Talk:Elizabeth Tulloch

message: Starting with Season 6 of Grimm, she's been credited as "Elizabeth Tulloch" rather than "Bitsie Tulloch".
Coupdeforce (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credits 

message: Moving the following list of sources from the article to here. They may be useful to expand or better cite the article. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources 

message: What part of WP:ACCESS mentions merging cells? Matt14451 (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A long discussion on this topic, including some quotes of the relevant guidelines and such, was held at Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography#WP:ACCESSIBILITY violations. A more succinct discussion of the subject can be found at User talk:IJBall/Archive 22#Clarification on ACCESS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thank you for the links. It seems like WP:ACCESS as an argument against rowspans is highly disputed. You said in that 2nd link that rowspans are acceptable on the left-hand column so why can the years not be merged on this article? You also said it's acceptable in "progressively smaller increments" as we go right across, can the Lois Lane cells be merged as the possible instances in this case is rare? Matt14451 (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not really "disputed" – it's more accurate to say it's "denied" by people who don't like the implications. But to answer your questions – no, the "Lois Lane" cells cannot be merged because they're in the middle of the table. The 'Year' cells can be merged, as that doesn't violate WP:ACCESS, but that's not the same thing as saying they "should" be merged – my opinion on that is that if you're only 'rowspanning' mostly 2 or 3 rows in the 'Year' column, then it's not even worth it to do it there either. Where 'rowspanning' makes a lot more sense is in those cases when you're doing multiples of rows, like in List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence#Critics associations. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is extensive in your first link, no need to restart it. I know they're in the middle of the table but you said they can be merged in rarer instances than the far-left per the policy. Great, so the years don't violate the policy so we're getting into personal opinions. I can see three instances on potentially merged years in the TV column, and another two in the film table. I would say merging is beneficial regardless of amount. Matt14451 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but the last is an WP:ILIKEIT argument, and for every person who thinks "rowspanning" is "beneficial" there's an equal number of us who think that "rowspanning" like that is "pointless" or actually "less visually attractive"... Bottom line is even that kind of rowspanning shouldn't be done unless there's pretty clear WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at an article in favor of it. Otherwise, WP:STATUSQUO applies. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have evidence of that? Your first link above is against that. As much as my argument is a WP:ILIKEIT, yours is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT so the issue is decided by consensus which is currently 1 against 1 so the status quo is maintained, so I haven't merged the cells on this article again. If another user supports merging on this specific article then consensus is changed. Matt14451 (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted edit