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)