Talk:Captain Phasma

Notability
I can understand there being articles for Kylo Ren, Rey, Finn, Poe Dameron and BB-8... but do we really need an article for Captain Phasma? She is such a minor character in the film and isn't exactly pivotal to the plot. Considering she has the scope comparable to the many Imperial officers, I believe we should simply merge the content with List of Star Wars characters. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A fair enough point, but I'm of the opinion that, compared to say General Hux (who probably has a bigger role in the film overall) Phasma has received more coverage and attention -- and thus notability -- regardless of her incredibly minor role. Admittedly, I don't think the article really establishes this yet, though it's still in a bit of a barebones expanding form right now. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I won't be personally bringing this up for formal discussion, as this article doesn't really concern me terribly. Just, yes, beyond some coverage about the philosophy of her design and what-not, I don't see much merit for this article to exist. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree this does not warrant an article yet, but perhaps it will become more notable with the next films. In any case, Phasma should not redirect here, it is a genus of stick insect (Phasmatodea), no doubt the primary topic. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because being "pivotal to the plot" has almost nothing to do with notability. This character has generated a lot of discussion and buzz, first just from the chrome costume, then of course regarding the casting of Christie (she's popular from Game of Thrones) and the whole female villain angle, etc. etc. Even criticism from reliable sources that she was only in the film for a short time attributes to her notability. I'm not saying this article is complete and won't be better once more films come out, but the character is clearly notable enough for an article. As far as the stick bug redirect, the only time "phasma" is actually used in that article on its own is the phrase "The group's name is derived from the Ancient Greek φάσμα phasma". The genus is not mentioned, and I don't see it as the current primary topic if there isn't an existing article. Per the principle of least astonishment, I think most people looking for "Phasma" will be expecting this article (otherwise there would likely be a Phasma article already), and typing phasma in the search box will pull up Phasmatodea anyway. But a hatnote may be appropriate.— TAnthonyTalk 13:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, to I added a hatnote linked to Phasmatodea almost immediately after writing this.— TAnthonyTalk 20:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a late reply. I also think it's highly debatable to say she's a "clearly notable" character, considering the majority of the content for this page concerns toy sales and other forms of marketing. Though, this could turn out to be a character that becomes notable over time, like Boba Fett. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same article? There are like three sentences about merchandising. The rest is about the development of and reaction to the character.— TAnthonyTalk 00:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly think that Phasma should be included--as an example of a character that apparently was simply created to fulfill the "looks cool, should sell a lot of action figures" part of the Disney/Star Wars machine. What a waste of a great actor--and possibly a great character--but with no attention given to her backstory, and a bare minimum of appearances, how could she be?161.165.196.111 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This article should be merged\deleted
The only reason for this article being here is over-hype over the Episode VII film. Though I am sure that this article will eventually disappear in a couple of years after the hype is gone, it really saddens me to see that apparently the Wikipedia is not yet mature enough to distinguish between a truly encyclopedic topics and the ones influenced by some short living passing trends. There is no place on a general encyclopedia for the article on a minor character of some pop-culture franchise, appearing for a few minutes in a single film, there exists the Wookipedia for such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.111.27.109 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You said it yourself, there was much hype over the film and the character for various reasons (as discussed above), and discussion in reliable media sources is a primary foundation of notability. In this particular case, we're talking about the most famous science fiction franchise ever and possibly the most famous media franchise period, casting only its third and fourth women in speaking roles (Phasma and Rey, after Leia and Mon Mothma in previous films), notwithstanding the female stormtrooper angle. There are plenty of starter articles for non-notable characters, but this is not one of them.— TAnthonyTalk 18:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Seeing no point in trying to persuade anyone (I am sure that this particular article satisfies all of the current notability requirements), just to clarify my position: I think, that, in the long-term perspective, even the article for the film itself (Episode VII) should and will be cleared of all the current hype and insignificant details, or even be merged into a single list of countless (surely to come) Star Wars sequels - this film possesses no cultural significance of its own whatsoever, being a totally unoriginal, fan-servicing money making machine (and not to say that you just cannot create the same thing twice, which it appears they are trying to do) - unlike the original Star Wars of course, significance of which I will not deny. And maybe in some future, Wikipedia will be mature enough to filter out such articles from the start, without requiring years-long lags, but apparently not just yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.205.243 (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Cultural significance" is subjective and can only be quantified by people and their individual opinions, while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics. Now I see that you simply think it was a bad movie, and anything not up to certain standards is undeserving of an article. That's not how Wikipedia works, and if that's your general argument I wouldn't expect anyone to take it seriously. Thanks though.— TAnthonyTalk 19:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually do not think of it as being a "bad" film, I think of it as just being not significant on its own, but only in the context of the "Star Wars phenomenon", that is, derivative.


 * Again, I am sure that this topic could be considered "notable" by the current Wikipedia standards (I will not take it to myself to judge it). But this notability (as I understand ) comes from the topic of the article in question being mentioned in the so-called notable sources, and these mentions, in turn, come from the hype on the topic of the film itself. As I said in my first post, it just saddens me that current wikipedia policy does not differentiate between the "significant" notability, and this "hype induced" one.


 * The last thing I want to say - I am sure, that if we come back here, say, in 10 years, there will be no separate article about "Captain Phasma", or maybe even about "Episode VII", it is just sad that 10 years must pass before this happens, as this seems so clear now already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.206.72.50 (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Future appearances / What happened to Phasma?
Seasons greetings all, it's that time of the year again when they release Star Wars films. For those that have seen The Last Jedi, you know that Phasma ended it falling down a considerable height into a firey inferno. In real life, pretty deathly, in fiction, a bit ambiguous; so best to get it all sorted out now, I say. As far as official Word of God goes, the answer to whether Phasma died seems to be a pretty vague 'maybe'. Could come back, might not. That being the case, I think it's probably best to play it safe and avoid saying anything definitive. Right now the article says she 'falls to the flames' and that works for me. It's probably worth keeping in mind that, as far as last appearance and stuff goes, she also might end up appearing in some other EU comics or books or whathaveyou. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Captain Phasma costume.jpg