Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Preceded by/followed by out of control

This should not be used for non-direct sequels (e.g. someone put that Super Mario 64 was preceded by Super Mario Land 2). If it's going to be used at all, it should only be used for direct sequels - Game to Game 2. I think it's a silly idea overall - does anyone agree with me? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Andre (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

These parameters should be removed, which seems to be the consensus of the "Out of hand?" discussion previously. --Mrwojo 04:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I'm going to remove them, then. Andre (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than remove it we should clearly define it's usage. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support the proposal to return the "preceded by/followed by" parameter. I think it was great idea, just that it needed a bit of explanation how to use it correctly. --Koveras Flag of Russia.svg 10:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree - return it. There are many games part of a series with direct sequels. A sequel should be defined as the following game which continues the plot of the first game (examples are Longest Journey series, Simon the Sorceror series, Monkey Island series). Burns flipper 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings towards this field except for being very slightly anti it on two counts. Series games tend to have a "(game name) series" article that states the order of the games.The other reason is a worry over the ever expanding info-box. But as I say no strong feeling either way. But I still think there should be an optional expansion pack field though. - X201 08:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Optional, but definedly yes; define it's usage and it'll make things more easy to see (and easy to navigate). Jeroen Stout 06:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not happening (this is something like the fifth time this discussion has been held, and this particular thread is months old to boot). We have the series parameter for this, and worst-case you can use a navbox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

License parameter

Hi: I think usefull to include a last parameter that talk about license, like freeware, shareware, commercial, demoware, etc. Regards Gustavo SANTIAGO, Argentina.

The problem with this is almost all games are going to be commercial. It seems like that could just be included in the first sentance of the article if it isn't the standard (commercial). Mrjeff 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
But if it's an exception (eg. many shareware, a few GPL/freeware), it would be good to make it optional for those cases. --Interiot 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's quite useful in a general use template like {{Infobox Software}}, but is not really worth it here. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

New Infobox - ouch!

Hi arcade game people - I've just spent a lot of time and effort adding scores of arcade game entries, and now I see all my articles are tagged with the 'Infobox CVG' conversion. While I understand the need to improve the quality of infobox information, what about the effort involved to correct existing entries? Not to mention the extra effort it is going to take to add new entries with this expanded infobox. It is not exactly inspiring when a lot of work has to be re-done. Sandman30s 14:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Conversion

Was consensus ever reached to convert all those arcade game infoboxes to this one? I've been reading some of the archived discussions and I haven't seen anything to that effect. I don't believe the issue was ever raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games either and the project apparently was not inactive. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the project was inactive (that's what I was told when I was solicited to unify the infoboxes), and I posted the proposed infobox over at WT:CVG. After about two weeks of discussion here, I went ahead and implemented it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It would have helped to dig a little further, since this is a huge change that will affect a lot of pages and the participants of the other WikiProject should have been kept abreast of this. I guess it's a little too late now. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if there's really a problem, it wouldn't be hard to reverse. (Just revert Infobox Arcade Game, then revert any converted articles.) Is there a problem with the new unified infobox? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that the process could have been made a little more smooth - particularly since conversions have been done before CVG guidelines have been adjusted to account for arcade games. I say this because of the discussion at WP:CVG/T about what image to use for the infobox. As I said there the arcade infobox normally used screenshots from the game, while arcade flyers have been suggested for use with the CVG infobox in place of box art. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, I don't know that there's any policy on images for the infobox. If it's just jurisdictional things (WP AG says one thing, WP CVG says the other), then that's a separate dispute; both templates work the same no matter what images you stick in them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the replacement was necessary - there really wasn't anything wrong with the arcade boxes. While the information is retained in the CVG box, I think listing the ports separately was far more appropriate, especially for games released in arcades first and primarily associated with arcades. Now information on platforms and inputs is crammed together and a little harder to decipher. It seems like arcade game history is getting a little marginalized here by mixing it with console and computer games. But maybe it's just the old school gamer in me speaking. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The arcade boxes handled console/handheld/PC ports poorly (not at all, really), and the arcade functionality was needed for games that were originally released in arcades but better known for a home port. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

Can I confirm that the Ratings section is for ESRB/Video council ratings and not game review scores, as I have seen it used for both. Marasmusine 08:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

ESRB scores. Kill review scores on sight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Packs

I know that it mainly only applies to PC games but does anyone else think that there would be merit in having an "Expansion Pack" field in the template? Having looked at a couple of games I've noticed that info about expansion packs is either messy(Tropico), or buried deep in the article (Civilization), or sometimes has it's own page (Civilization IV: Warlords), or has it's own section in the parent game page (Command & Conquer). I think it would make life a lot neater to put the info in one standard place. I know there are a few moans circulating about the ever increasing size of the template but I feel this would be a worthy addition. What do others think? - X201 10:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox length

I recently stumbled across two infoboxes in SimCity and SimCity 2000 that attempt to display release dates for all platforms (in the case of both games, there are at least eight to ten platform releases). This had made the infoboxes very lengthy, difficult to navigate in, and a hindrance when reading the upper sections of the articles.

How long is too long? Is there a set limit to how much an infobox can stretch? What would be the best course of action to rectify this? ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 14:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC) ╫

  • I dislike the mass of dates partially because some are missing (the US SC2k Saturn date, for one), leading to the impression that some versions were released in some areas while other versions released elsewhere. Nifboy 14:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
They could easily compress each of those entries onto one line. That said, while the length is pushing it I don't think it has quite stretched (ba-boom) into the ridiculous at this point. --Tom Edwards 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Battlezone is worth a look as well. Not pretty. - X201 19:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gamespot/IGN in infobox

Similar to IMDB being in movie infoboxes, I think the CVG infobox should have a link to its Gamespot/IGN gamespace. I think this would make sense to add it--Coasttocoast 00:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that for no matter how many releases a film has, it has only one IMDb link. A game's release for each console is a separate link. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Including Website Address in the template

can this be discussed again? the RuneScape MMORPG article uses this template and as an online game the web address needs including in the article, at present in external links. however it would seem to be better for this to appear in this template. can it not be added as an option?--Timdew 11:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. An optional item to include a video game's official website should be included, as more and more video games are getting websites, and some of them, like the above, really need it up front and center. JQF 16:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm against it because quite a lot of of the sites are non-version specific. RollercoasterTycoon.com gets changed when a new version comes out so clicking the link on a Wiki page about RT3 and being taken to a website with no RT3 info on it because RT4 is now out will be a bit pointless, and companies like EA won't keep old products like the FIFA06 website up when they've got FIFA 2010 to sell. If you'd like a good example of a game page that now points elsewhere try bladerunner.com. It was a good suggestion but in my opinion it will only be of use to games that are current (last 2/3 years). Now the idea of putting expansion packs on the template, that's a work of sheer genius ;-) - X201 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While that may be true for some games, it's not for all. Plus, even if the site only last 2-3 year, that's still 2-3 years that it's important information, and would also include upcoming games. That's why having it as oppitional would be good. When the site goes down or is changed to the latest version, then the page can be changed. The point is that the page is as up-to-date as possible, and provides a person browsing the page to easily find the game's official site if it exists. JQF 23:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As wikipedia is constantly being updated, i doubt that the editors of any pages would allow the web address to be out of date as new versions came along X201. although as i have aleady said I believe that a "web address" variable should be optional so that those pages that absolutely require it don't have to start providing the address in external links etc. Either that or maybe a separate template for the MMORPG games, which seems a little like over-kill considering the small change that's being requested.--Timdew 08:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not just use the external links? This template is already huge; no need to add even more fields to it, especially when that field will be useless bloat for the grand majority of games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

nonsense. the majority of games will have a website these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdew (talkcontribs)
That doesn't mean that the website is so important that it's a major fact about the game, which isn't true of the vast majority of games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
that's true for the "arcade game" options also but they are included. website is important for ONLINE games but the "arcade" options aren't (plus a few of the main options) but they are in the template because they are useful in SOME of the pages that use this template just as WEBSITE would be in SOME others, like the MMORPG games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdew (talkcontribs)
The arcade options don's appear at all in non-arcade games. In the case of websites, nearly every game is going to have a website, but it's not important to most games. A useless but universally applicable field is always the worst kind; it's useless bloat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
ok so following your "arcade options don't appear at all in non-arcade games" argument can i propose an MMORPG section similiar to the ARCADE section. this section could be just for MMORPG games and would include website address (which is essential to this kind of game).--Timdew 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What else would it include? It's not like the website address isn't going to be included in the article, in the external links section. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL, you move the goal posts to suit your argument. --Timdew 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to be careful about bloating a template with fields that aren't necessarily useful in all cases in which they will be applicable. A field that is only applicable to a subset of subjects isn't going to bloat the template, save possibly in that subset of subjects. For example, a "website" field will bloat the vast majority of the articles to which it's added because it's not strictly important to most games (and many of them have multiple official sites), whereas the resolution of an arcade game's monitor can only possibly bloat the arcade game articles (and feel free to argue about the relevance of this or that arcade field, but don't do it here).

Now, if you want to propose some MMO-specific fields, go right ahead, but the website already has a place in almost every article and it's going to end up used in any article with an applicable website, however irrelevant. Adding fields that need to be policed just makes for work or bloated templates.

This isn't moving the goalposts; the cases are dissimilar. Website is widely applicable but narrowly useful; arcade-specific fields are narrowly applicable and equally narrowly useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of copies sold

Template:Infobox CVG system has a field called "units sold" which denotes the number of console units that have been sold. Can there be a similar but optional field for games in this template? This may be informative for popular titles. Use of this field would require a citation. Shawnc 22:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

See #Sales figures near the top. :) --Quiddity 23:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cover arts to use

I'm curious as to whether there is a set guideline on which cover art to pick for the infobox, in regards to platform. For some cross-platform games such as Need for Speed: Most Wanted, there are multiple versions released simultaneously for each platform (PC, PS2, Xbox, GameCube and the Xbox 360, for example), and thus has multiple cover art labels. Would a PS2 cover art, for example, be preferable if the port is notable in any aspect (i.e. special edition, launch title)? ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Maybe we should discuss this at the project page? Anyway, I don't think there really needs to be a guideline. Although, I think that if it is a game that has seen multiple releases, the original cover would suffice (such as Resident Evil 4). As long as the cover has a Fair use rationale and is properly sourced, I don't think it matters. Thunderbrand 18:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the specific question is regarding which cover art to pick when a game releases several ports at the same time, so this isn't entirely resolved (probably because I wasn't clear with the question). Anyway, the original message has been duplicated in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫


Reviews

Could we add a reviews section similar to template:Infobox Album? --Pinkkeith 16:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded.Fistful of Questions 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems like overkill, as we already have elaborate reception sections. Andre (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be overkill for the infobox. Much better to have a reception section in the main article. - X201 07:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm in favor of a reviews section. Think about what's usually included on a download site that has a game up for download. Usually, what's included is always a review (number of stars). Music Album info boxes already have these and I think it would make sense if video game boxes have them too. It's a lot cleaner way of seeing ratings than if you were to talk about them in the article . Besides, reviews are more important than a lot of crap that's already included in the box. When's the last time anyone ever used the "series" tag anyway?SmartSped 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Licence

I would have thought a licence field would be here already. It my opinion it wouldn't be useful in most situations, such as games released by Sony. However I feel that in a many number of articles it would come in very handy, especially in older games or games emerging from the independent gaming movement coming through these days (through Game Maker and SGDK for example). A licence field would let the reader casually assess whether the game is freeware, abandonware, shareware, etc. etc. -Gohst 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution?

maybe there should be a section to display the game's resolution.Cloud668 19:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For PC games, that's frequently variable, so I'm not sure what you'd put there. For console games, it's usually consistent depending on the system, with only the very newest HD-capable systems as the obvious exception. It seems like it'd be useful for only a very few games, and so it's probably not worth adding to the template. IMO, of course. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't know, but i just think it might provide a bit more information, it's just kinda like Picture Format of Template:Infobox Television, maybe it can be an optional field. Cloud668 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was thinking of such a field when I came to this discussion page... Playstation 3 games in particular would benefit from this, as each PS3 title's HD resolutions are highly variable. --Shadowlink1014 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't useful information for most video game consoles, only for a small subset of articles on certain consoles. Just explain it in the main article body. Andre (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be weird to suddenly meniton the resloution --Cloud668 03:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This should really be added, due to that currently seven consoles, which are all of the seven generation consoles, and the sixth generation consoles, are capable of displaying games different resloution, or in progressive scan. If PC is inculded this will become eight. --Cloud668 03:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however it should be called "Picture format". It would be a great addition, and I am sure that a high percentage of video game articles could make use of it. Stickeylabel 06:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with "Picture Format" Cloud668 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Andre. It's not needed and an irrelevance to a vast number of articles. It's the technical version of adding info about the different types of Chicken in the Zelda series. - X201 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As I previously stated I support an introduction of a section to display a game's resolution. And I do not agree with X201's analogy. All video games have native resolutions, and especially with seventh generation console games these are in 720p or 1080p. Even a game such a Mario 64 has a native resolution of 480i, of which is cross-converted to 576i in PAL regions. Nevertheless, Mario 64 is natively 480i, or 480p if played via virtual console on the Wii. Games such as Gears of War are 720p natively and can be upconverted by a console to 1080i or 1080p. I propose the section be called "Picture format", however only main native resolutions should be listed. For example the Mario 64 article should only state "480i (SDTV), 480p (EDTV). Stickeylabel 09:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then I added it. Cloud668 04:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Align-left

It's been requested that a parameter be added that would allow this infobox to be right-aligned. Could someone please add the following code to the top of the table: align="{{{align|right}}}" Thanks in advance. --MZMcBride 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Where? "The top" isn't all too specific. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Changing
{| class="infobox bordered" style="width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3" 

to this

{| class="infobox bordered" align="{{{align|right}}}" style="width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3" 

--MZMcBride 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a change to allow left alignment with an 'align=left' parameter setting. --CBD 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure what you are trying to align... the text above says the box, but that would use a 'float' statement. The 'align' should impact image display relative to text, but I'm not sure where that would come into play with this template since there is a line break below the image before the caption. Anyway, I put it in as specified since I couldn't figure out what you were aiming for. --CBD 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
So what's the syntax now? "|align = left" as parameter doesn't do much.~~MaxGrin 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I promise I'm really not trying to confuse everyone. I wrote the header for this section incorrectly (fixed), and the code is also wrong.

The current code is
{| class="infobox bordered" align="{{{align|right}}}" style="width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3"
The code should be
{| class="infobox bordered" style="float: {{{align|right}}}; width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3"

I apologize again for mistyping. Thanks. --MZMcBride 00:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, this one seems to work. Thanks. Please update.~~MaxGrin 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. --CBD 11:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Great, it's working. Thanks everybody! There is however another problem. We've still got a left side margin, which is not very helpful for a left aligned InfoBox. Example of the problem: aquanox. Anyway we can adjust those by desire?~~MaxGrin 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Boxart Width

Most boxarts on wikipedia displayed in a CVG Infobox are 250px in width. However, I have found using 260px is more appropriate, as the spacing around all four sides of the boxart are equal and smaller. For example this is an infobox with 260px width, and this is an infobox with 250px width. As can be seen 260px width makes more sense, and is neater. Do you think that all video games should use 260px for their width? Stickeylabel 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To be a prat now, I actually quite like the little borders on the sides. I think the 260px one looks a little bit stretched out. Pure subjectivity though.(Might be the examples)~~MaxGrin 12:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I must be a prat as well then, because I prefer 250. It's not so in your face, it has a touch of style about it and above all, I think it just looks better. - X201 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I think we should reconsider the examples though. Viva Pignatia, whatever the spelling of that word is, and DOD covers are not very good for the sake of comparing the width of the infobox.~~MaxGrin 09:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
250px is better IMO, the CVG Infobox could be changed to make it better. I would do it, but the page has been fully protected since September (so only admins can edit it). TJ Spyke 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are two different examples. The first, Banjo-Kazooie is 250px, and the second, Banjo-Tooie is 260px. The 260px Banjo-Tooie boxart looks far more tidy when compared to 250px. However, if TJ Spyke can modify the now semi-protected template to make 250px boxarts fit better, then I would support that. If that however is not possible, I would support that all game boxarts in the Infobox CVG's be changed to 260px. Also, to save time and confusion a pre-set size of 260px could be placed within the actual template, so all current and future boxarts are then automatically changed to 260px. Stickeylabel 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think mention of this discussion should be made on the CVG project discussion page so that others can add to it if they wish. The only problem is that the discussion will probably carry on there, which is wrong. Comments about the Template and decisions about it should be made on this page so that there's a permanent record in the page history. - X201 09:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the template, so that it is able to use 250px boxart properly. Stickeylabel 09:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have found the issue that was causing the 250px problem, and I have fixed it. The issue was that the width was set to 23em, which inturn was too great of a width, which created the thick white side borders. I have now changed it to 22em, and the problem seems to have been resolved. Stickeylabel 08:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not revert 22em back to 23em in future. 23em causes many issues that 22em resolves. Please discuss in future before reverting. Thanks. Stickeylabel 08:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The slight gap is by design. Images aren't supposed to reach edge-to-edge; there's an intentional gutter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please expand how it is "by design"? The "gutter" is not symmetrical, and reduces consistancy between various boxart sizes. Consistancy and functionality is more important than your taste of aesthetics. Please reach consensus from amoungst others on this issue in this section of the talk page, before reverting in future. Stickeylabel 09:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
"Images aren't supposed to reach edge-to-edge" - where did you pull this from? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with A Man In Black. There is no reason using 22em instead of 23em. Original design has 23em, so until consensus has been reached to change 23em to 22em, 23em should be kept. --MrStalker 10:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fix the color

I think it's been about a year since my last attempt to persuade someone to fix the color of this infobox, so here's a new attempt. The blue and grey still look awful together. In fact, the blue looks bad in Monobook, period. How about copying the elegant {{Infobox CVG system}}? Fredrik Johansson 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Support - I was thinking the same thing. The scheme used in {{Infobox CVG system}} looks much better. - Nmnogueira 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

This page has been fully protected since September. Why has it been protected this long, and why can't it be unprotected? TJ Spyke 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think so anon's don't mess with it, since its linked to thousands of pages. Thunderbrand 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Anons could be blocked from it with a semi-protect. A full protect seems overkill especially seeing as it was done without any reason being posted to this discussion page and without the "Locked" templates being added to the project page. - X201 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I changed it to semi, I think. Thunderbrand 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Something's not right here

When I try to access certain articles using this template, I see that the page is messed up. See Shuffle! and Onikakushi-hen for examples. How can this be corrected?--() 15:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How are they messed up? Not on my browser. What browser and/or extensions are you using? ---Majestic- 15:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm using MSN, but I also tried it in Firefox and the same thing persisted. Here's what I see: http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picnn4.png --() 15:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Something is wrong with your broser, because that exact article shows correctly on my Firefox: http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7418/capturerj3.jpg . Try to reload your page by pressing Ctrl+F5 (Firefox). ---Majestic- 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that didn't work, but I did find another solution, albeit a strange one. I cut out the infobox in the articles that were doing this to me (3 in all; was also occuring with Watanagashi-hen) and then I previewed the page. I then pasted the infobox back into the page and saved the edit, but then of course the history didn't record a change because I only cut and pasted the same thing. In any case, that solved the problem and it doesn't seem to have affected any other pages with the infobox that I can see. Weird though since it only affected 3 pages and even stranger how I solved it. o.o Thanks for your help though.--() 15:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)