Talk:Femke

Feemke

The Low German Wikipedia article on Famke mentions that "Feemke" is a variant, and there do appear to be people with this name. Perhaps some source mentions this variant? (And if so, it could be mentioned here too.) toweli (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

So far, I have only added the variant Famke, because it was the only very similar name also derived from Femme that seemed notable/significant. Famke is the given name of 2015 women in the Netherlands and 309 women in Belgium. Feemke is the given name of fewer than 5 women in the Netherlands (source for data from 2017) and also 0–4 women in Belgium (source for data from 2022). As far as I know, there are no accurate name statistics available for Germany. A German name website does report the names Femke, Feemke, and Famke, and claims these are the given names of "aproximately" 700, 270, and 100 newborns in Germany in 2010–2021 (source). The website clearly states that these are not official numbers (source). Based on the imprecise and incomplete data for Germany, I'm not yet convinced it is a notable/significant variant. What do you think merits inclusion as variant? – Editør (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added a list of variants including Feemke. – Editør (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Bundling references

@Chiswick Chap suggested to bundle the eight references at the end of the Etymology section to improve readability per WP:CITEBUNDLE. Of these references, one is for the different suffixes of diminutives and the others connect each of the names to Femme or Femke. I understand that this series of references triggers some editors. Previously, someone wanted to place the references directly behind the names, but this made the sentence harder to read. I think the current situation doesn't influence readability, because the references are placed at the end of the paragraph. So I prefer to leave it like this and not 'hide' the references by bundling them. – Editør (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with placing the refs by the names, it makes minimal difference to readability – Wikipedia readers are totally used to ignoring little blue numbers – and it's far better than having a mass of numbers at the end. Leaving the refs in a long string is not really acceptable; bundling is as you say not ideal either, but it's a lawful option. Many editors believe that a string of numbers at the end of a single claim is a sure sign of trouble (as it often implies WP:OR by synthesis, assembling a lot of disparate facts to prove a larger point not citable to any one author). Since that actually isn't the case here, putting the refs by the names where they belong would be much the best solution; and user:AirshipJungleman29 who made that suggestion is an experienced editor. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, verifiability should be valued higher than readability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing against verifiability here. And I strongly believe that each case should be judged individually, the series of references that passed the GA review is a perfectly "lawful" option as well. But apparently some editors are being triggered by this, so to put a stop to that, I have bundled the name references. – Editør (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

References for each person

@Editør I oppose the addition of citations for each entry. It adds a lot of unnecessary references to the article and is not an improvement. WP:SOURCELIST says "... inclusion of apple in the list of fruits, does not require an inline citation". These references are completely superfluous. Lists whose every entry meets the notability criteria and do not provide more information about each subject than a disambiguation page commonly do not have such citations. For example, this became a GA-class article while not having them. —Alalch E. 01:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The names alone do not require references, but the inclusion of the birth date and profession do according to good article criteria (see criterion #2b). For the same reason, source references are added in lists like Births in 2000. – Editør (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation page entry level of information in lists of notable things does not need citations just like dab pages do not need citations. If it were more information than in a dab, yes. But incidentally, these entries are the same to dab entries in style and substance. This article is already a GA-class article, without these citations. I suggest you start a wider RfC or a GA review. —Alalch E. 01:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a regular article, not a disambiguation page, so it doesn't need to comply with the guidelines or common practices for disambiguation pages. And as far as I'm concerned, changes made to this article don't have direct implications for disambiguation pages either.

Good articles may be improved after they have passed their GA reviews. And sometimes things are missed during GA reviews. I believe that all the improvements that were made to this article since its GA review are consistent with Wikipedia:Good article criteria. – Editør (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

These lists of people are widely seen as also having a disambiguation purpose. Citations here are not the common practice. This is still an apple in the list of fruits. The "Births in 2000" example your have given is different as it includes the full date of birth. Full dates of birth are WP:DOB, whereas just years of birth are less sensitive. This is not contentious information and is not one of the four cases when information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material (not a direct quotation, not material whose verifiability has been challenged, not material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and not contentious material about living and recently deceased persons). I have given substantive reasons to oppose your recent addition of references in Special:Diff/1259098121/1259109225. I don't expect that I will agree with your idea of adding references to each item in an anthro list. Please seek support from more editors for your idea. I am noting here that, parallel to this discussion, you have called me a vandal on my talk page, and have expressed an interest in the topic of edit warring, which suggests that you want to enforce your desired state of the article. It would be better to seek input of more editors. —Alalch E. 04:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  A WikiProject has been notified of this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy

 A discussion has been started at VPP: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Citations in anthroponymy lists (10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC))—Alalch E. 05:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe your edits are a response to this brief comment, they go against policy and reason, and that they are intentionally disruptive and as such constitute vandalism. – Editør (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

But it may not be vandalism according to the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism. It is certainly disruptive editing, please stop making these edits without consensus, and contrary to the good article criteria. – Editør (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

They are not a response to that comment. —Alalch E. 11:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E.@Editør I suspect that this is in one way my fault, because I pointed out, in the discussion at Talk:Tamara_(given_name)#List_of_names_removal, that Femke was a Good Article with an uncited list of name-holders. I will join the discussion at VPP, as mentioned above. The apparent difference between WP:Anthroponymy's standards and the GA requirements needs to be resolved. PamD 12:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)