Talk:Famke Janssen

Is she in "Superman Returns"?

There are rumors that she portrays Lara Lor-Van in Superman Returns. Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of First Name

The article currently uses a New York Times source that claims that "Famke" means "little girl". However, it means "girl" and not "little girl". See for example this Dutch page where it says "meisje". "Meisje" is also on the Dutch Wikipedia here and links to [[en:Girl]]. "Little girl" is "Klein meisje" in Dutch. See also "famke betekent" via Google, which will tell you (in Dutch) that it means "meisje" (girl) and not "klein meisje" (little girl). --82.171.70.54 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of the Western Frisian language ("Western" to distinguish it from the Saterland Frisian and North Frisian languages spoken in Germany), and I can explain this issue further. Famke, as the user above rightly points out, means "girl". The confusion here is caused by the suffix -ke, which is in fact a diminutive, so in a very literal sense famke could be understood to mean "little girl". However, the form of the noun without the diminutive suffix is faam, which does not mean "girl", but has a different meaning altogether, namely: "maid" (that is to say, "maidservant"). Depending on the context it can also mean "girlfriend". Anyway, since famke and faam have different meanings, famke has developed its own diminutive form, which is lyts famke ("little girl"). Long story short: famke means "girl", not "little girl".

I saw that this article has the category Dutch Frisian people. As Famke Janssen was definitely not born in Friesland, I find this doubtful. Having a Frisian name does not mean you are of that ethnicity; if that were true over half of the Dutch youth would be ethnically English. It is of course possible that Famke Janssen is indeed ethnically Frisian, but I would like to see a source saying that. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

She was born in 1964, not 1965!

Famke Janssen was born in 1964. The source you cited, iMDB, says 1964. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.9.91 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

See above. Section labelled "Clarification Needed" and my comment "Date of Birth". There were conflicting sources, I went with the source that [www.filmreference.com/film/49/Famke-Janssen.html seemed most likely which was 1964].

It seems as if IMDB has changed their figures and they also list 1964. The problem with IMDB can be edited by users just like Wikipedia so at best it is a weak source but it is generally not used becuase Wikipedia editors have decided it is not a reliable source. -- Horkana (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

StarPulse recently lists her date of birth as 1964, as well as her birth place. I agree it should be updated to 1964. Sleepeeg3 (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In the Dutch College Tour program of 21 September 2014, she confirmed she was born in 1964. See the episode. I do not know why my edit was undone (by 2601:8:b701:76c0:b909:239a:f612:9fa2). Velocitas (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You can see the relevant exchange about her age at the 30:32 mark of the show. Tabercil (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No reliable sourcing for DOB

Because there is no reliable sourcing provided for Janssen's date-of-birth (sorry, but the two sources don't cut it), and because there's actually a discrepancy in terms of the DOB in the Yahoo source, I've gone ahead and removed an exact DOB, and am now quoting just a year-of-birth (1964), as there seems to be some sourcing support for at least that.

I would note that under WP:BLPPRIVACY (note the "widely published" part...), an exact DOB should probably not be added back unless Janssen publicizes one (e.g. in an interview) herself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Film Review lists her birthdate as November 5, 1965 in their 2001 issue on page 389. This 'is' a reliable source, so I am going to change the "circa" to the date according to the journal. --Drown Soda (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: I strongly advise against doing that, for the reasons I've already outlined. We now have multiple sources giving multiple different birth dates. Because there are multiple conflicting sources, I don't think we can just "pick out one source" and declare that one the "correct" one. Further, based on WP:BLPPRIVACY, it's pretty clear that Janssen doesn't want her DOB widely disseminated. Based on all of this, I think the best call is to leave the "c.1964" birthdate as the most appropriate choice here, weighing all the factors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I see a two to one consensus on allowing Film Review (me and Drown Soda) as valid DOB. I'll go ahead and up date this now. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Pay attention Valoem – Drown Soda self-reverted their edit after my message above. Aside from that, you have ignored the points that there are multiple sources (none of them particularly reliable) with conflicting DOB's reported, so how do you pick one source over the others? And none of this obviates the clear WP:BLPPRIVACY policy – Janssen is pretty clearly not interested in publicizing her DOB, therefore it should not be reported. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

TV Guide, this source also confirms that DOB, Drown Soda's source is also reliable, can you provide reliable examples of conflicting DOBs? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Valoem: Please see the recent post from Tabercil upthread – bottom line: there are conflicting sources on Jannsen's DOB, and as she has not widely publicized it, under WP:BLPPRIVACY an exact DOB should be left out. Tabercil, care to comment any further on this?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting – July 2017

Where is the example of conflicting birth dates? I haven't seen that there should be any other dates than November 5 in question. I provided a reliable source for the birthdate. DrKilleMoff (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• @DrKilleMoff: The previous discussions are up-page – both 1964 and 1965 have been quoted as her birthyear. Worse, I'm pretty sure that different sources have quoted different birth days – Nov. 5 is the more common one cited, but this article used to use a Yahoo source (now defunct) that I believe quoted something like a March birth day. This is a mess and there's no way to pick the "correct" source for her DOB. Further, it's quite clear that Janssen hasn't publicized her DOB (i.e. deliberately), and under WP:BLPPRIVACY our best course of action here is to not even try to pick a "DOB", but instead to just use {{circa}} and an approx. year of birth. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You think that a now defunct Yahoo article cited "March something" as her birthdate? That doesn't seem very convincing to me that there are conflicts over her birth date. When it comes to the year she confirms it's 1964 in this interview https://www.npo.nl/college-tour/26-09-2014/VPWON_1229976 at 30:38. DrKilleMoff (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Without an exact DOB, it's is generally accepted practice to use {{circa}}-year rather than just the year. But, as I said, there is a decent source cited up-thread that specifically cites Nov. 5, 1965 as her DOB. So that's another issue... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No matter what Film Review says, they are not more reliable than the subject herself and she confirms in the linked interview above (if you had bothered to check it) that she was born in 1964. That is as reliable as it can be. DrKilleMoff (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Considering that it's one (non-English language?) interview – no, I think that would be considered somewhat "thin". If there were multiple interviews with her where she said "1964", that might be a different matter... In any case, nothing is preventing anyone from taking this to WP:BLP/N and seeing if a better solution can be crafted. But my guess is that whatever is come up with there will be similar to what's being done at this article now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

How about checking the video first before you make assumptions? The interview is in English only, nothing else. DrKilleMoff (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, great. At one point, this article used a Dutch-language interview. But none of that changes my overall point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, That goes against what you said in August 2015. "would note that under WP:BLPPRIVACY (note the "widely published" part...), an exact DOB should probably not be added back unless Janssen publicizes one (e.g. in an interview) herself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)". DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The "widely published" part applies to Jannsen herself as well – one interview isn't "widely": a half-a-dozen interviews would probably be considered "widely". Though when I wrote that, I was thinking about the full DOB – I dunno how any of this affects a year of birth. Again, checking with WP:BLP/N may be the best course of action here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

November Birthday

Hi, @IJBall: - I've found an interview with Famke, for a website named "Directconversations". It's run by Tim Lammers, a film and television critic and member of the Critics Choice Association.[1] He has conducted interviews with celebrities and did one with Famke in January 2015. In it, he describes Famke as having turned 50 years old back in November [2014], when Famke was asked about a younger actress taking her place in future X-Men films.[2] Quote: “Of course, I’d love to be back, but I think, realistically, with the way ‘Days of Future Past’ ends, is that it’s going back to the 1980s and there will be a much younger Jean Grey,” said Janssen, 50 ... As for this casting a younger Jean Grey business, I told Janssen not to sell herself short about the filmmakers finding somebody 20-30 years junior taking over the role. Despite hitting the milestone birthday in November ..." United Press International has listed her as a notable 5 November birthday as well.[3] And the now defunct Yahoo! Movies profile also mentions a 5 November birthday, but a different birth year as already mentioned.[4]

Granted, the interview with Tim Lammers does not specify 5 November. But at the very least, could we at least narrow down her birth date to circa November 1964? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd use that for more than an "age as of date" cite (esp. as it's a WP:YOUTUBE source). IOW, I would advise getting something stronger, esp. considering the WP:BLPPRIVACY issues, because I'm not sure it's justifiable to string together 2 or 3 difference sources just to get a WP:SYNTH date of birth. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall:. Here are two sources that explicity states 5 November 1964. UPI which has been considered reliable in other articles https://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2022/11/05/Famous-birthdays-for-Nov-5-Kris-Jenner-Famke-Janssen/1681667601547/ and an article in Amomama https://news.amomama.com/301320-does-famke-janssen-have-a-husband-the-ac.html DrKilleMoff (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right – UPI is generally considered acceptable. But the issue here is still one of WP:BLPPRIVACY – it seems that the subject is not interested in having her WP:DOB widely disseminated, and Wikipedia doesn't elevate its editors desire to publish information over a subject's desire for privacy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

We publish information that has been published in reliable sources. That triumphs WP:BLPPRIVACY according to it's own rules. The rule states that according to WP:BLPPRIVACY DoB shall be left out UNLESS there is not a reliable source that can support it. That has been the argument before to not include it. Now however, we have a reliable source and therefore there is no excuse to post the DoB. DrKilleMoff (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, no: what WP:BLPPRIVACY says is "widely published, not just "published"... In general, I dislike WP:RfCs for all but really important stuff – but at this point, a decently attended WP:RfC is probably the only thing that will allow for a consensus to be reached on this question. (But such an RfC will have to go through the entire history of this issue, IMO, for it to allow for a genuine consensus to be reached – incl. the conflicting DOBs from various sources, and the lack of publicity from the subject herself on the DOB). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, WP:ONUS always applies – just because somebody publishes something does not "require" Wikipedia to add that to its articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

So, what would you consider as "widely"? Brooklyn Daily Eagle also publishes the birthdate https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2020/11/05/milestones-november-5-birthdays-for-judy-reyes-tilda-swinton-robert-patrick/ as well as Hollywood Life https://hollywoodlife.com/pics/famke-janssen-photos/famke-janssen-3 and East Bay times https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/11/05/horoscope-november-05-2016/. DrKilleMoff (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

And here is another source. https://www.google.se/books/edition/The_James_Bond_Movie_Encyclopedia/AYvRDwAAQBAJ?hl=sv&gbpv=1&dq=famke+janssen+5+november&pg=PT287&printsec=frontcover. That's five reliable sources so far. DrKilleMoff (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

rowspan for filmography table

@IJBall: Actually I'm pretty sure it's standard to use rowspan for the year for these types of filmography tables. I'm the first person to take out unnecessary or confusing rowspan but I think this version is fine. Would you consider reverting yourself on this edit? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No. Rowspan should only be used when there is some value in using it. There is some value in 'rowspan' in some Awards tables (for various reasons that aren't worth getting into here). There is IMO no value in using rowspan in Filmography tables. It's certainly not "standard" format, not is its use "encouraged" in them. This article has been doing fine without rowspan for a long time. There's no reason to change it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Rowspan issue

Support. I don't understand the rowspan is "unnecessary". No guideline forbids its inclusion. And judging from the 2017 discussion above titled "rowspan for filmography table", no consensus was reached regarding its inclusion or exclusion. In that same discussion, @IJBall: (who undid my edit, see here) states "There is IMO no value in using rowspan in Filmography tables". So my edit was undone based on their opinion alone rather than citing a violation. This violates WP:OWN: "If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so." My edit did not violate any guidelines. IJBall simply doesn't like it. That's not good enough to remove the rowspan. It's value is that it makes the table look cleaner and organized. Without it, it's a jumbled mess. Armegon (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: use of 'rowspan' is a pure WP:ILIKEIT edit – "the table look cleaner" is a pure subjective opinion on an WP:ILIKEIT basis. It's one editor's opinion. But for every editor that "likes it" there is another editor who "doesn't" like it – indeed, many in WP:FILMOGRAPHY oppose use of 'rowspan' (it's not just me), and for years the guideline was clear that it shouldn't be used at all. Now it is "allowed" for the 'Year' column, but is certainly not required. So you need to demonstrate clear consensus for the changes you want to make. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:FILMOGRAPHY clearly states "Use of rowspan formatting in 'Year' columns is acceptable". Having you remove the rowspan is also WP:IDL. There's even an example titiled "Delete: No need", which mirrors your "Also unnecessary. No need to rowspan these" claim. I don't see anything on WP: FILMOGRAPHY that supports your "many oppose use of rowspan" claim, just your own opposition found here. Armegon (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No – my removing it is WP:STATUSQUO. It's clear – demonstrate consensus for this change, and 'rowspan' will be used in the 'Year' column, as you want; fail to demonstrate consensus for the change, and it should stay the way it is. And it's not my fault you didn't look through the Filmography Talk page and archives more. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Armegon and IJBall: Before people start weighing in on the RFC below, can I just ask: what are the practical (not aesthetic) pros and cons of using rowspan? Does it affect sorting or screenreaders or something? Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (20:22 Mon 15, AEST) 10:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The rowspan doesn't affect screenreaders. In terms of sorting, all a rowspan does is sort individual columns into a single unified column. Would you like for me to share examples? Armegon (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The first issues are practical: The first is that adding rowspan makes the table code more complicated which newbie IP editors don't understand and often mess up when trying to add new entries (why make table code more complicated than it needs to be?). The second is that 'rowspan' at least "used to" mess up text-to-speech screen readers, so it effectively discriminated against a portion of our readership. Now the latest discussion on this at WT:ACCESS seemed to indicate that this is now less of a concern though I will point out that even this discussion one commenter says "I should add, though, that very complex tables with multiple different rowspans crossing different columns can make navigation more difficult for a screen reader.", so even this discussion acknowledges that overuse of rowspan is still a bad thing (and not just for screen readers – overuse of rowspan makes tables difficult to read for everybody!) Ultimately, it seems MOS:ACCESS is offering no firm guidance on this topic anymore, and doesn't bother to define the circumstances of "multiple different rowspans crossing different columns". Luckily, this isn't what Armegon is proposing, as Armegon's proposal is simply to rowspan the 'Year' column, which doesn't cause problems for screen readers, and is "allowed" (though not required, certainly) under MOS:FILMOGRAPHY. So, the other issue is purely aesthetic – do you like 'rowspan' use in tables, or don't you? Some editors like Armegon like it a lot; other editors such as myself generally don't like it, and feel use of rowspan should be generally minimized. So it's a purely subjective thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, I don't want to add rowspan to every single column. WP:FILMOGRAPHY clearly states to restrict it only to the year-columns (which was my original intentions with my edits) and I'm assuming the reason why is for what IJBall said above. And even IJBall said adding rowspan to the year-column does not affect screen readers. So I don't understand what the problem is in adding it other than IJBall not liking it. Again, which violates WP:OWN and WP:IDL. I don't want to add rowspan because I like it. I want to add it because it's useful and beneficial to the wikitable. Armegon (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Your last point is your opinion – it is not "a fact(™)". Adding 'rowspan' to the 'Year' column is neither prohibited nor required. IOW, as there is neither a prohibition nor a requirement for it, whether it gets added to a Filmography table needs to be determined by consensus at the article. You boldly added it, I objected, so now we determine consensus one way or the other. That's how the process works. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Rowspan Inclusion

Seeking consensus whether to include rowspans in the year-column of wikitable sortable. Armegon (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose, as unnecessary, and for the reasons I've outlined in the topic above this one, though I will abide by whatever the WP:LOCALCONSENUS here ultimately is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Doesn't cause problems for screen readers. WP:FILMOGRAPHY states it's "acceptable" to use rowspans for year-column in wikitable. Armegon (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because cells should never be merged in my rather orthodox opinion. QRep2020 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@QRep2020: would you mind elaborating further? Armegon (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Basically, all rowspans are cell merges and all cell mergers not only raise hell when you try to filter tables derived from them, they also tend to look inconsistent and downright malformed. Think of the secondary uses! QRep2020 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how they look inconsistent and malformed? It's also been verified that rowspans do not affect screen readers. Armegon (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment it isn't as either-or as it's been made out to be; compromise may be possible. Also, the issue of complexity seems to underlie the whole issue about rowspan in tables. Not sure where I stand on the vote yet, but can we discuss these? See below. Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. By looking at the featured articles listed on WP:ACTRESS it appears that both styles are in widespread use. But IMO, normal rows in the year-column give the wikitable a better flow/tidier look and you can also copy-and-paste filmography lists with less formatting issues. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 21:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, which is one (or two) of my points. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Soft support.... Bluntly, this is a bit of a tempest in a tea kettle, in that the difference in effect here is so slight, I'm surprised no one was willing to just give away on this for expediency, short of needing to make use of the RfC process. That said, it's a valid invocation of the process, so I'll give me read on the policy issue: there is no particularly compelling reason to avoid rowspan here: as Mathglot ablely lays out below, there is technically an increase to the complexity of the code of the table, but it is hardly refining the format of the article, and frankly, the average editor working on an article in this area (biographies of entertainment figures) almost certainly has the (frankly extremely basic) ability to work around a handful of rowspans. Regardless, as Mathglot also points out, utility is a forward/reader facing analysis first and foremost, and if there is even slight utility or advantage to using the rowspans, its more than sufficient to argue away any extremely minor amount of additional work that might go into maintaining the table in question--which remains quite straightforward regardless of the rowspawns. Since there is some advantage (alebiet admittedly also quite small) to grouping the items visually via rowspawn, I have very weak support for the change on that basis, insofar as no futher legitimate objections have been raised above. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

...and a fairly critical caveat to the discussion here in general: It's also fairly essential to clarify something out that the original proponents of both approaches seem to be quite confused about, given their comments above. WP:FILMOGRAPHY has zero (and I mean zero) roll in establishing a default approach here, as concerns community consensus. That page is part of WikiProject, not a WP:policy or WP:guideline page, or even WP:MoS language. That means that the "advice" is nothing more than that--an advice page and nothing more: it does not represent community consensus in any formalized manner and has no more influence than an WP:ESSAY written by any one editor. The editors of a given WikiProject are not allowed to carve out their own rules which they can then subjectively and unilaterally apply to all articles which they perceive to be within the purview of their project: this approach is unworkable for the project on numerous levels and the community (and ArbCom very specifically) have weighed in on this repeatedly, making it quite clear that advice pages should not be cited and utilized as the basis for one's argument in a policy discussion and that repeated, tendentious efforts to apply advice pages standards as if they are policy is a disruptive behaviour (although one often made out of confusion about the role of advice pages on the project rather than an effort to derail discussion). So I would advise both parties to be careful about that, moving forward--because this is actually something that editors working from WP:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers have had to be reminded about repeatedly over recent years. If you have a standard approach on some niche content issue which you think should be codified, you need to use the normal, wider-community-vetted WP:PROPOSAL process to get it done by creating a new policy page, or by securing consensus for changes to an existing guideline's language on the relevant talk page or central community forum like WP:VPP. Getting together with a bunch of like-minded editors on a WikiProject, creating your own idiosyncratic rules and then trying to apply them across all articles on the project you feel fall within the scope of that project does not meet our community standards for consensus of an editorial standard and is, again, actually considered quite disruptive when editors thereafter try to enforce that standard like it has the effect of policy/a formal guideline.

So the question of whether or not WP:FILMOGRAPHY now 'allows' for this or that approach is really quite irrelevant here: it never had the force of policy or pre-existing consensus before that change, and it doesn't now, whether it allows or disallows a particular approach. Actual policy has long made clear that rowspan are allowable and leaves any further utility test to the judgment of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS decisions--which of course it does, because local communities of editors need that flexibility and it was unlikely the community was ever going to abrogate it with a one-size-fits all rule in this area. Which is something the editors at WP:FILMBIO should be more mindful of, even if they were in a privileged position of creating their own rules about how to edit articles relating to film at the project and outside the normal process (which again, they are no--they can create, at most, WP:ADVICEPAGES in that space.) So, under the normal terms of the actual very vague policy language in this are--and ignoring the idiosyncratic rules filmed at the WikiProject for what those editors think should be the rules (but for which rules they have not yet secured the appropriate community support)--I feel that the use of rowspan in this instance narrowly clears a basic cost-benefit analysis. All of that said, Mathglot's advice on contemplating reasonable middle ground solutions is also worth reviewing. Though honestly, given the fact that the difference in content being contemplated between the two approaches here is extremely minor, if I were one of the original parties disputing the change here, I would begin to question at some point soon whether any degree of further debate over this is a wise use of anyone's editorial time. In other words, if this RfC fails to generate a clear consensus, it's probably worth treating this as a mere WP:STYLEVAR issue, retaining the status quo version and moving on. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an example of the oft-seen, patented Wikipedia response of, "Oh this isn't a "real" problem IMO, so let's just pretend it's not a problem at all!" At least Mathglot is trying to come up with a long-term solution here. There is a real issue at the heart of this, even if some editors would rather ignore it. While the current RfC is simply a minor manifestation of the issue (and I acknowledge that this one is a minor manifestation, and I don't think it's worth a full RfC), the overall issue (about when and how to use rowspan in a way that actually benefits the readership) is real. And it's not going away. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If I'm honest, that seems like a bit of a hyperbolic way to frame the matter. Is there a large number of articles for which the question of whether or not to use rowspans technically might apply? Well, sure, technically that is true--but that's also the case for the vast, vast majority of otherwise trivial editorial issues resolved as per any one page. I don't really see any evidence that (outside of the rare nit-picky disagreement like the present one, where neither party could maintain perspective on the matter enough to give way, despite the overall impact to the article's content being exceedingly trivial) that the lack of a standard rule for this rowspan is actually in itself causing a lot of disruption and problems across biographical articles at large. In general, there is no systemic reason why we should be favouring one approach over the other across all articles generally. And the lack of a concrete rule here can probably be imputed at least partly to the fact that the community prefers the flexibility of reserving the ultimate call to local editors over a default rule which doesn't really make sense as a one-size-fits all principle.

Now, if you disagree with that and think you can convince the relevant sector of the community that a standard rule defaulting to your preferred approach has some sort of innate efficiency and rationalism behind it, then by all means try your luck at changing the language in the relevant policy/guideline pages. But in the meantime, advice pages don't advance your or Armagon's consensus arguments here, and lacking any actual policy or guideline on point to support your arguments from a community conensus, you're both just going to have to make your best a priori utility arguments. And much as I and others may give you both a little guff for not having been able to resolve this short of a community process, the fact of the matter is that Armegon did use the appropriate process at the end of the day and nobody who has responded thus far, myself included, has denied the legitimacy of the process. In those terms, I lean towards allowing rowspan because I can see the utility of the visual display to the reader (extremely minor though that advantage may be) and I don't find the marginal difference in the mark-up as a particularly compelling reason to avoid it. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I also don't think the change is vital or worth wasting much more editorial effort on, so I am also advising Armagon that if this discussion of this RfC resolves in a 'no consensus' outcome (which is suspect is about as likely as any other outcome, based on the circumstances and the feedback so far), that they should then just drop the matter and allow things to default to the status quo version you prefer, just as a matter of keeping things in perspective with regard to the ratio of energy expended relative to advantage gained. After-all, this could reasonably be described as a WP:STYLEVAR matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If no consensus can be reached, then yeah, I would have no choice but to drop it. Thankfully, that time is not upon us yet. I have no interest in taking the issue to wiki projects. My main issue is whether rowspans should be added to this particular page. I found out through a recent thread, found here, that rowspans do not affect any major screen readers. Even IJBall confirmed that earlier. If there's really no issue then why is there resistance? Armegon (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In fact, that was not what was said – in even the thread you point to, it is indicated that really bad use of rowspan will still cause problems for screenreaders. It's just that more "generic" use of rowspan is apparently no longer a problem, in terms of screenreaders. (I cannot verify if that is true – that is just what was said in that thread. It also should be remembered that not everyone who is using a screenreader is necessarily using the most up-to-date one – older screenreaders are still likely to have the same problems with rowspan that they did several years ago.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That's overgeneralizing it. In that thread, RexxS clearly says "very complex tables with multiple different rowspans crossing different columns can make navigation more difficult for a screen reader." I'm not proposing to add "multiple different rowspans crossing different columns." I'm proposing adding rowspans only for the year column. If people are having issues with older screen readers due to rowspans, wouldn't it be logical to switch to the latest version since many articles use rowspans? It's 2020. People upgrade. We can't keep holding people's hands under the assumption they're still using outdated apps. In that same thread, Graham87 states "Rowspans are fine to use with major screen readers these days." Armegon (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll weigh in on the Survey at some point, but I wanted to raise a couple of other issues first: alternatives, and complexity.

Taking the first one first: when there is a content dispute, Rfc's are definitely one way to determine an outcome, but not the only way. The way this dispute seems to have gone in the past, and now, is to couch it as an either-or with no compromise possible. But Wikipedia is all about consensus, and compromise is sometimes a way to get there. So, I'd like to put two possible avenues for compromise up for discussion:

• use alternating color bands for year groups. This works best, when the color difference is subtle; you don't want to stress color, or distract the user from the information in the table.
• move the year column to last; this would have the effect of destressing the year, and somewhat mitigating its repetitive nature when seen first in column one.

Other compromise alternatives may be possible, but those are two that occur to me. If you can think of more, by all means please propose them; the more avenues to compromise, the better.

With respect to complexity: I understand the point that adding rowspan adds complexity to the wikicode of the page. I think editors on both sides of this Rfc would agree that using it does make the wikicode more complex. The implication is, that this makes it harder for editors to edit the table and that's a bad thing. I haven't made up my own mind where I stand on adding rowspan yet, but I do have two responses to this:

• It does make it harder to edit the table, but how do we balance the needs of editors, against the need of viewers, who far outnumber editors?
• The argument that rowspan is undesirable because it makes the table more complex is somewhat disingenuous. The simplest table syntax is already more complex than simple wikicode, and there's a reason table syntax isn't included in the basic editing how-to articles. I'm sure everyone here now who is able to edit tables, were pretty much stumped in the beginning, and had to spend some time at Help:Tables, or copying other tables and fiddling with them, painstakingly trying to get the table layout you wanted. Complexity is a continuum. Are we saying that simple table syntax is not overly complex, but rowspan is? As a new editor at an article like Taylor series, I would have to step back and learn a whole new coding method, before I could update it, and it looks fairly complex.

Finally, I wanted to raise the question of venue: is this the right place for this discussion? Is the Rfc really about how the table should be formatted in this one article about an actress? Or, is it more about filmographies in general so that maybe it should be tackled at WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, or about the use of rowspan in tables more generally, so it should be discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables?

I'm still uncertain how I would vote on this Rfc, but as a general principle, I want the encyclopedia to be as clear and informative for readers as possible, so I tend to favor viewers over editors. That, plus other editor responses here, will guide how I end up voting. Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no doubt in my mind that eventually the project is going to have to come up with a "uniform" standard on how to handle rowspan use in tables, especially now that MOS:ACCESS has basically completely punted on the issue. But it is clear that there is "responsible" use of rowspan (which not all editors like the use of, regardless), and what I would call "irresponsible" use of rowspan that not only makes a table impossible to read in a screenreader – it makes it difficult-or-impossible to comprehend to all readers! I am thinking of some of the out-of-control use of rowspan in 'Awards & Nominations' tables that I have seen over the years (I wish I could point to an example right now, but I usually fix these as soon as I see them, or I vow to never visit the article in question again!!). The topic isn't helped by the fact that there is clearly a cadre of IP editors who obsessively, and I would say vandalistically, add rowspan in as irresponsible way as possible to as many tables as possible.

Bottom line: This issue isn't going away, and there is clearly a strong tension between editors that either don't want rowspan used at all or who want rowspan use to be generally minimized (and I'd include myself here), and those who think the more rowspan there is in a table the better. My guess is that the ultimate solution will have to be done at the level of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, because how WP:FILMOGRAPHY editors approach use of rowspan, and how WP:DISCOGSTYLE editors approach use of rowspan is very different (nearly the opposite, actually), so again going "WikiProject by WikiProject" isn't likely to solve anything... In the meantime, what this all sets up is a situation like we have at this article where there's going to be a battle over the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the issue. And as there's no overarching guidance on this, this is going to happen at article after article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

what I would call "irresponsible" use of rowspan that not only makes a table impossible to read in a screenreader – it makes it difficult-or-impossible to comprehend to all readers!

Can I ask you to be a little more specific here about just which uses you have observed to break the ability of screenreaders to track. Because if you are correct about this, and this use you are talking about applies to this page, I might very well switch my !vote: WP:ACCESSIBILITY is a very important principle after-all. But if this is the case, it is certainly a recent (and thus confusing) change, because I have never observed a screen reader to be thrown by rowspan of any sort. And Aremgon has said above that no readers are thwarted by the particular table at play here, rowspan or not. Can the respondents get a little more clarity as to this point, because it is not a minor one for purposes of determining the best way forward and as I said before, my own stance could change, depending on what the actual implications are for this precise article. But given your wording above, it seems you may be talking in more general terms and not about the table in question here.

My guess is that the ultimate solution will have to be done at the level of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, because how WP:FILMOGRAPHY editors approach use of rowspan, and how WP:DISCOGSTYLE editors approach use of rowspan is very different (nearly the opposite, actually), so again going "WikiProject by WikiProject" isn't likely to solve anything...

Yes, you are absolutely correct about that and it is one major reason (among a large number of serious reasons) why the community has prohibited WikiProjects from creating their own rules and then attempting to enforce them as if they are policy: there isn't a single article on this whole project that doesn't reasonably fall into the subject of at least half a dozen WikiProjects, and plenty of articles could be of interest to dozens upon dozens of WikiProjects. So each WikiProject having its own set of style rules which it is allowed to treat as ironclad would be pure bedlam. But that's just the start of the reasons why we do not allow such projects to create their own style rules with the effect of policy.

So you are correct that if you want a standardized rule, MoS is your best bet. But I'll be honest: even there you're going to face an uphill battle, as the presumption at MoS is that you have to prove that your new proposed rule would solve more problems than it will cause if it becomes the default; for the most part, when it comes to issues at this level of granularity, the community of editors at MoS tend to prefer to leave the ultimate call to the local consensus on individual articles. Based on your last comment above, I can surmise that this is a cause of some vexation for you while working in this area. But there is a fair counter-question for you given your stance: are you sure that creating a standard approach of disfavouring rowspan won't create even more headaches across an even larger selection of articles? Because without meaning to be obstructionist to your view, I'm skeptical about whether you can create a rule which addresses your concerns but still leaves open all of the clearly for-the-better uses of rowspan that are necesary across hundreds of thousands of articles (at a minimum). But I'm not trying to discourage you here (far from it: if you really think this is the right rule, MoS is the place I recommend you take your argument, though you could also raise it at WP:VPP). I'm only saying that if you are going to make that argument, make sure you have your ducks in a row for the best possible argument for the necessity of the rule (and that the rule itself is as narrow as you can make it will still addressing the issues you see), as otherwise you're really tacking into the wind. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Snow, I'm about to go to bed, so I can't give you a long answer here. What I can tell you is that what is being proposed at this article is not the kind of rowspan that will cause problems for screenreaders. And in terms of "irresponsible use of rowspan" – I am currently not finding a good example of what I'm taking about. I've seen it most usually in 'Awards & Nominations' tables at various articles I've come across. I'll see if I can dig one up. But these are the kinds of examples of "overuse of rowspan" that leads to tables just being plum hard to read even for the general readership. Ultimately, I think there's going to need to be some groundrules set at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables about this, and ultimately, I think that's what I'm most interested in seeing happen... But, yeah – even this won't solve the other issue I was getting at – editors who plum don't like rowspan at all, versus those that like it a lot: with no overall guidance on this issue, we're going to continue to see low-level conflict between editors on the issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: you probably missed this, but I shared a recent thread above, I linked it here, regarding the use of rowspans and how they do not affect major screen readers. IJBall is just overgeneralizing the cons of using rowspans. Even IJBall admits that what I am proposing for this article is "not the kind of rowspan that will cause problems for screenreaders." So again, I don't understand the resistance here. I would understand if the proposal was to add rowspans to additional columns, but I only want to add rowspans to one column, the year column. Again, per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, is acceptable. Armegon (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the discussion in this section is less about your proposal, and more exactly when overuse of rowspan becomes a real problem generally. As has been stated multiple times, your proposal at this article is purely a WP:LOCALCONSENUS/WP:ILIKEIT-WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue. And, as we have already seen, more than one editor simply doesn't like 'rowspan' use in Filography tables, even in 'Year' column, which also reflects the general feelings on the subject among the WP:FILMOGRAPHY group. It may be "allowed", but it is generally not desired by a good chunk of editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

IJBall, let me start off by saying that I can appreciate where you are coming from with being frustrated by an issue where editors tend to sort into two extreme and dogmatic camps, each with far too strong a sense of the "one, proper path" and far too little sense of nuance and flexibility. This is indeed a perennial issue when it comes to many style issues on this project, and has particularly become associated with some of the most obnoxiously needless roving battleground issues that the community has had to step in and regulate. The explicit WP:advice pages rule actually arose out of a string of ArbCom cases in this area where entire WikiProjects had to be reigned in because two camps were going at it over some incredibly minor point of style or format.

However, that said, I think Armegon has a point you are not fully reckoning with: this just doesn't seem like the article to stake your position on, insofar as there is no real compelling reason why rowspan would be problematic for the table in question. You say above "more than one editor simply doesn't like 'rowspan' use in Filography tables, even in 'Year' column, which also reflects the general feelings on the subject among the WP:FILMOGRAPHY group. It may be "allowed", but it is generally not desired by a good chunk of editors.", but you've actually inverted the appropriate rule for how content issues are supposed to be resolved on this project in doing so. In sayin that Armegon's position is predicated in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, you are actually strengthening their position in doing so, because that is exactly how the matter should be resolved, under this project's rules. These matters are supposed to be evaluated by the local community of editors on any given article and to determine what works best in that context, without getting tied down by what worked best in a different article or context. And you're not meant to be pointing to what is the preferred version of a particular cadre of editors at a specific WikiProject, because they are expressly disallowed from aggregating their views and enforcing them over a broad-swath of articles. And this rule exists in part precisely because the larger community values the flexibility of the local consensus process. Your argument here really should be going more to the specifics of this article and what does and does not work here, without getting conflated with any larger policy objective you may have. Again, if you think your new rule will be useful over all similar articles, there is a WP:PROPOSAL process for codifying that approach, which you should avail yourself of. But in the meantime, arguing that there is a large group of editors out there that has the same perspective to you (or a similar one, or a third one altogether) is not just irrelevant to the content determinations on this article, it is actually problematic in procedural terms. And it just isn't the best way of winning over !votes, since many editors will interpret it as an argument from authority rather than an argument from first principles.

And furthermore, since I'm in the giving out advice mode, you have a much shorter route to victory here that works with the appropriate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS process: WP:STYLEVAR. For example, even though I think Armegon may be correct in that rowspan is useful here and is non-issue-causing for the table in question, had I come here in response to to a WP:3O and found you invoking STYLEVAR, I almost certainly would have said "Yeah, Armegon, IJBall is correct: this is a minor issue, it is best defined as a mostly style choice, and he is advocating for the earlier version; you should just let this go: it's too minor an issue and the value between the two approaches is too subjective." And I think, if this RfC closes as no consensus, that's where you two ought to go: you ought to agree to disagree, figuratively shake hands, and just accept the use of the older approach. It will be much simpler and will not pull in all of these extraneous extra arguments about what is happening on other articles, much of which are not great arguments, or are indeed even problematic from a policy/process perspective. Or at least, that's the best advice I can give you two for ending this deadlock in a manner that accords with policy and doesn't leave grievances. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting – I've never seen WP:STYLEVAR before. And I'm someone who invokes the similar WP:CITEVAR a lot. Yes – had I know about that, I probably would have mentioned it earlier in this discussion (i.e. before the RfC was launched...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I really like it, personally. I am sure there are some editors who find it onerous and arbitrary, but I think it is useful to provide a valve there that says, "Yes, you can get too nitpicky, and sometimes it's just easier to have first-in-time rule at a certain level of granularity and subjectivity. It can save some real time. One has to be careful where to apply it, of course. This case I would say is an clearly appropriate application, but it is getting towards the cusp--for example. It's a subjective editorial call, but then, it's meant to be used in circumstances where subjectivity is already inevitable. So in this case, I admit the question of whether or not the rowspan is useful vs. garish is one which is by nature quite a subjective determination that is hard to empirically verify with regard to either of its operative words. It's in these cases where having a default can save not just the advocate for the older position, but indeed everybody sometime. Sometimes one can begin to miss the forest for the trees here, and no issue can seem to small. But I would say its not so much about the size of the issue as the intractability of the issue. That's why STYLEVAR (like CITEVAR or LANGVAR) is good policy. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: So where do you stand now on the matter given the info provided so far? Armegon (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

My stance is still that which has been summarized in my above posts: personally I buy the proposition that the rowspan is a minimally useful addition to the table. I see no issue with the level of complexity it adds to the table: rowspan is wikitable 101 and is actually quite tame and basic compared to many other technical elements that are routinely implemented across most articles, but within and without tables. In fact, if we were going to talk about variability in formats across tables, I would say there is one consideration that has been left out of the previous discussion (that I saw anyway) is that we need a certain amount of diversity for our editorial corps to learn the technical ins-and-outs of the format: because there is always going to be a need for rare applications in some context. I learned a lot about markup languages I was previously completely unfamiliar with messing around with a table that needed to support some particular combination of elements, and that led to still more exploration of other adjacent technical matters, which has augmented my usefulness to the project. That's my big-picture view on the question of how universal the approach should be, and where rowspan fits in the continuum; though given what I have been stressing above, it would be hypocritical for me not to repeat that this is not really the correct forum for overarching issues. But in any event, I see no ancillary technical issues in the proposed syntax/implementation here, if I surmise it correctly.

But to advocate a little for IJBall's stance as well, the tables I cut my teeth on were not biographical articles by and large, and I also buy the argument that the style on such articles tends to be simpler. Now, I happen to think rowspan is in the sweet spot of barely being a divergence and having a certain obvious, but extremely minor readability advantage. I personally find it does convey a certain amount of information I would find useful as a reader of such an article. But it's definitely something I would classify as "reasonable minds could vary on this question". Which brings us to my ultimate stance: if anything qualifies for WP:STYLEVAR, this does; the overall difference to the functionality of the table and the article is quite minor at the end of the day. So even if I align with you on several of the central questions of this RfC, if you get anything less than a solid consensus result here, I would recommend conceding the matter. Arguments well made on both sides, but well past the point of diminishing returns. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 11:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Quiescent since 25 June. @Snow Rise and IJBall: Is there such a thing as a "snow no consensus" (jk). Should we request a closer, wait out the timer, or all just stagger home exhausted and flip on the telly? Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been over 30 days, so I think it can be closed now. I agree that this one is likely "no consensus", which would then default to WP:STATUSQUO at the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think the ball is really in Armegon's court on this one. Although I favour their reading of the content issue, I also think that the difference between versions is minor, and it probably makes most sense to just let the matter default to the status quo via a STYLEVAR rationale.

That said, they do have other options open to them: the RfC could technically be re-listed, for example, and that is not an uncommon course of action when the first 30 days have tolled and a very small number of people have responded. There's really no rush, and another 30 days and a relisting could (at least theoretically) significantly increase feedback. But that's not the course of action I would urge: instead, I would like to suggest two things with regard to the usefulness of that course of action: 1) the lack of feedback to date may be in part a result of most people who viewed the RfC finding it to be a very trivial matter, and if that is the case, a re-listing is probably not going to improve feedback much. And 2) even if a re-listing does get much more attention, I'm not sure this matter even warrants that degree of community involvement: the difference between the two proposed approaches is really very slight here. So I'd argue just dropping the matter and allowing the long-standing approach to the table to prevail.

For what it's worth, I'll reiterate that I still think Armegon has the right end of the stick as regards the content issue itself, and my !vote on that topic remains in support of their position. But at the same time the situation has gone well past the point of being worth any further community effort, whichever version is ultimately adopted. Of course, anybody is free to request a close at WP:AN to resolve the matter at any point now. But I think the simplest and most amiable way forward is to allow Armegon to decide where they want to go from here. And after-all, not every discussion needs a formal close, particularly if the label is just going to be "no consensus/default to status quo" anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't her "Years active" be "1984-present"?

Shouldn't her "Years active" line in the infobox be 1984-present? Famke started out as a fashion model in the 1980s and her article points out that she started her career in 1984 as a model. Famke_Janssen#Modelling_and_early_1990s. "In 1984, Janssen moved to the United States to begin her professional career as a fashion model."

Her X-Men costar Rebecca Romijn also began her career as model before eventually retiring from modelling as well. Rebecca's article states that she's been active since "1991-present", which is the year her page mentions that she began modelling: "Among other jobs, Romijn started her modeling career in 1991." So why is Famke's at 1992 (around the time she quit modelling) and not when she started her modelling career in 1984? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this specific issue, but if you are going to do it, you need to at least do it right:

1. Follow MOS:DASH and the rest of our MOS (like MOS:DATERANGE): it should be "1984–1992 (model)" and "1992–present (actress)", not "1984-1992 (Model)"/"1992-Present (Actress)" (which looks horrible).
2. Use the {{Plainlist}} template, as should always been done for "lists" in infoboxes.

This is how you properly add this to the infobox. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Failure Is Impossible Award

There's something wonky with the syntax of the news item linked to support the claim that Janssen won the Susan B. Anthony "Failure Is Impossible" Award in 2006. I suspect another award got conflated in there. The Festival's own website (now the High Falls Women's Film Festival) lists only Agnieszka Holland as the 2006 awardee. Powers ^T 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@LtPowers: When in doubt, remove the award from the table. If it's proven to be correct, it can always be added back later... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought about it, but it appears there's been some intense editing over that section of the article and I didn't want to overrevert or otherwise interfere. Powers ^T 14:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)