Talk:Women in Guam History

Deletion proposal Reply

Freedom4U I have removed your deletion template, per the instructions that I may do so if I disagree. I'm not sure what motivated you to put this up for deletion. But this is part of the WikiProject Women in Red ongoing project for recognizing women around the world. Lists are part of our program, separate lists for varied geographical areas. These women are all sourced, and a column that gives a brief statement of their notability. The redlinks therein are also a part of Women in Red, encouraging editors to create separate pages for each woman. I guess I don't understand how you could possibly think a Six-term Guam senator could not be notable. Or the President of the University of Guam. Or members of the Guam legislator. Each and every one of these women are notable. — Maile (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that any of these people individually aren't notable or don't deserve their own articles, but that the list itself grouping them together doesn't fulfil notability (WP:LISTN). This appears to be something more appropriate in the Wikipedia namespace, not in articlespace. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Then you are unaware how much of Wikipedia works. Lists like this are everywhere, and accepted as such for years. There are lots of such women's lists, sports lists, museum lists, etc. etc. etc. If there is a subject area out . there on Wikipedia, chances are there is a list about it somewhere. This is just normal for Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:OTHER, could you provide an example of what you're talking about? The article appears to be specifically about the Guampedia project... :3 F4U (they/it) 22:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we are going to be butting heats over this forever. Please look at the bottom of the list. Scroll down to the bottom and look at the template United States and International Women's Halls of Fame. Click on it and see the links. And I'm telling you it is all the same with sports, museums, and on it goes. And it's been like since before I ever joined Wikipedia 16 years ago. I didn't invent this method - it was already in place when I got here. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against the article format or the idea that you can cover a list of people? The list itself, regardless of what the content is, still has to meet WP:GNG and despite my best efforts, I can't find any semblance of notability for the list itself. Given that PROD deletions are supposed to be for uncontroversial decisions, I'll withdraw my nom and propose a regular deletion nom instead. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Format of list

The first column should not be in bold, as there is no reason to use bold here per MOS:BOLD. It looks as if the table formatting has added this bolding by treating it as a table with the first column being boled headings for the rows but I don't think this is appropriate. Could someone who knows more about tables please fix this? Thanks. PamD 08:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The bolding is for screen readers for the visually impaired. Same thing with the bolding of the column headers. All table lists should have this, but I think not everyone is aware of it. I learned about it at Wikipedia:FLC, where the scope (bolding) is almost mandatory to pass table format for the Featured status. If you open it to the edit screen you see the terms scope="col" and scope="row", which is what triggers the bolding you see. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, for the record, most of the women's hall of fame lists are table format. They existed that way before I ever began getting involved with editing them. Wikipedia being an ongoing work in progress, not all of them have the Scope formatting, but they should. It's a matter of who wants to take the time to bring the formatting up to date, as it can be a rather tedious job. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Maile66 But this article is not a list: it is an article about a book, which includes a list of chapters. I'm sure that not every table is required to have bold for each line like this. PamD 13:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Maile66: Are you saying that every table, such as that in Listed buildings in Silverdale, Lancashire, should have its first column in bold? I think that is a minority view, to put it mildly. Where is the MOS which says so, in contrast to MOS:BOLD which seems, to me, to rule against this? PamD 13:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Maile66: Looking at the four Featured Articles on today's main page: Armenian genocide denial and Angel Locsin have no tables; Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy has a table of "Aggregate Review Scores" with no bolded column; Renewable energy in Scotland has a table "Summary of Scotland's resource potential" with no bolded column. These are recent FAs, and no requirement for a bolded first column has been imposed. Clicking a few times on "Random FA" finds (not mentioning those with no table): 1951 Philadelphia municipal election (bolding used only for victorious parties), Red-billed tropicbird with a table of subspecies with no bolded column, SM U-66, table "Summary of raiding history" with no bolded column. Small sample but I find it convincing: bolding is not routinely used for first column. PamD 14:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

... And the one featured list on the MP (List of films of the Dutch East Indies) does have a bolded column... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I think you mean "does NOT have a bolded column", right? I'm also not aware of any guidance requiring or suggesting using bold in tables, and I don't see it mentioned in MOS:BOLD. pburka (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pburka, I misspoke, but what I really meant was that they both have the same wikitext format (!scope="row"|{{sort|Arriola|[[Elizabeth P. Arriola]]}} versus ! scope="row" | ''[[Loetoeng Kasaroeng]]'')-- there is nothing on Women in Guam History that explicitly bolds the text here, as far as I can see. @PamD, You can see the guidance about bolding at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial, especially #Layout_of_table_headers: As can be seen in the example above, row headers are formatted by default as bold, centered and with a darker background. This is the common behavior across the Internet, and the default rendering in most browser. Is there text explicitly from MOS:BOLD that says something else? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Thanks for the link. I think this is the first time I've encountered "row headers", rather than the more familiar "column headers". pburka (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, today was the first time I had ever read about that too! I came here looking to fix the bolding issue as well :). But I guess I was in the wrong. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891, Pburka, and PamD: The formatting at question is regarding Tables. If your list is not in a table, say a bulleted list, this does not apply. One way or another, WP:WIAFL and Help:Table are the standards, as far as formatting tabled lists. It really doesn't matter if you consider this one a stand-alone table list, or an imbeded table as part of an article. A table format is a table. And perhaps like you, I wasn't aware of that until I went through various reviews a few times. It's not required unless you end up at one of the reviews, but why not use the standard from the get-go. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)