Talk:Rose Tico

"Reception" section needed

The character biography is pretty solid, but I think we need a critical reception section covering the response the character received from critics and audience members. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018

I think we should mention what happened with Tran and the fandom 207.172.180.75 (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Page created from previous redirect

This page had been changed to a redirect last year. At the time, the article was largely plot summary with no sources or citations. I've now expanded it substantially, with multiple sources that establish notability, and I plan further expansions and improvements to the article in upcoming days/weeks. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"Portrayed by" and "Voiced by" infobox fields

This is a minor issue, but since it keeps getting changed, I thought I'd seek a WP:CONSENSUS here rather than risk an edit war over a relatively trivial item. An IP user keeps adding Kelly Marie Tran's name to the "voiced by" field of the character infobox of this page. My understanding is this is not necessary as Tran is already listed in the "portrayed by" field, and this is not an animated character or stop-motion animation performance, but rather simply a live-action performance by an actress, and so the "voiced by" field is redundant and unnecessary. Obviously if the character were played by one actor but the voice was dubbed by another, then including the other actor in the "voiced by" field would be necessary. Looking over a random sampling of other fictional characters at GA or FA status, I didn't find any where another live-action performance included the actor in both "portrayed by" or "voiced by". So I ask you all: does the "voiced by" field need to also include Tran's name, or should it be left blank? — Hunter Kahn 12:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's unnecessary. The parameter is clearly only meant for instances where there is a specific, off-screen, vocal performer. Jellyman (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Leave it blank. Adding it is redundant and adds clutter to a page element that is intended to be an easy read. --EEMIV (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I've removed this article from my watchlist now that the edit is done and seems stable. Please holler on my or the wikiproject talk page if the question reoccurs. --EEMIV (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Renamed "Backstory" section to "Cobalt Squadron"

Pinging UpdateNerd to discuss this since I'm making this change in response to his edits. He had [1] moved the content of previous "Backstory" section (which was before "The Last Jedi" in the Appearances section) down to the "Other media" section, saying in the edit summary "backstory is covered in 'other media', otherwise we appear to present things from an in-universe persepctive". I don't disagree with the intent behind the edit. However, I suggest a different solution: I moved the content back up, but renamed the "Backstory" section "Cobalt Squadron", the name of the novel that fleshes out her backstory. I believe this solves the "in-universe perspective" problem. Besides which, all of the Backstory content comes from that novel anyway, and it's very appropriate for Cobalt Squadron to be its own subsection since Rose is the protagonist of the novel. I believe it makes sense for this section to come before The Last Jedi in the Appearances section because 1) it's providing her backstory, so it makes more sense chronologically (from an in-universe perspective) that it's first, 2) the novel came out simultaneously with the movie, so it's makes sense chronologically from a real-world perspective as well, and 3) some of The Last Jedi section as its written now assumes content from the previous Backstory section is already understood to the reader, so this will eliminate the need to go back and revise that text. Let me know if you (or anyone else!) have any thoughts on this. Thanks. — Hunter Kahn 19:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Think my attempted edit was better, but Cobalt Squadron could definitely use its own subsection under "Other media". There's no reason to attempt to introduce backstory chronologically (i.e. in-universe). Instead the most well-known/primary media should be presented first. More interested fans can find out the backstory/spin-offs in the "Other media" section. See almost any other article on a Star Wars character. Moreover, the "Character biography" section title is too close to "Characterization", plus it panders to an in-universe POV. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly fine with renaming the "Character biography" section to "Appearances" per your original edit, I just overlooked that edit before and have restored it now. I still personally prefer this order/structure, and would rather keep the Cobalt Squadron stuff as a standalone subsection of Appearances, rather than a sub-subsection of "Other media"; as a full-length standalone novel featuring Rose as the protagonist, I think that's warranted. How do you want to proceed from here? Maybe see if any other discussion gets generated here? Possibly invite relevant WikiProjects to weigh in? — Hunter Kahn 19:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Although I don't care that much and understand your reasoning, I find it jarring to see an "other media" entry outside of that parent section. That panders to the in-universe perspective, and that is sure to be the conclusion if we hear the voice of other commenters here. An overwhelming majority are familiar with the character from the movie, not a tie-in story. Wikipedia is about real world > fiction. Wookieepedia the reverse. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• My feeling is that this is an article about a fictional character, not just a movie character, so I don't think the categories that fall under "Appearances" have to be limited only to the movies. Most of the "other media" are appearances that are small enough that they don't warrant such a section, but Cobalt Squadron is essentially a novel entirely about Rose, I think it goes beyond just the catch-all "other media" and a separate category dedicated to it makes sense. In fact, since she's the protagonist of that novel and is more of a secondary character in the films, it almost makes more sense for the novel to be featured as such, imo... — Hunter Kahn 22:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Advocacy?

Why does this read like a puff piece commissioned by Rose Tico's publicist? And why is the actress played her in a movie mentioned at the top of article? I don't understand this approach but it appears to be about as far away from normal, neutral and helpful as you can get with a good head start. Did Wikipedia start taking product placement commissions and I didn't notice?--(User 2601:189:8201:B000:E9:5C67:C924:C53A)

Wow, it's apparently not helpful and somehow POV to tell readers which actor or actress played this character? Ioe bidome (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I will also note that the screed above was not written by me--Ioe bidome (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This is among the worst written pieces I've come across in a long time on here. Aside from the campaigning flavor of it all, it's flooded with unnecessary fluff information that should probably be under the page of the actress, not rhe character. Lastly, has anyone bothered to check the sources (much is also just lacking one) for much of those parts in this article? Many of them have zero backing whatsoever to the parts that they are attached to as a supposed source.

I'm pretty sure that neutrality is a cornerstone of this project, try and go through this article with a neutral/removed bias and see if you feel it meets that standard. Ramahamalincoln (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of fans of the character have contributed to the page, which isn't in itself a bad thing. But this article is bad. It's too long, too unfocused, and tries to cram as many details as possible in. For the most part, these details are unwarranted and do nothing to explain the character's general relevancy in media... which is very, very small. The article needs to dial back on describing the character as it appears in promotional material, and focus more on how the character is portrayed by critics and academics. There also seems to be too much focus on the character's side content in print media, and not very much on Kellie Marie Tran's portrayal, which by and large is the only important media where the character appears. Basically, most or all of this could be returned to Wookiepedia, where a detailed consideration of how the character fits into the Star Wars universe would be appropriate. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The article is atrociously one-sided, especially the part that purports to represent the critical response to her. The reality is that she was nowhere near as critically well received as this page purports to make her, and almost no examples of critiques of her performance are included in that section, inexplicably, while ample time is devoted to ensuring that the reader hears that any possible negative reactions solely came from "white privileged males" and "toxic" fans. We can do better than this, and it should start by taking a hatchet to that critical review section and provide NPOV coverage, rather than pushing a particular POV which this article clearly does. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

We're not on the same page. I'm just saying the page is too focused on the character in print media and did not mean to engage someone on downplaying heavily documented harassment against the actor. Coverage of harassment of the actor completely dwarfs any supposed negative reception of their work by any professional critic. Just for fun, I've been scouring critic reviews of the movie on Metacritic, and I've only seen one that calls her character "questionably useful" and one, the lowest scoring review on the site, that calls the actor ineffectual. Every other review that mentions her says that she "shines," "enlivens," or otherwise enriches. Perhaps there are some Youtubers we could link to whose white privileged male status is completely unrelated to their outrage at an Asian woman appearing in a Star Wars film. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)