Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

The documentation should indicate that leaving the title parameter blank automatically inserts the article name. A lot of people don't know about this feature. Kariteh (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't "all parameters are optional" imply this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Other parameters give a blank row when they're left blank. However, the title parameter gives the article name when it's left blank. Moreover I think it wasn't always this way (which would explain why a lot of article have the title parameter filled even when it's unnecessary). Kariteh (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving any parameter blank should remove it from the infobox now. Once upon a time that wasn't the case, which is why so many articles have redundant parameters. If you want to explicitly note that the page name will be used as the infobox title if not specified then be my guest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like a "preceded by" and a "Followed by" parameter added to the infobox like in the film infobox. I would do it but I don't know a thing about editing infoboxes (not to mention that the infobox is locked). Americanfreedom (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before, and determine not to be a good idea. For a series like Zelda, do we catalog these in release order or in-game chronological order? What do we do for expansions and add-ons? Basically, it will raise too many arguments. A game with at least 3 titles should have a navbox at the bottom of the article to help find the next games in the series. --MASEM 03:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

See #Last Game, This Game, Next Game. Kariteh (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a special page in the Talk archive (with copies of previous discussions) should be created just for this topic? SharkD (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. SharkD (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the "infobox vevent" class is, in this template? Normally that's a reference to a css class, but I couldn't find anything in MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Monobook.css. Or is it stashed somewhere else? Thanks, Elonka 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It was probably cargo-culted in here at some point in the past and then kept to ensure that anyone who did know what it was for stayed content. The class is just "vevent", by the way: multiple class definitions are separated by spaces. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So if I'm understanding your meaning of cargo cult programming, you're saying that "vevent" isn't currently defined anywhere? So we could probably just remove it and it would make no difference? --Elonka 17:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I never even knew we had an article on cargo cult programming; I was extrapolating from cargo cult. :) Yes, that's what I'm saying. The vevent class is part of the hCalendar microformat, but without the rest of the classes present it doesn't present much information and I'm not sure how useful this microformat is to the VG infobox anyway. The alternative is to keep it and add the rest of vevent's associated classes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to just remove the class from the template, since right now it is basically inert. But I will bow to the wisdom of those who are higher-belt CSS gurus than I.  :) --Elonka 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The vevent class doesn't have anything to do with styling, just with the microformat, so you won't find it in any CSS file. (Styles for the infobox class are in MediaWiki:Common.css.) The summary class is already present and the dtstart class is added by {{start date}}, so I don't see a reason to remove the classes. —Ms2ger (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does the vevent class do? --Elonka 16:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

See hCalendar. See microformat if you need more background. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for my confusion here, but I've read both pages, and I'm still not understanding what vevent does. To be more specific: I have been porting some templates between different MediaWiki installations, and in many cases, in order to get a template to work, I need to port other supporting elements, such as subtemplates, CSS classes, etc. But then there's this "vevent" thing, and I'm not sure what it does, so I'm not even sure how to check if I've ported everything that needs porting, or whether anything needs to be ported. In short, what does vevent do? Does it change a style, format a table, add a header? I'm completely baffled here. --Elonka 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not presentational, it's semantic. Theoretically, templates which use the appropriate classes in their attributes can make use of various microformats in order to present additional machine-readable information to compliant user agents - for instance, when Firefox is used with the Operator add-on, I get an extra toolbar which pops up on pages with microformats which gives me the ability to visit a location via Google Maps, or add a contact to my address book - in a passive way simply by using certain defined CSS classes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And the vevent class allows something to do with Video Game articles, to be displayed differently? That's where I'm getting lost. What do hCalendar displays have to do with video games? Is there an example of where this is being used? I'd happily install something new into Firefox, if it would help me get my head around this. --Elonka 23:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not displayed differently (these classes have no presentational value), just picked up on by microformat-aware user agents. In this case, the release date information can be picked up on as calendar data. I don't think that this has particular value in this case, but as Ms2ger implied it doesn't do any harm either. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Hello. Is it possible to add a languages option to the infobox - for instance an article I've just written is about a game that will be released in english, french, german and russian.?87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As this is the English Wikipedia, I don't see as how that's required in the infobox. –xeno (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, this is what should be added to the infobox. Take a look at {{Infobox VG/testcases}} to see what it would give. 16@r (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a controversial change that needs discussion with more people first. Xenocidic disagrees for instance. Kariteh (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial?? In what way, stating the language of a video game is more controversial than stating the language of a book, a film, or a TV series?? All the infoboxes related to these media already have a parameter for the language. So why not Infobox VG? 16@r (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree a language option should be added. Template:Infobox Website has a language option so I don't see why the VG template doesn't have this. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 22:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skweek (and I suppose lots of other places too) the heading text in the first column gets broken over two lines like this:

Developer
(s)

Publisher
(s)

Distributor
(s)

That's even when the browser window is full sized.

I think this could be easily fixed with a judicious use of the "nowrap" template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.111.58 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about nowrap stuff, but I find that happens when you put too much on the infobox in one line without breaking it up using <br />. I've added some in on that article, it should display properly now. -- Sabre (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've resized my browser and can't get it to do this, so I guess it was fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Great stuff guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.242.202 (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The same thing happens on Formula One: Built to Win. As above, the problem could probably be fixed by editing that particular article. But it seems more sensible (to me) to fix the template instead. I did some testing in a sandbox and putting {{nowrap}} around "Release date(s)" (which is the longest of the "(s)" parameters) fixes it. DH85868993 (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Since there appear to be no objections, could an admin please change:

'''Release date(s)'''

to:

{{nowrap|'''Release date(s)'''}}

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Something that was brough up with regard to the image at Batman Vengeance for the infobox.

A two-fold something actually:

First, it appears that the docs for the template need to be updated since it was pointed out that the "252px" cap isn't being applied and "256px" seems to be what's actually used.

I'm bringing this up here instead of changing the docs by fiat since it seems to be something that the VGP should hash out.

Second, and this is something that may need to go to the VGP MoS instead of here. Has the VGP though about stating in their MoS for infobox images a max file width for the uploads? The reason being that the general image usage guides put the preference at slightly larger than the size the image will show in the article(s). For this infobox that would be somewhere between 252 (or 256 with the above) and 300. Again, it looks like the trend is 350, but it would be helpful to have something explicit to point to before the image start getting scaled back.

Thanks, - J Greb (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For your first question i believe it used to be 256px that gave the best fit but when the remodelled the infobox it was found that 252px was now the best fit and that 256px stretched the infobox. Salavat (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just how big is a 4px stretch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paper Luigi (talk • contribs) 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on 1) monitor in use, 2) screen resolution setting, and 3) text size setting. Small things can have a noticeable impact on how the pages look.

There's also two other aspects: consistency and consensus, which is why I brought it here. Salavat's comment points to "252" having been reached by consensus. With that, "252" is what should be used as the cap to keep the 'boxes consistent in width across the articles.

- J Greb (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's 252 or 256 because everyone still uses the old 256px.70.3.81.166 (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

252px is the size reached by consensus. I think images should be left at their original size if they are by themselves lower than 252px wide though; otherwise they get stretched and blurry. Kariteh (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Right, this has been discussed over at WP:VG talk page, and no-one's come up with any further improvements/comments on the proposed infobox for adding fields for a composer and a writer (Jappalang added an artist one as well) and its conditional notability approach, so I'd like to get it up now. The code is here, I'll update the documentation to reflect the idea of requiring significant notability for entrants into the new fields and for the current game designer field after its implemented. -- Sabre (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Silent consensus and all that. If people complain mightily about the change, I suggest pointing out that the parameters don't have to be used (take them out of the documentation and no one will know they exist, probably; this will save having another EP for it). Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just voicing after the fact that I'm strongly in favor of this addition, so I'm glad to see it implemented. Also, stuff like "The field should only be used for notable composers such as those with substantial work outside the video games industry," I don't feel is an appropriate cutoff point, real or unintentionally implied, to determine notability. Koji Kondo isn't really known for much outside game music, but the implication of that sentence is that a highly successful career making game music isn't enough to be notable. Same on the writer side. I would just leave those sentences to say something like "This field is for notable [role] that worked on the game", a la the designer field. - Liontamer (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability remains no more than "covered by reliable, secondary sources". I just used that "such as" to give an idea of what sort of people may fall into that. I fully acknowledge that notable composers may not have done work outside of the industry - Jeremy Soule is the main one I was thinking of when I was updating the code in my sandbox. Feel free to refine the documentation, as long as the jist of the people being notable in their own right is retained. -- Sabre (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So is there a reason why programmers are not on this list? Also producers, etc. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest adding a bit of spacing between the cells, as per this example. I think it gives the template a more 3D and professional look. SharkD (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts? SharkD (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Under the release date section, Mac should really be fixed to link directly Macintosh.Thanks!. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk &#149; contribs)} 03:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Rich Farmbrough recently removed the brackets around the plural "s" from various fields which need them without any discussion on the subject. Now it appears that each field should have more than one entry, whereas before the "(s)" prevented this. This therefore messes up the presentation of the template. Can an admin please revert this, and if Rich Farmbrough wishes to implement this, can he first open a discussion on it? -- Sabre (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted pending further discussion, and agree that these should not be added as it begs for multiple entries when sometimes they just cannot. --MASEM 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Everything should be discussed before changing it.--SkyWalker (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I notice the "(s)" also disappeared from the "release date(s)". I think it should be returned. SharkD (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Oren0 (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Should an "Website" field be added to the template, like in Template:Infobox Software (backlinks )? SharkD (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Its been a massive 20 days since this was last proposed and I still haven't changed my mind, everything I said above still stands. "Due to games now having separate homepages for separate continents/regions this is only going to generate more "Well this is the official site", "but the article is written in Belgian English so..." arguments and we all know how much we need more of those. Links are served far better by the External links section where more than one possible "official" site can be linked to." - X201 (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, woops. I didn't see that it was proposed earlier. SharkD (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. See my arguments in the previous discussion on this topic. Avian (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - external links work just as well without infobloat. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose If we're not careful half of video game articles are going to end up being spooned into the infobox, already there are a massive amount of fields in this one. Links to the game's website are universally found in the external links and I fail to see how moving it from there into the infobox does anything apart from save those who are specifically looking for it from scrolling down to the bottom of the article. Considering that additional infobox fields may be needed for more pressing matters, I think this is best left as-is. Someoneanother 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. External links suit that purpose well enough without bloating the infobox.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Everyone else hit the major points. This sounds like a good idea, but with external links sections it's redundant and will needlessly expand the infobox. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

If you look at it this way, the whole infobox is redundant, since it contains info that is/could be included in the main article. It's best to remove all fields then? This is getting funny. Every other infobox in WP has this and all arguments for/against also hold for them. but VG must be something special? Come on. Avian (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Support — First off, I hate to imply WP:WAX, but we do it with video game related websites. Secondly, as it stands wight now, a game's official site is placed under "External Links;" however, how they are linked across different articles are not as uniform as it could be if it was placed, say, at the bottom of an infobox. But I'm sure one can argue, however, that this would diminish the importance of having an External Links section, which I think what David Fuchs is indirectly pointing at. MuZemike (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Opppose My views have been effectively summed up by the previous oppose comments here. Its redundant, and it just takes up space. -- Sabre (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't publisher be linked to Video game publisher in the same way that developer is linked to Video game developer? - Sdornan (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should. Any admins want to make the change? -- Sabre (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done --MASEM 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Should "Release date" be linked to something? There's no video game-specific article on the subject, AFAIK, but Software release life cycle might serve in a pinch. SharkD (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bit of back-and-forth reverting on World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King as to whether the platforms are "Windows, Mac OS X " or "Mac OS X, Windows." Is there any general preference as to what order should be used? Alphabetical order? Order of prominence/significance? Order of release? (wouldn't help in this case since it will be simultaneous) --Stormie (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, I believe we rested on listing first by release date, then alphabetically. Which in this case means "Mac OS X, Windows". -- Sabre (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the infobox page needs to be updated to reflect the current infobox, because Game artist, Video game music have been added, and I think game producer needs to be added as well, so the article could be updated to reflect that. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I didn't see it below; I expected those to be in the upper part of it. But I still think that Game producer should be added. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have created a revised template that incorporates the capabilities of the other two templates. See the template page for more information. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Please edit per below:

{| class="{{#ifeq:{{{collapsible|}}}|yes|collapsible {{{state|autocollapse}}}}} infobox vevent" style="float:{{{align|right}}}; width:{{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|264px}}; font-size:90%; text-align:left;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"
|-
! colspan="2" | <div style="font-size:110%; text-align:center;" class="summary">''{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}''</div>
{{#ifeq:{{{show image|}}}|yes|<table style="width: 100%; font-size:90%;">|{{!}}-}}
{{#if:{{{image|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" {{!}} {{{image|}}}<br />{{#if:{{{caption|}}}|{{{caption}}}}}
}}
{{#ifeq:{{{show image|}}}|yes|</table>}}
{{Alternating rows table section
...

This seems uncontroversial to me and the only response was positive. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to update the docs. Also, will a bot be fixing the redirects? SharkD (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some work to be done, as this infobox with "collapsible=yes" attribute currently looks terrible. See for an example using this infobox with collapsible attribute: Battlefield 1942#Expansion_packs. Both lines need to be centered when it wraps to the second line. Currently only the second line is centered. Also, I think the header font is way too big for these purposes. It is suitable for a main VG Infobox which is entirely visible. See here for an article using the VG Hidden template: Daisenryaku. The main reason I originally created the VG Hidden was that the show/hide button forces even relatively short titles to be wrapped, so I made the font smaller. ---Majestic- (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the "demonstration files" attachment to this patch proposal as it is relevant to your complaints. The files demonstrate two approaches to properly aligning cell text and clickable items (text links in your case).

Option #1 is to place the text and links in separate cells. This works in nearly every browser.

Option #2 is to perform some CSS tricks with absolute and relative positioning. This is a cleaner solution, and also works with most browsers—but unfortunately not with IE5.5 or IE6. These browsers may still be in wide use (I'm not exactly sure on this point).

A third option (not a very good one) is to apply padding to the left side of the text that is equal to the width of the link. This unfortunately wastes a ton of space, and will look worse than the current code in most cases.

The biggest issue AFAIK is that these changes may affect other templates that make use of the hide/show code adversely. I'm not real sure to what extent or how, though. SharkD (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please edit per below:

{| class="{{#ifeq:{{{collapsible|}}}|yes|collapsible {{{state|autocollapse}}}}} infobox vevent" style="float:{{{align|right}}}; width:{{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|264px}}; font-size:90%; text-align:left;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"
|-
! colspan="2" | <div style="font-size:110%; text-align:center;" class="summary">{{#ifeq:{{{collapsible|}}}|yes|{{pad|5em}}}}''{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}''</div>
{{#ifeq:{{{show image|}}}|yes|<table style="width: 100%; font-size:90%; background:none;">|{{!}}-}}
{{#if:{{{image|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" {{!}} {{{image|}}}<br />{{#if:{{{caption|}}}|{{{caption}}}}}
}}
{{#ifeq:{{{show image|}}}|yes|</table>}}
{{Alternating rows table section
...

This will center the heading when it is collapsible. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Pagrashtak 19:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I suggest changing:

<div style="font-size:110%; text-align:center;" class="summary">{{#ifeq:{{{collapsible|}}}|yes|{{pad|5em}}}}''{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}''</div>

To:

<div style="font-size:110%; text-align:center;{{#ifeq:{{{collapsible|}}}|yes|padding-left:3em;}}" class="summary">''{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}''</div>

This avoids having to create another HTML element. Also, 5em is too large a padding, IMO. SharkD (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please revert my changes. There are several problems, described below. SharkD (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done, though it's not clear which recent edit was yours, so I undid the last edit only. Notify me on my talk page for speedier service. —EncMstr (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you got it. SharkD (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I suggest changing:

<div style="font-size:110%; text-align:center;{{#ifeq:{{{collapsible|}}}|yes|padding-left:3em;}}" class="summary">''{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}''</div>

To:

<div style="font-size:110%; text-align:center;{{#ifeq:{{{collapsible|}}}|yes|padding-left:5em;}}" class="summary">''{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}''</div>

5em is what it takes to center the heading, not an arbitrary number I made up. On my browser that's what centers the heading. Is it different for anyone else? MrKIA11 (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

5em looked centered for me with collapsible=yes, and the current 3em does not look properly centered. Pagrashtak 13:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If the goal is to center it, we should use css that actually centers it. Padding is not a reasonable way to accomplish that, since it is too dependent on the settings of the reader's browser. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

em units are used for the padding and should be scaled along with the user's browser text settings, AFAIK. SharkD (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I should have tested it first. 5em is still too large, though. Is there a way we can change the script used for the hide/show ability so that 3em are only required instead of 5em? SharkD (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There are additional problems: putting the padding in the style attribute causes the entire cell contents to be indented. Padding/indentation is only required for the very first line, which was what was actually done prior to my changes. SharkD (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I created a test page to test the various padding settings, here. SharkD (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my coding was fine before you changed it. I would recommend testing changes before having an admin change the template. Having a way to center the heading instead of pad it is obviously better, but I could not find a way to do it. 5em looked the most centered to me, and as mentioned, it scales with the font size, not like px. Since there are very few pages effected, I don't think this should be a big issue. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The prior method was padded *and* centered, which is the correct approach. It also used the {{pad}} template, which is better than placing the padding in the style attribute. My concern is that the hide/show link uses a lot of space unnecessarily, forcing us to reserve a large value in order to compensate. The link itself is a lot less than 5em wide, so there's a couple of ems being wasted somewhere. SharkD (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'hide/show' code is located in MediaWiki:Common.js. According to the script, it uses an area with a width of 6em (pretty close to your initial guess of 5em). I started a thread on the Talk page asking whether they could maybe reduce this to somwhere closer to 3em. So much space doesn't really need to be reserved for a string that is only four characters long. SharkD (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)