Talk:The Client (Star Wars)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Client (Star Wars)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk · contribs) 20:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take this one Cavie78 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Cavie78! — Hunter Kahn 16:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• Think it might be worth stating that he first appears in The Mandalorian in the lead
  • Do you mean the fact that his first appearance is the episode "The Mandalorian"? If you feel strongly I'll add it, but my preference would be not to do so. The first appearance is already covered in the infobox so I think it would be a bit redundant. Also, since he is only in a handful of episodes as it is, I don't know if we need to call the one out by name. (And if we do so, do we then have to mention his last one as well?) Also, leaving it out would be more consistent with how the other Mandalorian character articles are already written. But let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Appearances

• "informs the bounty hunter than the target" -> "informs the bounty hunter that the target"
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• "in which the Mandalorian returns with the captured Child" Suggest rewording to "in which the Mandalorian brings him the captured Child"
  • Yes, that is better. Changed. — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• "They devise a new plan in which Greef and his ally Cara Dune bring the Mandalorian to the Client as if he is a prisoner, after which they would assassinate him" Think it could be made clearer here that Greef and Mando intend to assassinate the client (it could be read as though Greef and Cara Dune plan to assassinate Mando)
  • I actually just removed the reference to Cara Dune altogether, as it really isn't necessary anyway. — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• "bringing along a transport" think it could be made clearer that this a cot-like transport rather than a ship
  • Changed to "compartment", though let me know if you have thoughts on a better word (or feel free to just replace it yourself if you have one). — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Characterization

• "nor had he ever before seen any Star Wars films" -> "nor had he seen any Star Wars films"
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Filming

• "Favreau and executive producer Dave Filoni shot scenes for the character both with and without the puppet, so they could replace the character with a CGI effect in post-production if the puppet did not look satisfactory." Replace one instance of "the character" with "the Child"
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• "After Herzog filming a scene with the Child" -> "After Herzog filmed a scene with the Child"
  • Oops, lol. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reception

• "and has a "unique cadence and screen presence" made him a good fit" -> "and has a "unique cadence and screen presence" which made him a good fit"
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Merchandise

• Ok

Images

• Look good with appropriate licences

Sources

• All look good
• There's a brief mention of Herzog's performance on the BBC website which you may, or may not, wish to include. It states that "It's a hoot to see [The Mandalorian] leaning into a chilly, German-accented character who wears the insignia of the Empire. The Mandalorian doesn't care; he's a mercenary." : http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20191112-star-wars-show-the-mandalorian-is-difficult-to-care-about
  • Thanks for finding this. I'm not sure it quite fits anywhere; the closest might be adding the "hoot" line to the Reception section, though it's less a statement about the character and more about Mando's interaction with him, and I'm not sure it adds much in any event, so I've left it out for now. — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Great article - my concerns are only minor. Placing on hold for now Cavie78 (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing the review, Cavie78! — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hunter Kahn My point regarding the lead was simply to say "who first appears in the Disney+ television series The Mandalorian", but I take your point. Thanks for writing such an interesting article, happy to promote

Requested move 7 March 2022

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) 16:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

---

The Client (Star Wars) → Client (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 mysterious Imperial who keeps a low profile in a safehouse on Nevarro, the Client is the face behind an otherwise faceless bounty, an off-the-record assignment with a high value.". Axem Titanium (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME, and Talk:The Mandalorian (character). The credits do not say "Client", they say "The Client". The sentence is "A mysterious Imperial who keeps a low profile in a safehouse on Nevarro, the Client is the face behind an otherwise faceless bounty, an off-the-record assignment with a high value.", not "A mysterious Imperial who keeps a low profile in a safehouse on Nevarro, Client is the face behind an otherwise faceless bounty, an off-the-record assignment with a high value." MandoWarrior (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Oppose: Axem Titanium I remember you. You pulled this in 2020 too. Paraphrasing the response from JDDJS: "He is referred to as "the Client" in most media, not just Client. Also including "the" makes it clear that it's about a specific Client, and not just clients in general." Separately, Client (Star Wars) looks ridiculous as a title. Poindextero (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok and? What part of your reasoning comports with policies and guidelines? Where does JDDJS say this? It's certainly not on this page; his comment below points to yours circularly. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to ignore WP:PAG. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Poindextero pretty much sums it up. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment JDDJS: I am seeing that Axem Titanium has done the same thing at Talk:The Armorer too. Poindextero (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You and Poindextero are circularly referring to each others' comments without actually putting forth an argument based on WP:PAG. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. It seems like the removal of the "the" is what policy dictates, and none of the oppose comments above seem to address the actual policy guidelines Axem Titanium has brought up with regards to the definite article, specifically WP:NCTHE. 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, as mentioned above. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a little frustrated by the speedy discussion at the Mandalorian page because it was closed in under 24 hours without even a {{ping}}. I referenced WP:NCTHE in my move rationale so I don't appreciate being impugned as doing an "undiscussed move" without even a chance to respond. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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." Client on its own could just refer to anyone who was a client 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) 18:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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. If a reader were looking for clients 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 clients in general, but not this Client, is a tortured line of argument. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Neocorelight. It reads better because it indicates a specific character instead of an occupation. Hamzabdul (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Hamzabdul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose. I think WP:NCTHE is being misquoted here. Both conditions for including the The are met... and we only even needed one of them. Andrewa (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2022 (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.