Talk:Fiona

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 13 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Noah.Hirshorn30.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Funen

Fiona is NOT the name for the Danish island Funen (Fyn. The Latin name is Fionia, not at all the same word.

Best regard, Hans Kiesow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.52.81.205 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 July 2007

Contradiction

Erm, got a contradiction here. It says that Fiona was both mentioned in a poem written in the mid seventeen hundreds, and was invented in the eighteen hundreds. Now, they can't both be true, can they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sparra (talk • contribs) 12:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. I've rewritten it to remove the contradiction. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction remains: the article still states that the name was invented by MacPherson, and at the same time asserts there's an Irish name Fiona unrelated to the Scottish one. As Scottish Gaelic is in fact a descendant of Irish Gaelic, there's no strong evidence MacPherson invented the name based on the stem "white" instead of taking one ready-made based on the stem "vine". It seems that the article just cites two independent sources without giving it a thought.83.149.45.250 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Dmitry

I have removed the William Sharp stuff from the lead and changed "coined" to "used"; what remains is at least accurate. The alternative is leaving in the "coined by William Sharp" part and removing everything that says it was used previously. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Fiona

Fiona is an Irish language name and to suggest otherwise is laughable. It is a feminine version of the ancient Irish language name Fionn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.175.62 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Russian name?

I notice there's a character called Fiona in Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, described as "a simple Russian peasant". If there is a Russian version of the name it presumably has a different origin? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fiona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105035409/http://www.llv.li/llv-as-publikationen-vornamen_neugeborenen.htm to http://www.llv.li/llv-as-publikationen-vornamen_neugeborenen.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fiona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209083419/http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2008/pr069-08.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2008/pr069-08.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Origins

Interesting series of tweets suggests the name "Fiona" was essentially unknown before the widespread popularity of the works of "Fiona MacLeod" (pseudonym of William Sharp, 1855-1905).

Notes, amongst other things, that the occurrence in "Ossian" (James Macpherson) is limited to "a very, very brief reference"; and to the extent that the name exists in Irish it has a different pronunciation ("FEE-na", rather than "fee-OH-na", which the writer asserts only goes back to Sharp.

Some further discussion by the tweet author here, but she does not back down on the widespread use of the name is essentially modern, post the use by William Sharp.

May be worth examining further, and then reviewing what is written in the artice. Jheald (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Not accurate information

Fionna is NOT the same name or origin as Fiona. This is a misunderstanding of the timeline of names. Fionna is MUCH older and has much more ‘fanciful’ lore surrounding it. There is correlation with the Fianna and Fionn McCool.

It is my name. The internet is trying to erase it’s history. I just had to say a thing. 2601:247:4480:D040:F5A9:77A1:F4E8:30E2 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Given name tag

I noticed the Tamara (given name) page has the given name tag in the title. As an outsider this seems useful. Should the page name be changed here as well? Czarking0 (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fiona/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: The Blue Rider (talk · contribs) 13:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm happy to take this on for review. I haven't reviewed any of these name articles before, so before I wrote my comments, I prepared by reading the good article on Femke and its respective review. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: Hey, it's been a week since I opened this. Are you still interested in seeing the review through? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, yes I am still interested. I will complete it next week. Thank you for your patience. The Blue Rider 22:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: Comments on the etymology section still need addressing. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is down so I will wait until it is back up to address the remaining points. Thanks and sorry for my delay. The Blue Rider 01:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: No bother, the archive takedown is affecting many of us. By the way, you should know there is a discussion on lists of names at the GAN talk page; it may affect this review. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead section is very short. Try to expand it by a couple more sentences, so you're covering more of the article than just its etymology.
  •  Done, someone removed the majority of the lead and provided no reasoning. I have restored the previous version.

Etymology

• Spotcheck:[1][2] pp. 99-100 verify its derivation from fionn, pp. 348-349 verify Fíona. Consider moving the references more inline with the information they're verifying, rather than bundling at the end.

•  Done

• Hanks & Hardcastle 2006, pp. 348-349 says that the Scottish Fiona has no connection with the Irish Fíona. If we're going to mention the Irish name and how "Fiona" is used as an anglicisation, we should probably bring up explicitly that they have distinct origins.
• Consider providing a link to an online version of Hanks & Hardcastle's dictionary.[1]

•  Done

• "In ninth-century Welsh and Breton language Fion [...]" What does any of this have to do with the Gaelic name Fiona? Welsh and Breton come from a separate branch of the Celtic languages, so I would expect an explicit connection to be provided rather than just implying they're connected because they look similar.
• "It was used" If you are ending the last paragraph with a sentence about a different word, you need to be explicit that you're referring to the name "Fiona" rather than just "It". Replacing with "The name" would provide more clarity.
  •  Done
• Page number for entry in Creswell's dictionary? (p. 96)
• Nothing about its connection to the Celtic name "Fionnuala/Fenella"? (per Creswell, p. 96)
• Nothing about how "Catharina" became "Fiona"?
• Page number for entry in Room's dictionary? (p. 240)
• Page number for entry in Pickering's dictionary? (p. 121)
• I see the other contractions in Pickering's dictionary, but not "Fee".
• Is BehindtheName.com really a reliable source? Where has Mike Campbell (site creator) gotten the information about these name equivalencies from? Do we not have any other sources for the connection of the name Fiona with these Welsh and Breton names?
• Page number for entry in Mark's dictionary? (Can't verify the page number myself as I don't have access to this)
• Consider providing a link to an online version of Mark's dictionary.[2]

•  Done

Popularity

• Page number for Fergusson's dictionary? (p. 85)

   Done

• Why are we not discussing Sharp's use of the name here? He appears to be the one responsible for popularising the name in English, so it seems odd he's only mentioned in the etymology section.

  Because there are no sources linking Sharp's use of the name and its popularity.

• Inline citations need to be provided for the details about Macpherson (verified in Hanks & Harcastle 2006, pp. 99-100 and Pickering 2004, p. 121) and its popularity surge in the 1960s (verified in Room 2002, p. 240 and Pickering 2004, p. 121).

   Done

• As the name came from Scotland, it might be worth putting the information about its popularity in Scotland first, before Germany. It then frames it as rather interesting that it has become more popular in German-speaking countries than its country of origin.
  •  Done
• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• "most popular baby names" drop the s from names
  •  Done
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [15] Verified.
• Link to The Courier (Dundee) in its citation wouldn't hurt.
  •  Done
• More details for the LVV citation would be nice, as it's currently unclear what this is pointing to (i.e. you're giving a statistic for 2022, but the archived version, which is the default link in the citation, is from 2013). LVV is the website, not the name of the source document, which appears to be something else.

   Done changed source for one that had information about 2023.

• You should properly credit the author Reto Fehr int he citation for the watson.ch article.

   Done

• You should properly credit the author Megan Watts in the citation for the NZ Herald article. A link to The New Zealand Herald wouldn't hurt either.

   Done

• We mention its peak popularity for New Zealand, but not for other countries. Also no mention of its placement in list of most popular names for New Zealand, while this is the default metric for other countries. It reads as odd to switch from one to the other and then back. It would be nice to see when it reached its peak popularity in other countries.

  Because there aren't sources describing the popularity throughout the years of the name Fiona, only for New Zealand. Would it be consider WP:OR if I went to look through the tables and describe how the name fluctuated throughout the years? @Grnrchst: The Blue Rider 19:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  I guess I have my answer: WP:ORMEDIA

• "it was the 287th most popular baby girl name, ranking in 287th" Redundant repetition of information. Also what year is this statistic from?

   Done

• Spotcheck: [17] Verified.
• "It has ranked among [...]" Clarify that you're still talking about the US here.
  •  Done
• How come the US gets three sentences of information while other countries only get one? Why is a single demographic in a single city given the same weight as whole countries? Isn't this undue?

  I found the article and thought I would add it; removed the sentence since it isn't that relevant, to be honest.

Notable people with the given name

• First entry is a hippopotamus, not a person... Already counted in the "Other" section, so uh, cut it here.
  •  Done
• These kinds of list function as disambiguations, so I don't think inline citations are required here.
  •  Done

Fictional characters

• This list is absurd. It is incredibly long, with 46 entries, only 3 of which are notable enough for their own articles. Some get sections in character lists, but many appear to be non-noteworthy side characters. This desperately needs a trim, as I really don't think it's helpful to list every Fiona one can think of in fiction. If we are keeping the people list down to the ones notable enough for their own articles, I don't see any reason why this list needs to be so long and full of non-notable fictional characters.
  •  Done, only maintained the notable ones.

Other

• No notes.

See also

• Consider adding a link to List of Scottish Gaelic given names.
  •  Done

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Judging by other GAs in this category, I think this article could get there as well, but it has issues that need to be sorted out before I can consider passing it. Give me a ping when you've seen to these comments and I'll give it another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is mostly good, with only a couple grammatical errors that are easily fixed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead needs to be longer. Two very short sentences aren't good enough.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All references are properly laid out. But some citations are lacking important details, including author credits, website names and page numbers.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Two sentences lack inline citations. Sources for the information exist so I don't see what reason there is for not citing them.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Doesn't appear to be any original research, all the information comes from cited sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyright violations or plagiarism, as far as I could see from my own spotchecks. Earwig doesn't flag any sections.[3]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There's some details missing from both the etymology and popularity sections that I think could be important for a reader.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Fictional characters list is unnecessarily long. There's some additional detail in the etymology section as well that I think has only tenuous relevance to the subject, unless a better source can be provided.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Completely neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   {{{1}}} Article no longer stable due to the actions of the nominator.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No images.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No images. Not sure if any would be more relevant that they would be undue (i.e. images of a specific Fiona).

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Unfortunately I'm going to have to mark this review as failed. For one, many of the comments in this review still haven't been addressed, even after two months of the review being opened, even as the nominator has continued in other areas of editing. But the main reason I'm marking this as failed is because it now fails to meet GA criteria 5 for stability. This isn't something I can overlook, as it is sadly the nominator's own doing. A couple days ago, while the review was still open, the nominator decided to remove entire sections of the article and boldly move the title of the article, without seeking any consensus. When these changes were reverted, they then proceeded to edit war over the issue, insulted the editors that opposed their changes and attempted to remove any talk page comments that didn't agree with them. This culminated with the nominator being blocked for sockpuppetry. This is a real shame, but I wouldn't feel right keeping this review open after all this. Once all of this has died down, re-nomination can be reconsidered. But as of today, this nomination clearly fails GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover) voorts (talk/contributions) 22:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Fiona → Fiona (name) – Per WP:PRECISE, and per WP:PARENTHDIS since there is an article called Fiona (hippopotamus) (which gets more pageviews) so disambiguation is needed. The Blue Rider 18:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: Fiona should be made a disambiguation page after the move. The Blue Rider 22:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Although the hippo gets more views, no one would expect the page name "Fiona" to refer to the hippo. O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Please base your rationale on WP:NC otherwise your oppose is invalid. The Blue Rider 21:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it does seem to be based on the article title policy, which discusses reader expectations in many ways. It would be nice if this casual no one would rather be quantified, but it's not a completely unreasonable assertion. --Joy (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  This editor has called people contesting this move "assholes" and deleted all "Oppose" comments in this RM because they said they were "null" after they butchered a huge portion of this article, so I'm not sure if they are really willing to discuss the move in good faith. RachelTensions (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Eep... I also noticed that in the meantime The Blue Rider was also blocked for a week. --Joy (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This makes no sense - the hippo is already listed at the name page so unless the hippo is outright primary topic then the name is already serving the role of a disambiguation page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It's silly to create a disambiguation page for the hippo when the hippo is already linked at this page, which is, in essence, already serving as a disambiguation page with a little extra fluff. The only circumstance it'd be appropriate to move this article to Fiona (name) is if we're moving Fiona (hippopotamus) to Fiona which isn't gonna happen. RachelTensions (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• The outcome of this would be to add another click for the readers who go to "Fiona" and want to read about all the other topics named Fiona that they get to with a single click nowadays. The topics of most interest named Fiona are seen in the mass views analysis from Fiona and these include biographies with 2,373 views / day, 2,175 / day, 1,243 / day, etc which is a far cry from the hippopotamus' 90 / day. It doesn't make sense to reorganize navigation to prefer minor topics just because some topics happen to be disambiguated naturally and some are disambiguated with parenthetical markers. There's no rationale posted about why a search for "Fiona" would be much more likely to refer to the hippo than to other topics. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's not apparent from page view statistics for some of these big items what that rationale would even be. Only when I went to a recent daily view like this is there any spike in interest in the hippo article, and that's very recent as well as still less in volume than the rest. --Joy (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• The name is probably primary by long-term significance as all the uses probably derive from the name and many are people (and a hippopotamus) named Fiona. The hippopotamus has 7,920 views, the singer has 2,477, the album has 198, the gastropod has 8 and the hurricane has 20,155[[4]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: The name (of the hippo) is obviously the primary topic. C F A 💬 02:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Think it's pretty clear that the name is the primary topic for the name. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very, very clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of names removal

@User:The Blue Rider please discuss large amounts of content removal on the talk page to establish consensus instead of continuously just removing it such as what you're doing with the removal of people with the name "Fiona". RachelTensions (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:UNSOURCED "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" so you are the one who needs to stablish consensus instead of restoring an unsourced, indiscriminative, irrelevant disambiguation list on a feminine given name article. The Blue Rider 21:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)