Talk:Cara Dune

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCara Dune has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starCara Dune is part of the Characters from The Mandalorian series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2020Good article nomineeListed
September 26, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 8, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Jon Favreau created the role of Cara Dune in The Mandalorian with former mixed martial artist Gina Carano in mind, and did not audition any other actresses for the role?
Current status: Good article
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Hunter Kahn (talk). Self-nominated at 15:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: -- RoySmith (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cara Dune/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 14:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • Any link for "shock trooper"?
    • It doesn't appear this is an item in any Star Wars lists or anything, so I'm not sure there's an appropriate wikilink for it... — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " creator and showrunner Jon Favreau created" creator ... created is repetitive.
    • Changed the first "created" to "conceived".
  • "a strong ... other strong " repetitive.
    • Changed the second strong to "powerful". — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mandalorian,[1] Although" punctuation fail.
  • " first Star Wars (1977) film" would it not be best to say chapter IV? I understand this is awkward...
    • It seems there has been a lot of debate on the Star Wars (film) talk page about whether that article should be titled Star Wars (the original title of the movie) or Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope or some variation of that, and that the consensus reached there has been the former. Given that, I figured I'd stick with that naming convention here as well. But if you feel strongly otherwise, I'd be open to changing it. — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in the film Return of the Jedi (1983)." again, I'm not sure we need "the film" nor the year, as that's not really relevant to Dune's story arc.
  • "a "shock trooper" was" in quotes this time?
    • Yeah, not sure why I did that. LOL Removed the quotes. — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " riots,[4][2][8] " order.
  • " meets the Mandalorian on " I may be wrong but have you thus far linked the character of the Mandolorian?
    • You are right. I added a bit of context to that sentence; if you think the changed sentence needs any tweaks, let me know or feel free to tweak it yourself. — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They reconcile and ultimately join forces with him" no need for "with him" unless him is supposed to be someone else?
    • Yeah I think that's just a sentence fragment I accidentally left in after I was reworking the sentence. Erased "with him". — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Klatooinian alien species" no need for "alien" here. Who isn't an alien in Star Wars??
    • LOL Fair enough; removed. — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link AT-ST (or explain it).
  • "Cara is initially ..." lots of "Cara" in this paragraph, could mix it up a little with "she" when the subject is unambiguously her.
  • ""Chapter 8: Redemption"," you've already linked this.
  • " the droid IG-11 arrives " perhaps "after IG-11, the bounty hunter droid, arrives" to avoid sea of blue.
  • Link stormtroopers?
    • Huh, I thought I had done that. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as show" shown.
  • "introduced.[4][15][9]" order.
  • " "a bit of a loner",[3][11][12]" three refs for one fact?
  • "it's" avoid contractions.
    • Reworded the sentence slightly and removed the contraction. — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "doesn't " ditto.
  • "the Star Wars universe" italics for Star Wars?
  • "created by Jon Favreau, the creator" created/creator again.
  • "were made character." public?
  • " featured teaser footage featuring" featured/featuring
    • Changed the second one to "with". — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discussion/discussing" again.
  • "designed/designer" again.
    • I'm struggling with how to fix this one. I don't think I can change "costume designer" since that's his title. But I don't want to change "designed" to "created" or something because that could create confusion about whether he designed the costume or actually sewed and constructed the costume itself. Any thoughts? Or maybe just this once we're better off leaving the slight repetition in for the sake of being as clear as possible? — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "distinctive silhouette" quick repeated.
    • Removed the second reference to silhouette. — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that will be revealed later in the series" was it? I don't recall it being noted in the Appearances section.
    • I mean to say it will be revealed in future seasons. I changed the sentence to make this more clear.
  • "performances."[26][16] " order.
  • "Carano's introductory" again, quite a few "Carano" starts, maybe "Her introductory" (for instance) where it's completely unambiguous.
  • "fantastic" fantasy?
  • " to make the end " mark?
  • And if she's filmed the second season, doesn't that make "The character is slated to return for the second season of The Mandalorian.[4][16]" somewhat redundant, i.e. she will return?
    • Changed to "she will return". — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gina Carano has been received" No need for Gina. And start following sentence with She rather than Carano again.

That's all I have on this first run through. A thoroughly enjoyable read, thank you. It's on hold while we tweak the above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Kahn any chance you'll be on these comments within the next few days? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rambling Man Apologies for not getting to this right away! Had some real life stuff going on that kept me away, but I should be able to be more responsive moving forward. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult english[edit]

Sorry for my limited english. In the first paragraph it says "portrayed by actress and former mixed martial artist Gina Carano. She is a former Rebel shock trooper turned mercenary and eventually marshal for the New Republic.". Does this mean that Gina Carano is a a former Rebel shock trooper - or does it mean that the fictional charachter is a shock trooper? I would assume the last, but my english understanding is that both interpretations are linguistically correct. Anyonw who knows, with certainty? (I do not follow the series, I know nothing about it). Best Regards --Janwikifoto (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"She is a former Rebel shock trooper" the pronoun She in this case is referring to the character of Cara Dune, not Gina Carano. I think most English speakers would know that from context, and anyone even vaguely familiar with Star Wars would know that "Rebel" refers to the good guys, and is a therefore it is clearly a character description.
I supposed editors could avoid any ambiguity by writing "Cara is a former Rebel shock trooper" but the editor who wrote that section probably thought it was clear enough and didn't want to repeat the character name every time. (I don't like how "former" is repeated in both sentences, but I'm not going to rephrase that either.) -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed (diff). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname in lead[edit]

Per WP:DIMINUTIVE, we avoid placing common hypocorisms between double quotation marks in the lead sentence following the given name. "Cara" cannot be a common hypocorism since "Carasynthia" is a completely made-up name (synthetic—synthia?). The alternative would be to mention the nickname after the full name:

Carasynthia Dune, known as Cara Dune, is a fictional character in the Star Wars franchise ...

This seems clunky, especially since nearly all sources just use the nickname. WP:MOSBIO also relates mainly to biographies of real people, not fictional characters. So if the rule applies at all (doubtful), I think it's better to ignore it for the sake of concision and clarity, and simply write:

Carasynthia "Cara" Dune is a fictional character in the Star Wars franchise ...

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC) edited 07:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a common but made up name. But I still did that because it sounded like an obvious diminutive. Perhaps I was wrong, unless Carasynthia becomes a common name in the real world. Hopefully it is not mandatory/compulsory to shoehorn common/obvious diminutives to fictional characters, it would be terribly superfluous. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "shoehorn". All the sources on the page refer to the character as "Cara" or "Cara Dune". It's simply the most common name. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is a character not a living person. Her credited name is Cara Dune and that's what should be highlighted. That her full name was later detailed does not matter, and we should not emphasize it, same as we should not emphasize Sheev Palpatine. -- 109.78.201.221 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's a retcon if it's mentioned in the first season of the series itself. Was there a break in continuity that was solved by giving the character that name? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sangdeboeuf, alright I was wrong because WP:DIMINUTIVE comes under MOS:BIOGRAPHY which is about real people only. I just wished there was a similar guideline that applied for characters. Because it looks clunky to see an obvious nickname appearing quoted within the full name, when the nickname is the article title. That's why I wouldn't begin an article with Philip J. "Phil" Coulson or Leopold James "Leo" Fitz. This was discussed here. It all started when I saw Joeyconnick say "Alex is a common diminutive of Alexandra" in this edit. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'd rather not have to state the character's name twice in the lead sentence. If we must have the full name there, then it's probably better to omit the nickname, whether common or not. Although in general I agree with the sentiments in that discussion that there should be no presumption that fictional characters are treated by the standards developed for real people and full names are often obscure and rarely mentioned trivia. The latter is certainly true in this case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more about the arguments from WT:MOSBIO, I'm leaning more toward omitting "Carasynthia" from the lead sentence altogether, e.g.:

Cara Dune is a fictional character in the Star Wars franchise ...

See related discussion at Talk:Bart Simpson. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Carasynthia should be mentioned in the lead at all. She's credited as Cara and called Cara throughout the show. A mention in the Background section should be plenty. -- 109.76.141.220 (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protect[edit]

If an admin is reading this, can someone protect this page? It’s been getting way too many vandalism edits. PedigreeWWEFigz87V2 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can file a request at Requests for page protection. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unique[edit]

Words have meanings, they are not arbitrary! I am skeptical of any wording that claims something is "unique" and the intro for this article claimed that Cara was "unique among the Star Wars franchise's female characters due to her physicality and combat skills." That seems a little hyperbolic to me and bothered me but I left [[well enough alone until now. I think there is probably room for improvement, while still praising the physicality that Carano brought to the role.

I mention it now because an anonymous editor rewrote that text without any explanation,[1] changing it from "unique" to almost that exact opposite by claiming it represented the "typical" strength of female characters in Star Wars. To completely change the meaning of the sentence requires at least some discussion. One could argue that the strength of character is typical, the physicality of the performance was still unusual.

I think it might be better to avoid the word "unique" but I don't think the rewrite claiming it was "typical" was quire right either. (I've other things to do, so again I'm going to settle for the WP:STATUSQUO but) If someone wants to change the wording please discuss first. -- 109.78.195.245 (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in first section[edit]

Seems like the opening section of this page could use some citations. It also seems like this point might be in contention. I'm open to hearing discussion on this matter. Nimoy007 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nimoy007, MOS:LEADCITE says, in part, The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. What in the lead is challenged or likely to be challenged? That she got fired after some tweets? Everyone can agree on that. Whether the firing was appropriate or not is another matter, which we do not tackle here per WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See below section, named #Not verified in body. CapnZapp (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEAD -- 109.79.175.98 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not verified in body[edit]

many articles, including the bulk of featured articles, do not contain any citations in the lead, because the lead section in them is used to summarize the content in the body of the article, which already contains citations for the summarized content.

This is the ideal. Rather than using the (previously applied) {{Unreferenced section}} cleanup tag, it is better to more generally draw attention to the fact that these claims are not sourced in the body of the article - in fact they are not even discussed in the body of the article.

Never state something in the lead only. Everything in the lead should be an introduction to something discussed in the body of the article.

Specifically:

  • add text in the body that discusses the reception of the character (and source these claims)
  • add sources to back up any description we use for the character
  • discuss the controversy surrounding the character (and its actress), even if only to summarize what is discussed in more detail elsewhere (such as on the Gina Carano page), providing sources wherever necessary (again possibly taking them from those other pages)
  • finally the same for the decision to neither have Carano return as Dune, nor recast the role.

Do not simply add sources to the tagged lead sentences. That only does half the job! CapnZapp (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ever wonder where you left your glasses only to realize they were on your head all along? User Nimoy was mistaken[2] the lead section summarizes the article body (see also WP:LEAD) and the information that was being challenged seems to be fully covered by the Portrayal section with all the necessary references. -- 109.79.175.98 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cara_Dune&oldid=1212513565"