Fanlore talk:Issues

To add your suggestion to this page, simply press the + [plus] next to the edit link. Don't forget to sign your comment so we can contact you if we need to - typing four tildas - ~~~~ - will leave your name and a timestamp. (You may use the second-last formatting button above the edit box to do the same.)

All that have been lodged on Fanlore:Issues or otherwise answered/resolved have been moved to Fanlore talk:Issues/Complete, while issues that we are in the process of formally documenting will be on the Fanlore talk:Issues/To Document page. Most recently answered ones will remain below a little longer. Please continue to add your comments to this page. --rache 23:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Subpages for Issues:

Complete · To Document

Please use the Fanlore Talk:Sitemap page to suggest new subcategories that should be created.

Images

The help page for images says "left, right, center, none: Controls the alignment of the image on the page", but those commands don't seem to be working for me at all. --Kyuuketsukirui 03:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For me neither. I've just published an image for Alien Brothers with this tag: Image:Alienbrothers small.jpg|left|thumb|The cover of Alien Brothers which should mean that the image is placed left and the text aligns itself around it, but this doesn't happen - the image sits above the text.--Mary Crawford 14:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Indicating external links

Is there a way to differentiate internal and external links via the style sheet? (e.g. external links non-bolded?) As a user, I really want to know if I'm leaving the site or am being redirected elsewhere. This is especially true in cases where *both* exists, e.g. the 'OTW' website link of the front page vs. the internal OTW wikilink. --lian 07:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

EDIT! Ainsley was so kind as to educate me that there *is* a color difference, only I can't see it on on my laptop screen. Huh. I'll check again once I am home, but I honestly never saw the difference, and I'm not particualrly color-blind.--lian 08:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

lian my luv, I'll be poking at the CSS in the near future to make this clearer. Cheers! --Hope 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

*throws hands up* I'm dumb, throw rocks at me! I can see the colour difference. ...(embarrassed silence) Except I processed it as 'unvisited and visited links'. ...yeah, I don't know either!--lian 12:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought abuot this a little and have a suggestion for helping the ...visually/mentally challenged like me: maybe provide a legend for the colour meanings in the 'getting started' portal? Yep, it sounds super-silly, and I know that they're still subject to change, but obv. nothing is so self-explanatory as not to be misunderstood, d'oh. --lian 14:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a little icon for off-site links, it's light blue diagonal arrows. I can't seem to insert it, but it goes with class="external text". If we could figure out how they're doing it, that would be great, as it would keep an existing convention rather than inventing a new one. -- Msilverstar 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

IIRC when I installed mediawiki on my own site that was the default and I had to change the CSS to not display the icon. So if they want to do that, I'd assume all they have to do is change the class info back to how it came. --Kyuuketsukirui 22:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations in Articles

It totally is lian makes weird requests day. Only for long-term editing guidelines, though -- it would be cool if editors could be encouraged to link abbreviations like this (at leas the first time it occurs on the page): [[Alt Startrek Creative|ASC]] so that the non-abbreviated meaning can be gleaned by mouse-over? I have nothing against abbreviations, but throw too many of them *without* the mouseover feature into an article and it becomes downright opaque. --lian 14:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, like in professional/academic writing, where the first time you use the full name you follow it by the abbreviation: "Alt Startrek Creative (ASC) is a newsgroup. ASC was created...etc." --Punk 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think in the pages concerned with ASC, the full name will always be mentioned at the start, so that's fine; it's more wikilinks in other articles. I don't think a rule like you suggested would be enforceable there -- but then, my suggestion isn't either ;) so I guess one could just *propose* both? --lian 18:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely some combination of the two. Having to click away to another page just to see what an abbreviation stands for will get old fast.--Punk 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Logged out

Today, fanlore keeps logging me out. Has there been some kind of change to the site that might have caused this? It's very annoying, and it's never done that before. --Dora 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this happens to me a lot, and not just today. I also have a flaky wireless internet connection, so I thought it was caused by that... I wonder if it happens automatically when you're inactive for X minutes? --Aethel 18:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I found that if I don't have "Remember my login on this computer" checked under My Preferences and navigated away from Fanlore, it would log me out. So maybe try changing your preferences and see if it helps? --wistfuljane 06:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am constantly constantly being logged out of fanlore. I have lost thousands and thousands of words to this beast of a sessions setting (I can rarely sit and edit something in a block and must instead do five minute chunks over many hours, and I can't very well save half-done sentences to the site).

Please change it to a longer time! Is it maybe your php.ini settings: http://nz.php.net/manual/en/ref.session.php#ini.session.cache-expire ? Lim 18:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)lim

Fanlore's kept me logged in ever since I signed up back in October, but for the past two days it's been making me log in when I visit the site.--Punk 23:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pairing names as article titles

It's currently not possible to use a pairing name including a slash as an article title, since the software interprets the slash as creating a subpage. Do we have a suggested workaround for articles about pairings? Some pairings in popular fandoms have portmanteau names, but Character Name/Character Name is probably the easiest thing for people who are looking for an article about a pairing to find.--Penknife 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Since most pairing will be added as a subpage to the Source Text anway, those name1/name2 pages would be redirects, I suppose; but what is the issue for creating SourceText/Name1/Name2? It appears not to create subpages right now (see http://fanlore.org/wiki/The_Sentinel/Jim/Blair), which would obv. be fab, but could you give out a general recommendation on this issue soon? It seems everyone's itchy to add pairing pages :) --lian 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

While a "name 1/name 2" page would technically be "name 2, which is a subpage of name 1", both the URL and the title display it as name 1/name 2, so I don't see a problem. --Kyuuketsukirui 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

yay! --lian 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Grace is right - we don't see it as a real issue, and you shouldn't hesitate to create pages in that way. The net result is that a A/B pairing will have the A/B URL and be findable when people search A/B, and this is really all we want. That is to say, Lian, that http://fanlore.org/wiki/The_Sentinel/Jim/Blair IS in fact a "Blair" subpage of "Jim" subpage of "The Sentinel" - but only if you choose to read it that way! It's also, and this is what counts, the Jim/Blair page for the Sentinel - the human-readable form is the one we favor. --anatsuno 19:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier oops)

right, I was a little paranoid, I suppose, but will is crew up the wiki code on noez??!! but this is the best possible solution, so all's good! phew :) --lian 19:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Even better, when I checked The Sentinel page, it didn't insert a The_Sentinel/Jim page as an extra sub-page, it had the Jim/Blair and the full name pages, which seems very reasonable. --Msilverstar 19:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is because a page only exists when it has its own content in it. For example, even a special page like a Category page, with its automatic listing of all pages belonging to it, will be "red linked" and "inexistant" as long as it does not have its own little piece of inserted content. So creating a X/Y pairing page will never create a page X if no one comes to put content into X.--anatsuno 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My issue here is that linking to, say, Harry/Snape doesn't work, you have to write Harry Potter/Harry/Snape. It's not a problem when you figure it out, but a bit annoying. Is redirects the solution? Sivullinen 06:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I just created a redirect. :) --Kyuuketsukirui 06:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Though speaking of pairing names, do we want to have a guideline for consistency? First names only (like the Jim/Blair one) or full names? Ordered by whatever is most common (Harry/Draco) or alphabetically (Draco/Harry)? I definitely think it ought to be actual names in some form rather than smushed names or cutesy names (not McShep and Sparky), as those can be confusing (cutesy nicknames are often completely opaque unless you're familiar with them, and some smushes are not that obvious, either). --Kyuuketsukirui 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we can go for consistency within fandoms, but I'm not sure we can be consistent across fandoms without making it hard for people to find articles. For instance, Star Trek uses Last Name/Last Name and has its own traditional rules for name order. Marvel comics has some pairings (like Xavier/Magneto) where it's hard to use first names because canon is so inconsistent about what they are. And then there's yaoi, which has its own name order rules, and ... I just think pairing name/name order issues are going to have to be handled on a fandom-specific basis.--Penknife 15:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Penknife here. I think "use fandom convention such that it intersects with panfandom convention" (ie, do what your fandom does, as long as the main page is name/name instead of smooshes or nicknames or Gundam Wing's totally confusing math system), would be the best bet. We need to maximize understanding for strangers to the fandom (hence, use names and forward slashes), but there's no universal name-order or name-convention thing for pairings, aside from that, so it makes sense to follow fandom-specific conventions for the details, because that in itself is also informative. --Etothepii 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we have a convention template, pls?

Hmm, just off the top of my head: First year, original emphasis, current emphasis, location, frequency, professional or fanrun... Thanks!Sherrold 19:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been using Template:EventProfile for conventions, and it seems to work. I've also seen it used for one-time challenges that weren't tied to a LiveJournal community. Speaking of which, should challenges get the Event template, or should they get a separate Challenge template?--Aethel 01:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

trademark symbols?

I left this as a discussion on the Vidding page, but I think it should be mentioned here as well. I noticed that someone had used a registered trademark symbol on a vidding app. Are we going to go with trademark symbols on things (not to mention copyright symbols)? My recommendation, speaking with my professional copy editor's hat on, is not to -- it's a huge slippery slope, and most people don't know the difference between a trademark (the TM) and a registered trademark (the circle R), not to mention we'd have to start policing everything we put them on. Would like more input on this, since a lot of my involvement is to CE and proofread entries.--gwyn 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently agree. Let's not go there.Sherrold 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I have noticed several places where people have gone in and "corrected" British spelling to American. Is there a policy that the wiki should be entirely American spelling? On the one hand, I understand the desire for consistency, but that could be a big turn-off for non-Americans editing the wiki. --Kyuuketsukirui 23:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but in a couple places where I've changed Brit to Yank spelling, it was when I knew that either most of the previous content was in American spelling and I was editing something else in that section, so I just tweaked a few things since I was in there anyway, or that I knew it was put there by someone who normally writes in American English. I definitely wouldn't go into anything and change only spelling to Yank English, since we have so many nationalities participating. Probably there are a lot of people, though, who don't know the differences in them (the z - s thing, or the double s on focused, and so on) and may think one or the other is misspelled. I wish we had some kind of style guide, I think it would solve an awful lot of these problems. We could possibly list some of the major differences as a reference point.--gwyn 01:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fandom is full of both UK and US spellings, so it seems we shouldn't have people switching them very often. Maybe, when changing, we should put a note into the Talk page with a little explanation, instead of just on the change log. --Msilverstar 02:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are many Contents boxes justified center?

The Vidding article for example. They look v. odd that way. Sherrold 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and the longer the text that's centered, the odder they look. --Msilverstar 03:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it... What browser(s) are you using? --Hope 04:22, 16 October 2008

(UTC)

Firefox 2 on Mac. It's the "Click here" text that's centered (also confusing vocab. --Msilverstar 04:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have FF3 on a PC and it's the same way. Anything not part of the template itself (synonyms, see also, list of subpages, etc.) is centred and it looks bad. --Kyuuketsukirui 07:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Boxes?

Would it be possible to implement something that allows for the designation and hiding of spoilers? Since we're a fandom wiki, it's not unusual for spoilers and stuff to be mentioned or in articles, especially in stuff like character subpages. Spoiler tags/boxes would be nice. An example (and free implementation!) of what I'm talking about is here, and other sites/forums have boxes that you can highlight over to reveal spoilers or something. TVTropes supports spoiler warnings as well.

...Uh, if this is already implemented, would it be possible to make a note of that somewhere obvious? :3 Heh. --Etothepii 09:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Template:Spoilers -- Msilverstar 02:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not the same thing at all. I would love if we could have the spoiler extension thingy. --Kyuuketsukirui 02:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, but the problem with it is that it's a warning at the top of the page, and it doesn't block the spoilery material itself. With a spoiler highlight box thing, it's possible for someone who doesn't want to see the spoilers to read the page and not accidentally see the spoilery information, as opposed to not being able to read the article at all. --Etothepii 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean smth like a show/hide extension? Like (v.v. simplified) *click on link to show spoilers*? But that would require discrete blocks of spoilerish text, and it's seldom that way, right? Anyway, yes, there are either a kind of table (native to media wiki, I forgot the anme but can look it up again) or extensions for this (I requested smth like this at the work wiki), but nothing out of rough beta, if my memory serves. Not sure if admins want to specifically install/enable this option in this wiki. --lian 01:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

heading display

Would it be possible to bold the lower level headings? Levels three on down are regular font, and level four doesn't even have a horizontal line under it. It would be very easy to mistake these for sentence fragments that need to be cleaned up. Speaking of headings, I read on one page that first level headings should be reserved for the article title, but I've seen a few pages with first level headings (which tend not to look too good in the body of the article, IMHO). Is this still the policy?--Aethel 19:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Glossary term status for subheads?

Is there a way to get Glossary entries for subsections of pages? A fair number of term articles (often orphaned) are just there to get the entry into the glossary, but really don't stand alone. Is it bad form, non-Wiki-like to manually give these terms glossary status, or is there a way to do it? --Msilverstar 19:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal page editing

I wonder if we should reconsider the statement of policy about what can go up on a user's main fanlore page (not their user: page), or that of their friends. I'm all for disallowing creation of your own page on Fanlore and encouragement of care in terms of editing it, but I recognize that that's a little extreme. I just think there are kind of weird ethical/notability conflicts here. Sure, "anyone can edit my page so I can too," but there's a reason vanity editing is frowned upon in That Other Wiki! --Emma 08:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I think the problem is not so much the self-promotion as that if someone creates a rambling or joking page for themselves the style discourages editing by others, because other stuff just doesn't fit in something that appears to be a cohesive text.--Ratcreature 09:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to disallow creation/editing of one's own page (sometimes it's just going to be necessary in order to represent parts of fandom that aren't the main narrative), but I really wish we had some good examples of what to do. It seems like most of the fan people pages are either stubs or stuff that should be a user info page. --Kyuuketsukirui 09:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The thing is that people put their in-jokes and favourite foods on there, but...we're a resource. We really do need good examples to point to, slapping editors' wrists and saying "This is wrong!" isn't enough. What about Lim for a high-profile fan and Fleur Rochard for a low-key fan? (!disclaimer: I write the latter article.) Lim's needs better citation format IMO, but I really appreciate the info on there. --lian 12:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Template for foreign-language fandoms?

Anime/manga have titles in Japanese, and therefore have alternative versions of their titles. For instance, the anime/manga Death Note is simply "Death Note" but is also given in Japanese as デスノート, and the romanized version is Desu Nōto. Junjou Romantica is 純情ロマンチカ, or Junjou Romanchika, and the translation is Pure Romance. There's no place in the current template to accommodate for this, though I've used the "abbreviations" section as a crutch. Could an alternative template be made available? - Kylara 09:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, how about just putting all of them into the 'Name' space? After all, these are official names, like for Detective Conan. Would that work for you? Maybe ordering them better, like a line break and giving the country code after each name like

Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン) (JP)

Detective Conan (JP, subtitle)

Case Closed (US)

Detektiv Conan (DE)

...what do you think? --lian 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's how I'd do it -- all the official names in the "Name" field, and broken out like that would make it very easy to read. --Arduinna 00:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that could work! I didn't realize line breaks could be made without a space between the lines. (I need to brush up on my wiki'nese.) The single-line breaks make this a reasonable solution. - Kylara 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

error on category pages

When there are more than 200 articles for a given category, the main Category page shows only the first 200-ish article titles, and you have to click on the "next 200" link. However, any subcategories on the category page also get subjected to this treatment: for example, Category:Websites is not visible when you look at Category:Fan Communities. Until I figured this out, I was confused for months by all these mysterious subcategories! Can this be fixed so that we see all the subcategories on Category pages, regardless of how many articles are in the category?--Aethel 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

link colors?

why did the color of the links to not yet existing pages change to green? It was much easier to see the missing pages when they were red links to the edit page. Maybe it's my monitor, but now I have to look closely to see which are the blue-green existing links and which the green non-existing ones.--Ratcreature 03:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

... *baffled* They're still red for me. --Emma 06:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

They are? They used to be red for me, but now they are not. On both my laptop and my desktop, and I didn't change browser or settings or anything. That is weird.--Ratcreature 09:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just you; they're now green for me as well. I don't mind the color, but it would help if it were a little more vivid, perhaps? --Xparrot 11:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to know it is not just me, or something I did. I'm not set on them having to be red, but I honestly can't easily tell the green from the blue-green at first glance on my monitor now. I notice which is which if I squint and look closely, but before they stood out nicely and were easy to spot. Now the missing wikilinks fade into the text of the article for me with the existing links.--Ratcreature 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The wordpress skin was altered as it wasn't displaying links that didn't exist (red links) correctly. The other skins were not altered, so if you're having trouble seeing the links now with the wordpress skin, you should be able to switch to one of the others under 'my preferences'. Hopefully that will fix the problem for you. --rache 14:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But things were fine before? You could click the links and got to the edit pages, so what was wrong with them? I don't want to switch the skin, because I've gotten used to the default layout and frankly several of the others are just ugly. I guess I'm going to fix it with a custom style sheet for myself if the wiki-design group thinks the green is better, even though I don't understand the advantage of having non-existent links look almost the same as existing links.--Ratcreature 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was altered because some links were showing red if they didn't exist (in the main articles) and some weren't (like talk pages) so I harmonized them all to be the same colour. However, if the green isn't working out for people, they could be changed to be all rid (although I admit I like the green, but I do actually want this wiki to be accessible. --Betty 18:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, too; the only non-existing links that weren't displaying correctly were for empty Discussion pages, and while I'm glad that's fixed now, I have to admit I still prefer the red. There's nothing that really shouts that the green links are inherently different from the teal links; they look more like unvisited active links, by being a different shade of the same general color family (i.e., the teal-green difference is the same as the teal-purple difference, just in the other direction). If the green is now a given, though, there's another issue: right now, when you click on a non-existing link, the page says "Hello! You're here because you've clicked on a red link, taking you to a page that doesn't yet exist on Fanlore." If sometimes they're red and sometimes they're green depending on what skin someone is using, listing the color will be confusing. But if a color needs to be listed there, it should be green, since Wordpress is the default and that's what newbies will probably be using. --Arduinna 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Ratcreature. I don't really notice the green links the same way I noticed the red ones. --Doro 10:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Skin problems

Related to the above discussion about link colors, I've been changing my skin to try to find one that worked better for me. The "Nostalgia" skin doesn't have most of the links that should be in the sidebar (I looked top, bottom, and both sides for them). It has a few -- Main Page, Recent Changes, Log out, About -- and once you get into a page you can find page-editing links, but there's no link anywhere to Help, the New Visitor Portal, Policies, Contact, the entire Browse section, the entire Shorcuts for Editors section, the entire Toolbox section, or the entire Personal Tools section. --arduinna 17:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding Images

This is not an issue, more a general plea for help (and I've not yet found a page where these as well as ideas and suggestions could go, so please forgive me). Most of the pages so far are all text, there's nothing pretty for the eye to look at. I'd like to add a few screenshots for the websites/archives I've edited so far, but I have actually no idea where to place those screenshots on the page. Are there some general guidelines for inserting images? Something like "descriptive image goes in place x". Michelle 19:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

there is no rule about that, no -- you can insert images pretty much where you think they would fit in best. A good example for an article that uses images would be The Theban Band, maybe use a page out of their book? Image formatting (centering, framing, etc.) can be a bit of a pain, so give me a holler if you need any help with that and Help:Images doesn't prove useful! --lian 23:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Mhm. I'm a total n00b when it comes to wiki editing, but I think it would be useful to have a convention for this. Something like "pic illustrating the term I'm explaining" goes always in the same spot. Maybe it would even look best integrated in the template. Let's say I want to add a screenshot for the website I'm writing an article about. I squeeze in into the template. Someone else just puts it somewhere in the article. Someone else puts it in the end. That would just be confusing at some point.Michelle 11:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, like Wikipedia infoboxes, for example? Well, it's in the right spot, so let's see when/if the wikimmettee snatches up this concern :) I think they're in the process of cataloguing and re-structuring the issues list anyway. --lian 12:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just sit tight. I think there's not really a focus on adding images/pics to articles yet (the list of uploaded images is rather short). A clear outline on how to handle images would maybe help. Michelle 12:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

When I asked this question in October, this is the answer I got. Not very helpful, I know. :( --Doro 14:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself here and not the committee, but I wouldn't be wild about creating conventions as to where images can go, because, unfortunately, conventions are sometimes interpreted as rules. I think where images would work best will change from page to page, so you should put an image wherever it seems logical for that particular page, IMO. If someone disagrees and feels it might be more helpful elsewhere, then it can be discussed from there. That's part of the beauty of a wiki. :) Personally, I'm in favor of as much editorial flexibility and freedom as possible. - Melina 16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Fanlore implemented a convention for how a fanwork should be added (Title - Author), so rules aren't all bad *g*. I'm basically asking the same thing. I think this is a repetitive task: You create a page about a website and want to add a screenshot. You add a page about a fanfic and want to add the coverart. You add a page about a tv show and want to add its logo. It makes sense to add those in the same place, or the wiki will look totally chaotic random at some point. Michelle 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the current lack of a convention is part of why fewer images have been added, because it creates the impression that there is no place for them. I mean, the templates all have all kinds of pre-defined fields, so there are already conventions for all kinds of content related things through these templates, that people use even if they aren't a perfect fit. So the argument that another convention for the standard placement of an image would be somehow stifling doesn't really work for me.--Ratcreature 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh, that is a very good point indeed. --lian 00:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tables

Tables would probably quite neat to organise some content (the glossary pages maybe?). But how do I make them in wikicode? There is nothing in the Cheatsheet, so I'm kind of lost.Michelle 23:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the cheatsheat because we wanted to keep that basic and intro-level. Tables are covered in Help:Tables. -Melina 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Exactly what I was looking for! Michelle 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)