Jump to content

Talk:The Armorer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Armorer 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 starThe Armorer 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
May 9, 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 March 5, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Emily Swallow did not know that she was auditioning for a Star Wars television series when she tried out for the part of the Armorer?
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Lee Vilenski (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Hunter Kahn (talk). Self-nominated at 14:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article moved from user space over redirect on 11 February 2020. Plenty long enough at 32586 characters (5487 words) readable prose size. It cites reliable sources with inline citations and meets other core policies. Earwig's Copyvio tool indicates a possible violation but this is caused by direct quotes in the article [[1]]. All hooks are shorter than 200 characters and are cited in the article. I couldn't access all the sources however, hence the AGF. Are they interesting to a broad audience? Star Wars is a popular thing so I suppose so. I'm not into Star Wars but I am a martial artist so my preference would be ALT2. Whatever nominator and co-ordinators think though.--Ykraps (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk · contribs) 17:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have a look at this Cavie78 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "deliberately-paced movement" (see also - Conception). Seems a bit odd. The source(s) says "deliberateness of movement", which I'm not sure is entirely the same thing.
  • "very impactful" Not entirely sure what you mean by this
  • "among the creators of the Armorer" (see also - Conception) So who were the other creators?
    • Well, it's worded that way specifically because the source identifies Favreau as one of the creators, but it doesn't specifically state he is the only creator. So I thought it was safer and more accurate to describe him this way rather than calling him the creator, which indicates it he and he alone created the character. But let me know if you think this should be reworded. — Hunter Kahn 21:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no problem. Happy to promote now - congrats on another GA! Cavie78 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances

Characterization

Concept and Creation

Conception

  • "particularly in the character's" -> "especially in the character's" (to avoid repetition of particularly in the same sentence

Portrayal

Costume

  • "Swallow called an "incredible process"" -> "Swallow called it an "incredible process""

Filming

  • "was not provided a detailed backstory" -> "was not provided with a detailed backstory"
  • " filming in the actual sets" -> " filming on the actual sets"
  • "on a sound stages" -> "on sound stages"
  • "who directed in "Chapter 8: Redemption" -> "who directed "Chapter 8: Redemption""
  • "the Aromrer doesn't really fangirl" -> "the Armorer doesn't really fangirl"

Cultural impact

Critical reception

Merchandise

  • Ok

Images

  • All ok, with appropriate licences

Sources

  • All seem good
Good work again Hunter Kahn. A few things to clear up, but nothing major. Putting on hold for now Cavie78 (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the majority of changes Hunter Kahn, but you seem to have missed the Costume and Filming sections? Cavie78 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Mary Kim

[edit]

Stunt performer Lauren Mary Kim discusses the fight scene as the Armorer as part of a video reacting to other stunts.[2] She repeats some things that have already been mentioned (that the figthing style was Kali/Escrima etc) but I don't think it has been mentioned elsewhere that the scene was filmed by the 2nd unit and directed by Dave Filoni. The relevant part of the video runs from 5 minute mark to about 8 minutes, as the conversation moves on to other topics. -- 109.77.210.97 (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kim the it was the hardest fight scene she'd ever done (because of the armor) and it was filmed repeatedly from multiple angles but as as one long single take.
I want to add this to the article already but I was still hoping to find a secondary reference that is text rather than video. -- 109.76.214.105 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

I have not officially marked this article to be of questionable notability, primarily because I am a new editor and do not know how, but also because I do not think it is harmful for this article to exist. However, I would question why this particular character, who appears in only a handful of scenes, has such a detailed page compared to characters in this and other franchises. Scansoriopteryx (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia idea of "notable" and what people think of as notable are not necessarily the same thing, but also pages are created by people who are interested enough to put in the time and effort. All the details are in the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Editors have put in a lot of work find sources and to achieve "Good article" status and as you say there's no harm in this article existing. The lack of detail for other franchises or tv series compared to this one doesn't make this article any more or less notable, and plenty of editors already complain that pop-culture articles get far more care and attention than articles about science or important historical topics.
Good articles (and Feature articles) are often still far from perfect so if there are flaws you can still point them out, usually by adding {{Citation needed}} (if something does not have a reference) or {{Better source needed}} (if something has a low quality reference such a fansite instead a more reliable source). -- 109.76.214.105 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 March 2022

[edit]
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 Mike Cline (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Armorer → Armorer (Star Wars) – Per WP:NCTHE, the leading "The" is discouraged. Specifically, If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the Wikipedia article name. Otherwise, do not. In official sources, including StarWars.com, the definite article in the character's name is not capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence, e.g. "A little like the Armorer herself, Cimino designs unique, highly-detailed, and often articulated pieces of jewelry". On this page, the article is actually split from the noun as well, "Hidden far below the surface of the planet Nevarro, the deftly skilled Armorer's cryo-furnace still burns". Axem Titanium (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME, and Talk:The Mandalorian (character). The credits do not say "Armorer", they say "The Armorer". That second sentence is basic grammar. One would not say "the deftly-skilled The Armorer", but that does not go against them being named "The Armorer". Pretty much all of the articles on the character also refer to "The Armorer" as portrayed by Emily Swallow (with Lauren Mary Kim), not "Armorer". MandoWarrior (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCTHE explicitly discusses this situation. Since "the" is not capitalized in the middle of a sentence when referring to the character, the "the" should be omitted from the title. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mainly because the inclusion of disambiguator "(Star Wars)". The character's name is way too vague and generic that I wouldn't think the name "the Armorer" is exclusively for the Mandalorian character. Neocorelight (Talk) 20:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neocorelight The main point of this debate is whether "the" should be included in the title. The inclusion of Star Wars in the alternate title is just a side effect of it being less precise. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree the inclusion of (Star Wars) is making it less precise. If anything it makes the subject unambigous to readers before opening the article. I have no opinion on the inclusion of "the". Neocorelight (Talk) 01:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neocorelight So having no opinion on the inclusion of "the", you would just as much support a move to The Armorer (Star Wars) as Armorer (Star Wars)? It does not matter to you either way? Poindextero (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poindextero, after reading it side-by-side I think "The Armorer (Star Wars)" read better because it indicates a specific character instead of an occupation. But again, I have no strong opinion on it. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neocorelight This move discussion is about the "The", and will likely be moved to "The Armorer (Star Wars)" anyway: so you would be opposed to "Armorer (Star Wars)" in favour "The Armorer (Star Wars)", even if not particularly strongly? Poindextero (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained my opinion, and it was clear. Geez, stop asking me to reiterate it. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other fictional characters called "The Armorer" they could be confused with? Poindextero (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can name any specific characters that this could be confused with, I would not at all be opposed to adding (Star Wars) to the title. But as far as I know, there really aren't any other popular characters that this could be confused with. There's already a link for the actual profession, and I think that the number of people looking for the profession who would include "the" in their search is extremely small. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that there needs to be for this move to take place, but there appears to be a minor Marvel comics character, a character in No Man's Sky, a character in Person of Interest, etc. The move as requested is within policy regardless of the existence or nonexistence of other characters called "the Armorer". Axem Titanium (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, there does need to be, but that should be enough (as long as they are mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia). Poindextero (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It seems like the removal of the "the" is what policy dictates per WP:NCTHE and I don't see adequate arguments why we should not follow it. Mirroring my comments over at Talk:The Client (Star Wars), there should probably be a discussion about "The" Mandalorian too, since none of the discussions over there have specifically focused on the "The" besides a speedy revert after it was removed in December 2020. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I'm frustrated the speed of the discussion at the Mandalorian page because it was closed in under 24 hours without even getting a {{ping}}. People here are pointing to it as if I did something wrong but I (correctly) referenced WP:NCTHE in my move rationale so I don't appreciate being painted as doing an "undiscussed move" without even a chance to respond. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCTHE states "If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the term without the article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article." Armorer on its own could just refer to anyone who makes armor in Star Wars. Adding "the" to the title makes it clear that the article is about a specific character. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCTHE cautions There are some situations where they are warranted, but many where they are not. When used inappropriately, they violate common usage, only serving as noise words. More importantly, this can cause problems with the length of the name, the quick search function, and sorting. Due to these problems, the default rule is to exclude them, which indicates that the potential for confusion must be extraordinary to warrant including an extraneous in/definite article in the title. By your own logic above, there would need to be at least one other character in Star Wars with the name of Armorer for there to be any confusion on the matter. If a reader were looking for armorers in general in Star Wars, then that confusion would be dispelled instantly by reading the first line of the article. Inventing an imagined reader who is looking for armorers in general, but not this Armorer, is a tortured line of argument. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Armorer&oldid=1205133606"