Tbh, I don't know what the golden ratio should be, but I like portrait mode because of the way that the information of rank, level, messages sent, etc. is layed out. Square might work, but could be a little weird to look at. Landscape mode should be banished here.

I wouldn't mind a bit taller and wider though. I guess 1.25:1.5 can be something.

Probably more portrait oriented if the new layout will focus directly around the image itself. Landscapes could probably stay for sponsor/crew tagline images, unless the background also remains a factor. Biggest thing for me is just making them larger in general than the simple 200x250 current layout, so I'm up for any new changes as long as it ends up larger or more profound.

I am thinking portrait. Def not square

While I'm not sure what the sweet spot ratio would be, I'm personally leaning towards either square or a portrait orientation that's close to a square. I also have to add that more wiggle room for the Crew and Sponsor Crests would also be nice. The sponsor crests need it especially since the dimensions of one are closer to a loading bar more than anything

I think something like 3:2 aspect ration would be perfect, it still has the "standing rectangle" shape. This is the most popular dimension that photographers are taking, as it allows bit more space to crop and resize. Obviously I am not mentioning pixels as 3:2 can go from very small to really big, but my money is on 3:2 portrait.

Some people are so creative with them, I  like the  ratios we currently have. 

portrait

I'm fine with what we have

I'd say more portrait, something between like 1:1.35 and 1:1.5 sounds cool

The answer would change depending on the maximum dimensions of the profile picture and the location of it. 

I would prefer 250x250, for example, over 200x250. Dead space can always be covered with transparent background for PNGs, and animations/colors in gifs/webms/mp4s. 

If however for it to be a square the dimensions will be lowered to 200x200, than I would keep it as it is. 

For a profile pic, what we have now is good or maybe even more portrait, kinda like those wallet-sized pictures we used to get for school are the same ratio.  With a square, you get don't get enough room to play with if you're one of those fancy people that know how to use Photoshop.  As for landscape, that's more for scenery type pictures or a group picture.

Personally, I like how it is now. But if we were able to see some examples of what you are considering, that may prove fruitful. 

Mike, 

This is just hypothetical as of now, but the page will probably have 5 different size categories, each of which can get larger or smaller depending on screen real-estate available.

[...]

If the dimensions are going to be 'decent', at least on desktop, my vote would be for 1:1. 

But Mike, why? 

If you are using a static picture for your suit, you go for PNG. And if you are going for PNG, you can do transparent background. That means if you want to feel old-school in the new 'profile' - you can still go for 1:1.25 (i.e. 200x250). Alternatively, you can use the whole space if you want your suit to look 1:1. 

If you decided to go for an animated suit (and I pray to Cthulhu for mp4 support (for a significantly better quality in animated suits) when it comes to that) - you will have more space to play with if the profile goes with 1:1. Further, you can go for 'fake' transparency even with a 1:1 dimension via using the profile page background color to make your suit seem 1:1.25.

Bigger is better, and 1:1 would offer that. 

For size comparisons: 

https://i.imgur.com/HsHBwLp.png

1:1 all the way.