forums is more than 700 pixels wide, and doesn't cause any problems. Can we ask for rethinking of that rule, please? :smallsmile:

Images in posts need to be smaller because they can end up in [QUOTE] boxes.

People still use smaller monitors and browser windows on this site. It is far more common than you think.