Talk:Cara Dune

Difficult english
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)
 * "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)
 * (diff). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Nickname in lead
Per WP:DIMINUTIVE, we avoid placing common hypocorisms between double quotation marks in the lead sentence following the given name. "Cara" cannot be a hypocorism since "Carasynthia" is a completely made-up name (synthetic—synthia?). The alternative would be to mention the nickname after the full name: 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: —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC) edited 07:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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 say "Alex is a common diminutive of Alexandra" in this edit. Kailash29792  (talk)  05:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thinking more about the arguments from WT:MOSBIO, I'm leaning more toward omitting "Carasynthia" from the lead sentence altogether, e.g.:See related discussion at Talk:Bart Simpson. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

Unique
Words have meanings, they are not arbitrary! I am skeptical of any wording that claims something is "" 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, 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)

Citations in first section
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)
 * , 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)

See below section, named. CapnZapp (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD -- 109.79.175.98 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not verified in body

 *  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) 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)
 * Ever wonder where you left your glasses only to realize they were on your head all along? User Nimoy was mistaken 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)