Extra spaces after title/name links in text fields

I have two examples where this has happened. The first was #250719-184651-253000. I was not quite sure if the rejection of this was just due to the spacing problem or to something else, (if "Bad Formatting" means something relating to contents or just text format) so I entered a simpler Bio for another actor, #250721-222212-236000. After this second one was rejected, I tried to fix it by retyping the links and I resubmitted it (#250722-224107-059000). I am unaware of any way to preview how the text will appear before submitting it, so I had no way to check if it had actually been fixed but to submit it. On the "track your contribution" page, you can see that the problem with the spaces recurred and I expected it to be rejected again. However, I see that this Bio has just been accepted, and on the actual name page the extra spaces do not appear. So I don't know if an editor fixed this or if the display on "track your changes" is not accurate, and if that is the case, what is the problem with the format that is causing my contributions to be rejected for "Bad Formatting". I have a number of other Bios to enter, and I want to make sure it goes smoothly for everyone's sake. Thank you.

@GoPetersen- Thank you for posting the submission references! Taking a look at them, now 'badly formatted' does not necessarily mean extra spaces or text field related issues. In this case for the rejected submission, for mini-bios, we allow a few examples of the filmography of the person to be mentioned within it but further mentions of their credited work already has their own section which is in the respective Filmography of the person. You are welcome to edit it and re-submit it and we can take a look for you once you do. You can post the re-submission reference here.

The extra space between a link and punctuation in the contribution tracking feature also occurs in trivia contributions. I think it's just a display error.

Thank you for this explanation and willingness to review a revision. I understand the guideline that the mini-bio should not be a rehash of the person’s list of credits that can be viewed on the filmography, and with this in mind have tried to mention only the most significant and substantial appearances which I would recommend the reader to view if they want to see more of the person. This is what I would hope to learn from a bio - what performances are worth seeking out, rather than going on a goose chase thorough appearances with may be negligible (especially with a performer who is by no means a “star”). It does not seem to me that including this information on stand-out appearances is redundant with other sections of the name page. As for many of the earlier TV listings, these are not accounted for on IMBb because it is very hard to identify exactly what episodes the person was on and the programs are not readily viewable (if the tape or kinescope exists at all); I mention only the ones the person appeared on multiple times, e.g. for a whole season (but still not on every episode). Likewise with the club and stage performances, finding specific dates can be challenging, and I am not inclined to attempt to add an “Other Work” that someone appeared in a nightclub act ‘sometime between 1955 and 1975’ even though it may be very important to their career. I have made an effort to strip the bio of listed credits in the most recent revision, but I think it makes things rather vague and generic to be restricted in this way. Latest revision is #250725-014239-106000

Hello GoPetersen The submission is pending and will be processed soon. Cheers

Thank you for the update. However, the revised bio #250725-014239-106000 been rejected again, this time for the reason "Does not meet contribution guidelines". I have reviewed these guidelines carefully and I cannot determine anything that is contrary to these guidelines. If you could advise me specifically what the issues are, it would be most helpful.

@GoPetersen- Thank you for posting the submission reference! Taking a look at it, this submission with the corrections was fine. I have re-submitted on your behalf and approved. The changes will be live on the site shortly.