Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 06:44, 17 January 2007 (GimmeBot updating FAC template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Ok here's the thing there are these new four "" books that are gonna be coming out for Avatar. The first two, water and fire, are already out. They provide insight and rich informative detail of the cultures in terms of both bending and backstory. For example, The Fire Nation was once ruled by a council consisted of the Sages until the Great Sage (the leader and also the most spiritual and powerful) sought to rule the Nation without the remaining Sages (ie Lord). This caused an imbalance/struggle for power which lasted for several years until it reached an equillibrium in which Sozin rose to power and the Sages were submitted under his rule. The problem is there are naturally a couple of inconsistent parts to the book. Basically I feel that this all this information shouldn't go to waste and the hindsights are relatively natural due to how big the Avatar universe is gettin. Plus its from the same guys who worked on the cine-manga with the creators. 71.163.69.77 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to say...
Aang does not have to master the elements in that specific order, as we can see from the episode "Deserter". However, in that same episode, Jeong Jeong basically told Aang that he must learn the disiplines in order, learning the point and expressions of each, to be able to CONTROL fire in the end. Each element requires learning a self disipline before being able to bend it effectively. Aang was too free and playful when learning fire. He didn't want to wait and concentrate. He was still in his airbender mode. This is why he burned Katara. I remember in the 2nd episode, Aang told her, "In order to become a bender, you must let go of fear." This can be seen as airbending principle because that is all Aang knows at this point. They are a free people. We can also see the needed self disipline when Aang is learning earthbending.
There are a lot of things wrong with this article, and many other web articles about the "Avatar". I saw one where someone thinks there were four air temples, when there are only three. There is no sense in arguing about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evitar28 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
There are indeed four air temples, that's been confirmed by the show's creators. One (the northern temple) just doesn't show on the map, is all. As for the issue with the order, see above. As for anything else, it would be helpful to provide specific examples, rather than just say there are "a lot of things wrong."--Fyre238720:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then there are four templaes. I'm not talking about this article when I say, "There are a lot of things wrong..."
Yea, I know about the order. I think you're right. There is no absolute order. If Jeong Jeong doesn't "reappear", I think Iroh or Zuko will teach Aang firebending in the end.
What about Kuzon, Aang's old friend from the Fire Nation, the creators said that he will play an important role in the future. This may be the position of Aang's firebending master.
Anyway nice talking to you. I only adding something because I was curious, and I saw that this was just the other day or so.
Happy Holidays.
The Air Nation no longer exists.
"When it happens, the eclipse will leave the Fire Nation defenseless. This will also give the other three nations the chance to annilhate the Fire Nation."
Shouldn't that be, the other two nations? There is no air nation any more. And annihilate is misspelled.
Was it just the air benders that were all destroyed, except Aang, or did they destroy all the people of that nation? Or since that attack happened a century ago, haven't all those people that were part of that nation at that time died of old age by now, and everyone else was born after the conquest, so they are part of the extended fire nation. National borders change, don't they? Without their benders, I doubt the rest of the populace was able to put up any resistance to the fire nation at all.
Actually, according to interviews and the comic book, the Air Nomads were all airbenders, due to their highly spirtual culture (I can provide sources for this if you'd like). –Prototime (talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps some still consider them part of the air nation, destined to rise up in a great rebellion one day. I haven't seen all the episodes since I just started watching recently, so I don't know.
Dream Focus00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The Air Nation still technically exists (their temples are still there) and they still have Aang, so it should stay the other three nations. Bagpipeturtle20:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Their land is still intact (well, mostly), and they still have at least one citizen (two if the Guru counts), so they are still a nation. Even though it's really small, the Air Nation still exists. Bagpipeturtle05:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
My minor correction edit can unedited.
"Aang (Mitchel Musso in the unaired pilot, Zach Tyler Eisen onwards) - The fun-loving, 12-year-old..."
I changed that to Aang (voiced by Mitchel Musso in the unaired pilot, Zach Tyler Eisen onwards).
Voiced by isn't needed as it's already implied simply by parenthesis. Also you'd have to make it consistant with all the characters. H2P06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
wasnt it mitchel musso in the aired pilot too? it wasnt zach tyler right? --skuj
As there is an recently created page at List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, and this page has already had some concerns expressed about article size, I'd like to suggest reducing the content of this section and splitting it off to that page. You may also wish to examine the discussion on that page, where I've expressed further ideas on why it is worth considering, such as the existence of such articles for other Television shows that have become FA. Mister.Manticore21:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
We've already told you on that page that we were against splitting, you and the guy that did it are the only one thinking it should be and you won't let us fulfill the agreed upon decision. Stop acting like this Wikiproject doesn't know what it's doing. H2P21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm offending you, but developing consensus on Misplaced Pages is very important, and I am using the tools provided to try to build discussion and consensus on this. Prematurely deleting tags and declaring that the decision has been made when only a very people people have had a chance to contribute is not a good idea. Give people time to make a decision, make good arguments for why you feel the way you do, and you'll accomplish more. Mister.Manticore21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but here's what you're proposing- in order to keep the new page alive, we cut down the content on this page. The reason being because the new page has no content that's not already on this page. I'm gonna say no. It sounds like this is just an effort to preserve a page that really doesn't need to be there. The section in question already contains links to several different pages, which contain more information on individual characters. There's no reason to just remove the section and stick it up somewhere else, unless it's for length consideration, and I don't think there's an overwhelming concern over that matter. Y BCZ21:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm proposing that in order to improve the Avatar page, that the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters be used as an effective sub-article, which is a pattern you'll find in many other Featured Articles like: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lost, The West Wing and The Wire. And that's just featured articles, many other television shows use the same style. The article itself right now is rather long (see previously expressed concerns on this page), and as sections go, this would be the easiest to split off, and more consistent with other television shows. Do you have some reason why you think it would be a bad idea? Mister.Manticore22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think another page is needed. If anything, the characters section COULD use a bit of a trim, but that's hardly a reason to (re)move it all together.--Fyre238721:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting the removal of the section, merely trimming it down, same as you believe. That this can be combined with splitting the content off to another page that would be consistent with other television shows is a benefit, not a drawback. Mister.Manticore22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of the wikiproject people are on holiday right now I think, when they come back the consensus will be a hands down majority in our favor anyway. But, if keeping that little discussion tag there will keep you happy and away from us Manticore. I guess we can leave it even though the page is still being reviewed for FA status, cause discussion tags don't look bad at all! H2P21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, most people are on holiday. An even more pressing reason to wait and discuss things, as is the FA review, which I note already has some comments about the character section as well. BTW, you may wish to look at WP:Civil and WP:AGF for advice. It seems to me that you are taking this situation a bit too personally. Mister.Manticore21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Further note: I'd also like to point out that the other page's creator also seems to agree with a redirect: diff. So then, how long do we have to let this sit here on the off chance someone objects?--Fyre238721:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Be aware that, short of asking for an RfC (which is, I think we can all agree, unwarranted at this point) that may well never happen. The active editors of these pages have already given their opinions, you simply insist there are not enough of us.--Fyre238722:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking an RFC is completely warranted, and I decided to do so shortly before reading this comment. An RFC is a perfectly neutral way to seek further input, and in this case, may be very worthwhile. Mister.Manticore22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
For those who come here like myself who haven't seen all the episodes yet, having the character information there is a bit of a spoiler. Every other page I've seen, for any show, list all the characters on a seperate page. I vote that be done. And as someone said, if you don't, then you are above the size limit. Dream Focus01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the character section should be separate from this article. I am the person who originally called for this article to be shortened. And by the way, that was a great call on WP:OWN, Mister.Manticore. You guys don't own the article.(Ghostexorcist02:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC))
Each charater has their own page, the characters here are supposed to be a short introduction to who they are, their actual pages provide their full bio. The major secondary simply gives a name and an even shorter description. Having the character pages split into another page (and then split again from that page) takes away from this article. The next thing you'll want us to do is make every damned section it's own article until this page becomes nothing but external links. having short bios about the main characters on this page helps introduce people to the show. There shouldn't be any spoilers on the characters, we've been trying to keep them off. And true while we can't OWN the pages, we damn well babysit them enough to have an authority over them. H2P02:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think anybody intends to turn this article into merely a link to a bunch of sections. And no, having another article doesn't diminish the value of this one. It might even increase it, by increasing the overall utility of the page and wikipedia. And no, you don't have any authority over this page, that's what WP:OWN is all about. Mister.Manticore02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Authority, that's funny. I feel administrators need to be notified of H2P and other user's supposed authority over this article. I've seen how any user who makes an edit, who isn't apart of the "click", is instantly shot down. So the problem of "article ownership" needs to be addressed.(Ghostexorcist11:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC))
I think H2P is getting a bit defensive at this point, and he needs to cool it for now. Still, Exorcist, I'm resisting the urge to say various things. Please stick to the topic in question- stop trying to dismiss us because of our aggressive way of dealing with the page. It doesn't matter why we want certain things to happen, we're talking about whether a major change is necessary, and we're arguing that it's not while backing it up with reasoning. If you can't come up with a reason to make the move other than "I think it should be that way" or "you guys aren't following X guideline of Misplaced Pages in your behavior", then just drop it. Now to everyone, please just stop it. We're obviously all doing things to tick each other off- Manticore and Ghostexorcist are calling out users on certain policies and, well, those users are responding by taking actions that encourage Manticore and Ghostexorcist to KEEP calling them out. Can't we just settle this issue? Y BCZ14:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, as you just said, it's hard to settle an issue when folks are being aggressive. There are reasons why the policies I've pointed out exist, and reasons why I've felt obliged to point them out. Mister.Manticore16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay look, the only real reasons I can see on this discussion for moving the character section is the "spoiler" thing, which Fyre has addressed, and length, which is really all a matter of opinion- we say it doesn't matter, others say it does, so the fact that it's been brought up hardly changes a thing. Does anyone have another reason for the move to happen? If not, I currently believe there is no reason to enact this change. Y BCZ06:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
There are several reasons actually. WP:Size is not something to be ignored with a "It doesn't matter" but something to be weighed and considered. I don't think there's been a good faith showing of that consideration being made. Just summary dismissal. There is also the practice of many other television shows (as mentioned before Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lost, The West Wing and The Wire among featured articles about television shows, and lots of others at this category). Arguments against it (ignoring the uncivil ones) so far amount to redundancy or not being necessary. Those are not very good arguments. The reference to WP:SPOILER is I think mistaken, as it says content should not be deleted to avoid spoilers, and that simple parallel pages not constructed. That doesn't mean care shouldn't be taken to avoid unnecessary spoilers. Take the article of Luke Skywalker, which doesn't say that Vader is his father (apologies if I spoiled things for anybody! :)) until deep in the page. Or if you want a Featured article, see Padmé Amidala. Care has been taken to avoid the spoilers there too. Even the existence of Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader involves a desire not to have spoilers. Is it worth considering here? Maybe. In any case, there is no harm in the existence of the page, and while that page is currently identical to the section on this page, that could be easily changed. Heck, having duplicate information is not even a reason for deletion (believe it or not). You may not consider the opinions being offered persuasive, but I don't consider the objections being offered persuasive, and that's ignoring the tone of some of them that I think you realize is not conducive to reaching a consensus. That's a problem in itself. Trying to deal with that too, but it's hard to get this discussed and that problem solved at the same time. Leads to issues being muddled. Mister.Manticore16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
1) I see no spoilers in the character sections. Would you care to point some out? If there are some, I'm sure we can take care of them by simply modifying the text of the character sections, rather than simply moving them out of the article.
2) Click on the "Edit this page" buttons for the articles you pointed out. The West Wing is 50 kb long, as is Lost. The Line is 68 kb long, while Buffy the Vampire Slayer is 75 kb long- and both display tags on the edit page suggesting the article be cut down or divided into smaller articles. Avatar: The Last Airbender is only 45 kb long- shorter than all four of the Featured Articles you pointed out. If we should consider following the example of previous Featured Articles pertaining to television series, as you have suggested, then it follows that there is no reason to cut the article down.
Further on the issue of spoilers-you bring up a strange example with Luke and Vader. I checked Luke's page, and it indeed does avoid that spoiler. But...Vader's doesn't. Kinda weird. Y BCZ20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's the existence of the two pages that matters in regards to Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker, though you'll note there is a spoiler warning very early in that page as well. Perhaps too early and the content should be moved. However, that's a discussion for another place. I don't even think there are spoilers on this page (except perhaps by including some characters at all). If you want to ask about that, try asking some of the people who have brought up the issue. I merely differed with what I see as a misinterpretation of the guidelines on spoilers. My primary objection is that I think that the descriptions are too long. Which leads us back to the size discussion. You can't just look at the raw kilobyte size of a page and make decisions, that's an oversimplification. You have to look at the pages. For example, take a look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's got lots of sections, and a whole lot of citations and quotes. (In fact, I'd say those citations and quotes make up a not insignificant portion of its size). It's not because the character section is especially large, instead it has a few paragraphs and a link to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Same with Lost (TV series), the West Wing, and others. Therefore, it doesn't have to be a bad thing to have a separate page for lists of characters. Given the style of those other pages as a model, I think that each character's description should be reduced to a sentence or two, not the couple of paragraphs they have now. I'm iffy on the image question, I think it's a bit much, even if well-done. Possibly even move off the minor character list to the page as well. That would reduce some of the clutter appreciably. Or if enough people prefer, instead of a character by character description, a paragraph based version could be developed instead of the current list. Mister.Manticore21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, you may wish to note that there was an objection in the FAC about the lines as well. A list article would work better with regards to styles like that. Mister.Manticore21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Size issue is a very valid argument. And my comment about this article’s supposed ‘ownership’ is valid as well. I know what it's like to put so much effort into an article to see others edit it, but I got over it. You guys are saying the article doesn’t need to be shortened based only on a few votes from people from your click. What about other editors? I think a straw poll needs to be utilized. However, I’m afraid that not all editors will be aware of this. So I think a notice should be posted on the avatar wiki project, as well as the anime wiki project, and any other project in some way connected to this one. Thoughts?(Ghostexorcist23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC))
I believe that to releive this article of size, what should be done is reduce the description of the characters and ceate a full article for each of the main characters. That way we can expand the overall amount of information related to Avatar.Coldman6406:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Take the following tid bit from the Iroh section of this page:
Mako, the voice actor who portrayed Iroh, died on July 21, 2006. While guest-starring at the Pacific Media Expo on October 28, 2006 the creators confirmed that another voice actor has indeed been selected, although no names were mentioned as for who will take up the role.
This is already mentioned in Iroh's main article. Actually, the first paragraph of Iroh's description on this page does an adequate enough job. The other paragraphs dealing with his personality and appearance need to be deleted since the material is already covered in the character's main page. All of the other character descriptions are just like this one--too redundant.(Ghostexorcist07:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC))
Section Two
What I have read so far after I came back from vacation was that a couple of people want us to move/shorten the main characters descriptions so they can be in a seperate article when each character already has there own page. I assume this is the situation. I completely disagree. There is no point to have the main article, a list of characters, and then a page for each individual character. The point of the page is to introduce the show to new people. As mentioned before, spoilers have supposedly been found in the description. However, this only proposes that the spoilers be removed from the character descriptions, not that the whole list have a seperate page. Another support for the idea I have heard was that many other articles have done the same thing and that we should follow suit. Why should we make a major change to the article just so the article could be just like every other article of its kind? Finally, the last complaint to be addressed is size. Even if the article is too long, there are other section in the article too. The characters section is not the only one taking up space. It may be a little bit too large but that does not prompt for another page to be created just so readers can be directed towards a larger description of each character when they can just go to the character's main page. This just means that the descriptions need to be shortened. If there are any other reasons I missed (other than the fact that a couple of users just want to seperate the section) or if there are any objections to what I said, PLEASE do not hesitate to respond. Parent544616:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, first off, common practice is a good thing, a certain degree of uniformity is very helpful in improving the presentation of information. That so many other editors of other television series see such pages as an advantageous is an idea highly worth considering here. This is done even when the major characters have their own pages. Why not do it here? Besides, I'm sensing a bit of an objection just to the idea of a page being created, as if there was some major drawback to it. Creating another page on Misplaced Pages has an almost infinitesimal cost, and the potential benefits are high. In terms of options, you could have longer descriptions of major and minor characters than is appropriate for the main page, even include the entries in pages further down. Take a look at some of the pages in Category:Lists of Fictional Characters, there are plenty of good models to examine. Mister.Manticore18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Second, if you see some other section you think should be split, feel free to suggest splitting them. Just put it a tag on it, and start up some discussion. Just saying "Why not split some other section instead" isn't as helpful as specifically citing a section. I don't think any of the other sections are as large as the character one, or as easily self-contained, but I'd be glad to see your thoughts. Mister.Manticore18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
How about this: we keep the main characters (Aang, Katara, Sokka, Toph, Zuko, Iroh, and Azula) and shorten their descriptions, and add 'Main article: (fill in chracter's name here)'. Then we could get rid of the major and minor character sections and simply redirect to their respective articles, maybe under the section 'Other characters'. And since all of the main characters listed here (and Appa) have their own articles and the major and minor characters both have their articles, do we really need another characters article? It seems that all it is is a redirect page. The 'Creatures and animals' and 'Guest voices' could be cut too, as they're on the template. Just a suggestion... Kochdude38819:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, is any article really necessary? Nope. But could this be useful? I think so. I don't know about you, but instead of links to 3-4 lists, I'd rather have a link to one list which itself can have sublinks. Mister.Manticore20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Section Three
Personally, I think that the main character section should stay and just get rid of a little extra information, and then take out the list of major secondary characters. There is already a page for them, so we don't need to take up space on the main page for them. On a similar topic, The 'Influences' section could possibly be moved to its own page, but I think it's in a good place where it is now. Bagpipeturtle20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the Avatar page should remain as is, with NO changes at all. I think that it looks fine. Really, why change it at all? It's remained that way for so long, and it hasn't caused great confusion or
inconvenience to anyone, really. I beg you, please do not edit this page. Altering it may cause more confusion and inconvenience than not. Thank you. Uioh22:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that most people would disagree with you on both practice and principle. Practice-wise, there is a lot about this article that could be fixed up, not just this one section, and that's leaving aside the issue of further developments in the Avatar series. Principle-wise, Misplaced Pages isn't about static content anyway, it's about the continued dynamic influence of thousands of monkeys typing away to make the best darn collection of knowledge possible. That means it'll probably never be complete. So I'm afraid that you're just going to have to accept that this page is going to continue to receive edits and discussion. Mister.Manticore23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I am starting to agree now. I did not agree with taking the main character section out completely but just to shorten it is okay. I addition, whoever first mentioned the idea to take the secondary character out really made an impact on the argument and may have almost solved the disagreement. Anyway, I agree with the change to shorten the main character descriptions and create a redirect for all other characters. Maybe we could put something like this at the top of the main characters descriptions:
Thjs is a list of the main character in the show, for all other characters in the show, go to <Article with List of Other Characters>.
In addition, we would have to change the section heading around to where there is only one main heading that says Main Characters. Are there any objections? I think its a good idea. Parent544600:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I would simply say "Characters" rather than adding main in front of it. Keep the names on there now, shorten it to a sentence or two, with a brief paragraph of description for everybody else, with a link at the top of the section to the List page. Mister.Manticore01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
An example of spoilers. I just saw the episode today where Toph escapes from the metal box they trapped her in. I would've rather been surprised she could escape, than to know from reading the wiki that she alone can bend metal. But, my fault for reading anything after the spoiler warning.. although I don't remember seeing it last week. Just one point of putting all the character stuff on another page, was the spoilers. It also list the episode in detail on how she was introduced, which is certainly a serious spoiler. For Katara, it says "She is a very gifted Waterbender who, by season two, achieves her dream by becoming a Waterbending master." which might be a bit of a spoiler. I guess many people just figured out on their own she'd eventually learn to be a master at it. Anyway, do people make polls to have official votes on things like this, or how does it work? I vote to put all spoiler information on another page, with a warning. Some might want to read about this series, without having certain surprises in the episodes they haven't seen yet revealed to them. Dream Focus00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
While we are still talking about the character description section, I would like to note that in the FAC page, someone objected that the horizontal lines seperatin the characters be removed. Maybe we should replace them with headings or just put line breaks. I know I brought up the topic before and now there are other people that say it should be changed. Does anybody agree with me? Parent544600:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks much better now. Anyway, as for your comment a little further up, I think the descriptions should be more than a sentence or two. Maybe just a short paragraph since they are all at least two paragraphs right now. Parent544623:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. We really need to settle this problem. Is there ANYBODY that still disagrees with the idea that we only shorten the character descriptions, leave the horizontal lines out, and not use a seperate main characters list page? Parent544617:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I favor keeping the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters page as it would offer a good centralized resource for somebody looking for information on the characters in the series, and be consistent with the practices of other television shows. I haven't yet seen any convincing arguments against having such a page, and it would allow the Character section here to be much shorter and not have to include links to so many other pages about characters. One link to a single list (with sublists) would look much better than the current section. Mister.Manticore18:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I am going on a WikiBreak so I will not be able to help until January 8th. If it is not finished by then, I will help. By the way, this whole argument is one of the reasons people are objecting on the new FAC page so this will be one more thing done. (The FA Director restarted the nomination since we made such a great improvment.) Parent544618:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Section Four
There is no need to make a page just to list the various character pages, since that's essentially all that this new page is. The main characters all have their own pages, the major secondary characters have their own page, and the minor characters do, too. This page (The main Avatar page) needs a section on characters because its purpose is to inform on the show in general, and a shows characters are quite integral in a show. If the characters already have a page, and this page needs to keep a small section on the characters, then what's the point of creating an entirely new page? All it would do is force people to spend an unnecessary amount of time clicking through to different pages, and it would force the editors to change a whole bunch of links. JBK40505:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I really don't agree that this would be a substantial improvement to this page's appearance. In my opinion, all this would really accomplish is making a directory of lists and character articles, and the navigational template already does that just fine.--Fyre238723:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I definitely think we should leave it as is. This would just create more hassle for people to keep going to different sections when it could be made easier to just have the information here. It would also mess up the templates and everything. Why have a list of main characters when each of them already has their own page? -Dylan051323:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
A lot of people have asked what's the benefit of a character page? Well, there are several that I see. Ease of navigation is one major benefit. It's easier to look at one list that's solely about the characters than a page about the series. Besides, it's pretty clear that there's no way all the information about Avatar would fit on one page (if it was, we wouldn't have pages for individual characters or episodes). Presentation is another. Having too much information about the characters reduces the impact of the other information on the page. Personally, I think the individual character listing on a series page is questionable in terms of style anyway, but I'm not that convinced of the necessity of a change either. Length is the more important issue, and it's still a little long. Obviously, another person may feel differently, but as I've noted before, the existence of one page does in no way take away from another page. Mister.Manticore00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the main characters already have separate pages. Why do we need another page describing them. It's on the main page to provide a brief summary and then link to them. I think we need to shorten the descriptions on the main page, but not take it away all together. And a separate page is more of a hassle. You have to go to a whole different page and the editors have another article to take care of that doesn't have much of a purpose. We may as well just take away the different pages for each main character if we're going to do this. -Dylan051300:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to list them, because a character page that doesn't list the main characters isn't much sense at all. Navigation is much easier as well. On terms of the list's page's content, if you think the descriptions now are too long, well, I don't disagree. I could live with a short, minimal description of each on the character list page(for people who don't know the characters by name, so need some identifiers), and having the main article more of a summary and less of the list it is right now. In terms of extra work, the burden is minimal, and if you don't feel up to it, well, luckily on Misplaced Pages, there's always more shoulders to bear the load. So the hassle is not a good argument either. Mister.Manticore00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
But basically what you described is linking to a separate page that wouldn't take up that room on the main page and just makes the main article seem more of just a navigation point. We're going for FA here and losing! If we're going to have a separate article there needs to be more of a purpose other than short character summaries. If there is, then this would probably work. -Dylan051300:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if being a featured article is what you want, take a look at some of the television shows with Featured Article status that I've pointed out above. They've got relatively short summaries for characters too, with separate list pages. I'll also note that one of the problems the FA commentary has brought up was that the character section had unreferenced material in it. Mister.Manticore03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm firmly of the opinion that having descriptions of the main characters on this page is important. I don't like the idea of making readers view several different pages in order to get important information. Having them there doesn't make the article too long, it makes it complete, again in my opinion. Following from that, leaving the information here and having it on a second location is just needlessly redundant. And, as I said before, I don't see how it can do anything as a navigational tool that the navigational template doesn't already do.--Fyre238702:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is what the template is for. Can we all agree to shorten the summaries already on the main page some more to help with the FA nomination? -Dylan051302:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that is, we have to draw a line somewhere to what is and isn't important information. Some information is more important than other information, at least on a given subject. It's why there are separate articles for characters. You can't say everything about Aang, or Katara or Sokka all on one page and still fit in the television series as a whole. So obviously there is a limit to how long the character descriptions will be, right? (And that's not even getting into minor characters who obviously shouldn't be on the main page, but should be found somewhere). And what the template doesn't do is provide descriptions of the entries. The template only provide names. In some cases that is enough, but that may not apply to everybody's needs. For them, a fuller list than should be present on the main article might be desirable. There is a real navigational advantage to be found there. Mister.Manticore03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have seen enough. Everybody is just arguing about the same thing over and over again. This has to stop. As said before, this article is losing in the FA Nomination because of this dispute. I e-mailed a PhD student at berkely who is a mediator on Misplaced Pages and asked him to help. Maybe outside help can solve out problem. Parent544602:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we've agreed not to go through with this. The most active members on the project have said no and it's the ones outside that are causing this. This has pretty much already been settled. -Dylan051303:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
OWN isn't the issue, the issue is that a concensus has been made and you are the only one not allowing people to take action on that consensus. There has been plenty of input from multiple people as well as the arguments on the Featured Article discussion pages. It's time to admit that your option wasn't chosen and let what is currently being agreed upon become the decision and action. 24.165.122.14505:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on. Dylan is perfectly right to point out that a relevant Wikiproject has a consensus on a matter. That's one the reasons we have Wikiprojects. I've even seen administrative action taken action based on Wikiproject consensus, so don't tell me saying it exists violates policy, because that's just incorrect.
Now, for the matter at hand: I really think we have a consenus here. Everybody can't get their way, but the majority seems to be in favor of keeping things the way they are, and I doubt this will change with further discussions.--Fyre238705:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of what consensus is reached, I don't think it is a wise idea to put one side against another on this issue, and that's exactly what his words meant, by saying there is one group with some entitlement because they are active, versus some outsides. That's not a good way to look at things, and is a bad habit to get into. It would be much wiser to actually discuss the merits of the section, not the editors. I'd really like to see more discussion of that. So far, that's been lacking, though at least for a while the whole insider-mentality was avoided. But it's not quite gone. So, instead of attacking me, try explaining how you want things, and why. Mister.Manticore20:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh, now I know why the republicans complained about filibusters. Look man, the conversation's gone on for over a week, and we haven't made too much progress. The majority of people who have voiced their opinions on this want things to go back to the way they were before the split was proposed, though are willing to shorten the descriptions a bit in the interest of cutting down page length. The reason is because we feel it's not necessary- the new page would only act as a directory to pages that are already linked to in the main article. Now, let's consider arguments in favor of the mov, besides size (as an alternate solution has been presented for that). Spoilers have already mostly been removed from descriptions, and there's a spoiler warning on the page anyway. Ghostexorcist mentioned that creating the new page would allow for information on Avatar to be presented, but this is not true- the information that is already there would just be moved around a bit. Other than that, it's all been a matter of opinion versus opinion, and that never gets anywhere...
Manticore, I understand there are various issues surrounding my Project's behavior, and that we will have to work to resolve them. However, I believe that your citation of OWN should not relate to the discussion at hand. Quite simply, you are rejecting our arguments because of our stances. Now, I ask you to consider the issues objectively, regardless of your opinion of the participants in this discussion. If you can present a reason that has not been addressed thus far for the change to be made, then do so. Otherwise, please cease simply delaying the resolution of this situation in the hopes that the state of the discussion will change. Y BCZ20:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It relates to the discussion at hand because people keep bringing up the argument that they have more merit to their side because of who they are. That's a bad argument to even bring up, it fosters resentment and all sorts of other bad stuff. I'll give you credit, you did provide some argument, but even now, you've complicated it with extra commentary. That's not helpful. Anyway, I disagree with your contention that it's not necessary. First, there is no requirement for an article to be necessary for it to fit on Misplaced Pages. And while you may not find the page valuable, other people might, especially as a navigational tool. In which case including all the characters (main and otherwise) is a good idea. And as I've said before, I think the character section in the main article should be more of a summary and less of a list. That style fits better on a list page than one on the series as a whole. Mister.Manticore22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated before, the character descriptions should be stripped to their bare essentials. Most of them have 2 - 3 paragraphs. If you read the very first paragraph, it has all the info a newcomer would ever need. The rest of it is unnecessarily "in-depth". Therefore, these extra paragraphs should be deleted since that info is covered on each character's individual articles. It would knock the page down several kilobytes too. (Ghostexorcist20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
Section Five
(edit conflict) Personally, I believe the section should stay. If this article is a stepping stone in to the world of Avatar, the Character section should stay on this page. If the section above it is allowed to describe the plot, the next logical step is to read about the Characters. It provides a clear flow for the article and helps to give new readers more information and immediate links about what it is important for the article. The page is not excessively long like other T.V. show articles. If the page was considerably longer than this, I would vote the other way, but since the page is not excessively long, I vote to keep the section, but I have no problem reducing each Character to one paragraph. I will do that now. The Placebo Effect20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I stick by my comments and all I am saying is that members of this project should have more merit than members who come in solely for the FA nomination and possibly other reasons. We have more knowledge of the articles and have put countless hours of work into these. Aren't projects created to do what's best for the set of articles and members of the project make those decisions. We now definitely have a majority and a consensus among us and a majority among everyone who's replied here.
Attacking you? I didn't ask you to originally reply to my comment. And we've already stated our reasons.-Dylan051320:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"More merit"? If you don't want an article edited, don't create one. It doesn't matter how many hours you've put into it. Other people are going to make changes. What do you think the consensus would be if notices were sent out to every project connected to this (tv, anime, cartoon, etc) and told to nit-pick the page? What would it look like then? Would you tell them "you can't work on this page because it's all mine"? Because that's what it sounds like. You seem to speek for the few people that live on this page.(Ghostexorcist21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
Part of the purpose of Misplaced Pages is that everyone has equal merit. Some members may have earned more respect, but all non-admins are equal. And the project is to unite people of a common knowledge base. Remember, we are not voting, but trying to reach a consensus. So can we please all be civil and end this like professionals. The Placebo Effect20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, there's been plenty of discussion about the mertis of this section. The problem is, the only resonsces I see are to somebody "misbehaving", rather than about any points they make. Ignoring somebody's points because they "aren't nice" won't get us anywhere. A suggestion: take "behavioral" issues to user talk pages of the person(s) involved, rather than cluttering this up.
Now as for discussing the merits of the section...that's exactly what I've been doing. I've said it before: I'm all for trimming it, but NOT for moving it to a second page. I'm of the opinion that brief, succinct descriptions of the main characters are necessary information on an article about a largely character-driven show. Thus, I can't support any proposal to merge that section into another page. It serves an important purpose on this one.--Fyre238722:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you on the trimming, but I don't understand why you are opposed to an additional page that expands much more on the subject. As far as I am aware nobody is suggesting the wholesale removal of that section, right? However, reducing it is valuable, and if we're going to have a generic character page, not including the main characters doesn't make sense. A simple list with short descriptions would be quite adequate even if you don't want the paragraphs to be found there now. Mister.Manticore23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that removal was indeed suggested, based on the merge template, since that's what merging is. If you're instead talking about simply copying the section's content...well, I'm not aware of any polciy or guideline that suports that sort of thing, and I really don't see where any benefit would be gained from a central characters page, but so long as this article is left intact, I could live with it.--Fyre238723:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say you were mistaken then, since nobody was proposing that at all. A merge does not have to completely eliminate the content of one page. Not even sure why that template is up there, I thought I used split. Guess not. Oh well, just to assure you though, that's not what anybody is asking for. The section itself is still going to be there, just in a different form. And I don't know about any explicit policies or guidelines, however, as I pointed out, most of the featured articles for televisions already have such pages, and it would address some concerns on the FAC. Mister.Manticore00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about merit in decision making and discussion, not editing! And I'm not referring to myself BTW. I mean some members in certain articles have earned more say in matters than others. This being an example. Now back to the discussion at hand please. -Dylan051322:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, you may wish to read WP:OWN. Making a distinction between editors is not a good thing, and should be avoided. It personalizes situations, and tends to distract from the real merits of any argument. Mister.Manticore23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This being a good example, XD. And putting Misplaced Pages policies aside, I don't have any disrespect for most editors, I just think some people who have experience on this project should have a little more say in issues than someone who has less. That's all. And everyone makes distinctions between editors, I guarantee it. If you wish to discuss this further, you can at my talk page. We are discussing the issue at hand in which I think a majority disagrees on this proposal. -Dylan051323:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If those experienced users are really capable of making a sound argument based on their experiences, then they should be able to make that argument, and not simply rely on claims of experience or seniority. Mister.Manticore00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Why won't you stop? We've already stated out arguments, go back and read and stop being so lazy. I said take this to my talk page if you are so unhappy. -Dylan051301:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'm not bringing it up, I'm replying to you, who brought it up, and who continues to argue it. Since other people have also brought up the idea, I don't feel it's simply a personal issue which you need to be cautioned on directly, but a more general concern. However, if you do wish discussion on the issue at hand, you need only discuss the issue itself. Mister.Manticore14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, this is getting pathetic. I'm all for reducing the character section in the main, and having a more elaborate version on the list article. Manticore, WP:Own is not going to be a really strong point here, if you've seen some of the edits brought to us time after time, you'd understand, I see where this is coming off as an issue, but really we're just trying to make sure that some of the absolute trash doesn't remain to be seen. If the people who come in and edit on the fly didn't have to be reverted so much, it'd be nicer. But yeah, reduce the main article's section and have a more elaborate article as the list one. --Whydoit09:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, so what if it doesn't conform to the format of the other FA articles? Does the same thing not become stale and mundane after seeing the conformity? FA, in my opinion, is a trophy rank; it doesn't matter. Oh sure, If we continue at this maybe we will never push this to FA. BIG DEAL. Have good ideas not popped up from something ambitious in the past? I ask you guys this. --Whydoit10:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to completely agree with you, Whydoit. Is the FA status really worth it if we have to go through all this (for lack of a better work) shit? -Dylan051311:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Whydoit, I have seen some of the edits, yes, and I have seen the responses to them. If anything, that makes a stronger argument to consult WP:OWN than not. I'm afraid it seems to me that certain people have gotten worked up about vandals, and preventing the page from being ruined, that they've begun to react to anybody else's involvement in the same way. While vandal fighting is important, it's even more important to not begin to react to everybody in the same way, to be gentle, to assume good faith, and to persuade folks with good arguments, not to denigrate them because they aren't one of the crowd. Mister.Manticore14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Will you stop quoting that guideline! It's like the only thing you know! Just because you may feel excluded doesn't mean you can go say we're doing something wrong and treating us badly. This discussion has ended and the topic of splitting the character section is dead resulting in it not getting approval. I will take the tag off now and not expect anyone else to reply to this section of the talk page. -Dylan051322:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll be glad to stop quoting that guideline when you stop violating it, and try to make real arguments about your position. As it stands, you've made it several times, but not once have you said why things should be one way or another. That is not at all helpful, and is pretty unconvincing. Besides, I think you've misinterpreted the consensus, which seems to point towards editing the section with no prejudice against a character page. Mister.Manticore00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's look at things this way: if nobody wants to remove the characters section here, just trim it (as was talked about doing before this whole mess even started) the debate really has nothing to do with this page. If the debate is about no more than the existence of the characters page, somebody just nominate it for deletion, and settle the question that way.--Fyre238700:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea Frye. And this is the last mention of this: You don't just keep mentioning it to me, but to everyone you get into a disagreement with. And a character page has no point if it's also on the main page. As I keep saying, Maybe if you read my argument originally, you'd know why I feel the way I do. Please do not reply to this anymore. Take arguments about me to my talk page and about a new characters page by nominating it for deletion. =Dylan051303:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I assume you're talking to me, I'd like to point out to you that your contention is untrue, I have not used WP:OWN in a discussion I've had with another person just today. Why? Because it didn't come up. If people hadn't made possessive statements here, I also wouldn't have brought it up. And really, if you were so concerned about moving this off this talk page, why haven't you used my own? I'd have used yours, but I'm concerned that you'd actually resent that more. Mister.Manticore03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, stop replying to this. And I don't resent you, we just disagree on this. I've seen you use that elsewhere and it's really annoying. Back up your arguments with something else. I have no idea how to lock a section of the talk page but if anyone knows or something of the similar, this would be a good time. -Dylan051312:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I continue to sense some resentment. Is there some reason why you can't take the action yourself of simply not replying if it bothers you so much to continue this discussion? I do think you may need to look at some of the many pages Misplaced Pages offers for advice. I really don't think this attitude of "Please stop this" is helpful, as I'm being polite and not attacking you, but you're acting like I am. Hence the perception of resentment. In fact, given your attitude here, I am even less inclined to take it to your talk page. I think you'd feel even more attacked. Mister.Manticore14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Animated logo slowing / freezing anyone else?
The animated gif that is now replacing the old jpg logo appears to be slowing down my browser (MSIE 6). Is anyone else experiencing this problem? (And more importantly, does this particular animated gif add to the encyclopediac nature of the article?) --Snicker°13:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Character section
Since the FAC still has comments on the character section that have not been addressed, and there was some support in the prior discussion for improving this section, I'd like people to state their proposals here. Mister.Manticore00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This is what I think.
Get some sources. Right now it's unsourced. That needs to be fixed regardless of what you think of the rest.
Shorten it. Two paragraphs for each major character is a bit much. Three in some cases is a bit excessive.
Both sound logical, although I'd do 2 before 1, just so nobody wastes time digging up sources for stuff that's going to be removed anyway.
As for sourcing, there IS precedent for TV show articles using the show in general as a source. Things like character traits and what-not are hard to cite to a single episode.--Fyre238700:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't disagree that much of the material can be sourced directly to the show(and often enough they are in the main articles on the characters). In terms of shortening though, the longest are Iroh's and Toph's. I'd suggest removing the last paragraph for both of them. More so for Toph since it's unsourced at the moment. Mister.Manticore00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are still some entries lacking sources, and I'd check awkward sentences like "He is as pained by his nephew's past as Zuko is, and hates that his nephew must suffer as he does." for rewriting. A simpler sentence like "He is troubled by his nephew's anguish from being exiled" would be much better. Mister.Manticore03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey people, i want to know why they've removed the gif picture i uploaded. its really nice!!
Please tell me why. I'll upload it again. remove it after letting me know why u r removing it. I'm also a wikipedian Contributor!! and i deserve the same right you hold as wikipedians. i uploaded the gif. file for its own decorative and informative purpose, and i dont see any reason why it should be replaced. it sure looks better than the present one ofcux.. and its a edited clip from the original movie and not by any chance a copy righted work. thnx for ur precious time.. i think i deserve an answer for this.. soon..
--Glacious09:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why it was removed. Someone above said it was slow for them. And we're going for FA status here, so please add a fair use rationale to the gif asap. -Dylan051312:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, first off, it is absolutely based on a copyrighted work, even though you converted it to a .gif, you used the image files of the show for the purpose. As such, it is a derivative work, so I do not know if that falls under fair use rationale, however, there were apparently some technical issues viewing the animated files, thus it may not be an important question anyway. If people are having trouble viewing it, for whatever reason, it probably doesn't need to be used until that is dealt with. Mister.Manticore14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, as I noted above, the graphic slowed me down, both on IE and Firefox (tested on multiple computers, Glacious). The ultimate answer, however, is "Does it add to the encyclopediac nature of the article?" I believe the answer here is "No." The plain logo itself is sufficient. --Snicker°16:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
but it gives a better image to the article
HI, well yeah u seem to have a point there, but i believe it gives the article much more naturality and plus all that it increases the image of this article. however i am sorry if this caused any difficulties to some users, but i use both I.E and Fire Fox PLUS Opera for my work purpose and i havent had any problems yet. it might seem a little slow when it loads but once it is loaded in a matter of sec, it looks perfect. by the way hav a look at Spider-Man 3. its also GIF but they dont complain over it like you guys do. and i dun even kno who loaded it. thnx anyways and i am waiting for a much reasonable explanation...
Glacious11:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That spiderman gif doesn't work for me. All I see is a blank space with a red "X" in the upper corner. So not everyone can see these things. (Ghostexorcist11:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC))
I couldn't see it either, which is weird because I know I used to be able to. Anyway, on the subject of gif images as the main image, it makes the article itself become, well, tacky. H2P16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Spiderman is also red-x for me too. The Avatar gif loads slowly for me on Opera, Firefox, IE, and Netscape. The image doesn't really add anything new in my opinion too. The image is also very choppy in between frames, and this also makes it awkward... --Whydoit22:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Official Movie
As you may or may not be aware, M. Night Shyamalan and Paramount are working together to create a live-action adaption feature film for Avatar. Really-
I just read that on ASN...Are we allowed to add that to this page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.122.69.71 (talk • contribs)
If they can't name it Avatar, I think it might be a while before anything actually happens. Without that name, Nickelodeon will lose money in the marketing process. I also can't see this show being turned into a movie, I don't think it would work out well. H2P21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it can, the colon in the title may allow Fox to stop the name as it owns the rights to Avatar with a colon making it seem like a sequel to Fox's movie, in which case Paramount would be able to get free ticket sales from Fox's viewers who don't know any better. H2P21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then take out the colon. Shyamalan has to know what he's doing to take this and know that there's another Avatar movie coming out. Another thing: Film Ick say a 2009 release. If there were only 3 seasons, the show would lose it's hype by then. I think we're looking at 4+ seasons. -Dylan051321:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
WHo said it was specifficaly about Aang, there are so many other avatar's they ccould continue the sieres, but with diffrent avatars and 100s of years apartThe Placebo Effect17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Season 3, but when?
I know hardly anything about the third season of avatar but when is it going to be released on television. I am desperate to find out what happens with aang and zuko. Did i mention the fire lord. We need more facts about the third season to display on here. I know almost everyone are dieing to see what happens next. Any idea's of what may become of BOOK 3: fire. I want opinions or facts from the fans like me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.18.11 (talk • contribs)
Sorry, but this ain't no forum. No but seriously any discussion that occurs here is related to the organization of the Avatar page. I'd recommend visiting the following sites and their forums for that kinda stuff-
http://www.avatarspiritmedia.net/index.php
However, according to the person in charge of the avatar portion of tv.com (who has inside source which as of yet have never proved wrong) they're currently in production of the first episode of season three and won't be done with that alone until somewhere around April. ~66.250.190.113 9 January 2007 (UTC)
well i think we can make an exception for this forum talk part cus its upbasis matter and it does have to do with Avatar potential. Besides, season 3 may have not began becuase the actor who played the UNCLE had died not to long ago. They probably need to find a replacement or just disclude him from the show. And yes that would be a real shame.
In the third season Aang will go to the Fire Nation, that where Aang will see what has happened to them. A hundred years of war is not good for any nation, so it is assumable that the Fire Nation is destroying itself. With all of the Fire Nations Resources going to the war the economy is getting bad much like Germany after WWI. we have only seen the royal palace which doesn't show what real life in the Fire Nation is like.-Iroh18
Oh, and the name of episode 3 of season 3 reveled by pooldude is "The Painted Lady." Now we have that and episode 4, "Sokka's Master." Interesting... And again, these do not belong on the episode list until properly sourced. -Dylan051300:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The Painted Lady? Sounds...strange. People don't normally seem to be painted in Avatar. I hope this dosent bring on a whole string of edits adding that to the episode list. Bagpipeturtle00:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
When I said Sokka's Master it didn't, so probably not. Painted Lady probably will represent something or will be an expression or something. It seems figurative to me. -Dylan0513
It's possible that 'Sokka's Master' will be the episode that Sokka decides to learn waerbending. I also heard that the Fire Nation is similar to North Korea. For example, there seems to be propoganda everywhere, most of the countries money goes to the military, the government keeps close watch on all its citizens, and it is completely secretive. - Robert25
D'oh, d'oh, d'oh, d'oh, d'oh! Sokka will not learn waterbending!!! It would ruin his character! The fire nation thing is possible though... -Dylan051302:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying that the Fire Nation is a dirt poor nation that does nothing but worring about imperialism and world domination. That seems to be a family trait in all Fire Lords. -Robert25
Hmm, I don't know. I just don't see them spending that much time in the fire nation about the way of life in the fire nation. -Dylan051302:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
if the Fire Nation is going through depression it could cause the citizens to hate the Fire Lord and take any chance they get to dethrone him. -Iroh18
In North Korea, almost 95% of the population is starving because of their greedy government. Although they are in a dire position, they still see Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong-Il as their great leaders and sole providers. It is very possible the same thing is happening in the Fire Nation. -Robert25
I think that Aang will master airbending to an even higher extent. He will develope the ability to fly without his glider. -Robert25
Cancelled?
The Crossroads of destiny episode upset a lot of fans because of the first preview of the episode showing Zuko and Katara talking.Some of the fans thought that Zuko was going to be on their side, but since Mike and Bryan wrote them trying to kill each other, it probably lost fans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.176.109.182 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
well a lot of people prefer the dark side than the light side. lol. Besides, Zuco dosnt totally turn eveil. Look closely at him in the end of the episode. His line, I betrayed uncle, what have i done
The series gained so many fans from the finale and it is way more popular now than ever. The finale may have been one of the greatest episodes in animation history and definitely in Avatar. Just because things don't go right, doesn't mean it's bad. -Dylan051302:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Greatest? Nah. Hell not even the greatest of Avatar. But Avatar did not lose fans because of one episode. Quitting a show that you've been a fan of simply because of one episode, that's dumb. H2P04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, most people that watched the season finale are probably going to want to tune in to find out what the hell is going to happen now that the Fire Nation has pretty much conquered the world. And about losing fans because Zuko and Katara never got together, complete B**ls**t. Zuko and Katara getting together was about as likley as Aang and Azula getting together.:)
- Robert25
You know, after all of that happened in the finale, it would be carrer suicide. Imagine all the hate mail they'd get if they just quit. If anything, they gained fans. Momoroxmysoxoff22:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
i agree. Beside's, everyone knows the season finalle is going to gain more fans because the next season, Aang learns to fire bend, the relationship between aang and katara will be complete, Fire Lord ozui will appear in Fighting, sokka will learn how to water bend in the episode called sokk'as master and zucko can still change his ways and help the avatar, maybe even teach him fire bending.
Except that tv.com has proven to not be entirely reliable in the past. Plus...that thing about Sokka Waterbending was submitted by some random fan. Come on... As for Zuko, and Katara and Aang, that's speculation. Now enough of this, this page is not a forum. Y BCZ03:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Stop there. No more bad mouthing Tv.com based on things that aren't true. The only thing pooldude has is Sokka's Master and that's it. Nothing else. -Dylan051304:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol, first, I don't even know him, XD. I have to have some place I can rely on to have info in this very, very strange Avatar community. And again, the big difference between Wiki and Tv.com is that editors have to approve of information. And I can't believe I'm sticking up for Tv.com: I hate Cnett, and I'm forum banned there, xD! -Dylan051312:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
with the upbasis sites still On the go, sokka's master will have something tyo do with water bending. And TV.com had those posts from some of the makers of avatar just so you know. Go to its speciel page.
If Sokka becomes a Waterbender I will quit watching this show, because that has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Not only would it ruin Sokka's character and place on the team, it goes against everything previously stated about bending ability. I'm hoping the writers aren't that stupid, but then again they did do a 180 with Zuko at the end of the season. H2P19:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
... and that was brilliant with Zuko. And just ignore the other guy. Nobody has said Sokka will do any bending. -Dylan051320:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
well upbasis does have only that one episodes clarified. Dude, the episode may be about sokka thinking that he may be waterbending but finds out it was just his imagination and overeation. Although, it would be funny to see sokka waterbend. I can imagine him failing by the 100th time. Check the special page rep. Sok'as master is the name of one episode, the 3rd episode. It does have to do with sokka and waterbending. Remember the boomerang he has and its history. That to has something to do with waterbending. Plus there was a carving on it i think he discovers its true meaning. Even if he does learn it or not, Just enjoy the show. I'm am pleased they named one of the episodes already. But didnt the actor who played uncle die? Are they gonna find a replacement or just put him out of the show or just give him no lines and main parts? well, i still hope we can find more about sokka in the third episode.
I don't care about that. Pooldude hasn't said anything about the episode other than the name and I will tell you when he does. -Dylan051321:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you even read these articles? A person has been found for Uncle, you heard his voice already in Season 2. Also, when did it ever say anything about Sokka's boomerang having something to do with Waterbending? H2P21:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
not considerably, no, but these were the key point. Kind of like sneek peeks to new shows and seasons. And i found out that Mako is the man who played uncle. Its a shame he died. He was one of my favorite characters. Not to mention how funny he was. I hope they dont cancel it for that reason. He plays some pretty important parts in the series.
chill out, i just posted at the wrong point. I think when we get clear episode names and descriptions, we can post it to the episode list. Just keep a look out for the upbasis sites, and no it said mako played in both seasons. But these days they can find actors that sound like the originals in no time. lol.
Mako's replacement was in the second season. You clearly hear his voice in Tales of Iroh. We also will not be using TV.com as a source for episodes as we've already decided long ago that no official page will be made until Nick.com or TVGuide (or we did use AnimeNation once due to a pre-viewing) gives us it's air date and name. H2P21:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
General "Uncle" Iroh is a fictional character voiced by Mako (in the first and second seasons) on the Nickelodeon animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender.- look on his page on this site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.18.11 (talk • contribs)
General "Uncle" Iroh is a fictional character voiced by Mako (in the first and SECOND SEASON) on the Nickelodeon animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender.- look on his page on this site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.18.11 (talk • contribs) - SECOND SEASON
For the most part, yeah, Mako does do Iroh in season two, but there are parts in some of the latter episodes that are pretty clearly someone else.--Fyre238723:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
well then they did a pretty good job finding a replacement. lol.
References
Since when is it ok to use other Misplaced Pages pages as a citeable reference? That is completely unacceptable. That is the equivalent of someone publishing an document and then citing it as fact in another paper. Misplaced Pages can't be cited, that is the whole reason why everything must be externally cited.
Now then, if something from an episode needs to be cited then here:
Use the transcripts, they are the only freely available non-Misplaced Pages source of verifiable episode content. So cite the appropriate transcript page instead of the corresponding Misplaced Pages page when you reference an episode.
I will not be the one who will go and modify all the references. I will, however, be the one who deletes all those inappropriate internal references, as that is just terrible article writing. I will allow for time though before I delete them. In fact I will allow a lot of time since there are a lot of references, just make sure it gets done. Sorry to be a jerk, but it's better to have no reference than a possibly falsified one (which is what EVERY Misplaced Pages article is). Sage of Ice02:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's not entirely accurate, I'm afraid. All one has to do to cite an episode is to use template:cite episode. When you use that, you aren't citing the article on the episode, but the episode itself, which is acceptable. If you think that's wrong, maybe you should nominate that template for deletion, but as long as it exists its perfectly valid to use.--Fyre238705:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Congragulations
Thanks to eveyone who made the FA possible. I know it has been 1 and a half months, but we did it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Placebo Effect (talk • contribs)
Lol, yeah. It actually is pretty hard to tell. Who's going to put it for the main page now? Do we have a summary decided? -Dylan051303:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It's like this heavy burden has been lifted. All the stress this page and it's attachments have caused... is only going to get worse. Damn. CURSE YOU VANDALS. H2P06:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol, the vandals aren't the stressful ones for me. *cough* Yeah, this should be easier now... Oh, and Pooldude has the name for episode 3 in season 3, XD. But he's doing another guessing game... -Dylan051313:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This ok for the main page? I just took out The Legend of Aang in several countries.
Image alt-textImage alt-textAvatar: The Last Airbender is an Americananimated television series that currently airs on the Nickelodeon television network. Set in an Asian-influenced world of martial arts and elemental magic, the series follows the adventures of the successor to a long line of Avatars, Aang, and his friends in their quest to save the world from the ruthless Fire Nation. The series is written in the form of a book series, with each episode being a "chapter" and each individual season a "book."
Originally slated to begin airing November of 2004, Avatar: The Last Airbender debuted on TV on February 21, 2005. Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko are the creators and executive producers of the series. The show receives high ratings in the Nicktoons lineup, even outside its intended 6-to-11-year-old demographic. Avatar: The Last Airbender is popular with both audiences and critics, garnering 4.4 million viewers on its best-rated showing.(More...)
This article has recently been promoted to featured article status. It is a very interesting article for one of the more popular articles on Misplaced Pages. No specific date is requested. Dylan051313:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
A little longer, maybe using the next paragraph too. I would wait to nominate it though until we know when season 3 starts and try to get it up around then. The Placebo Effect13:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I made it longer. Wait, do we want refs in there or no? I agree that we should have it up for season 3. Maybe the premier date. If so we should nominate it when we know a date. -Dylan051313:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
wait, what is everyone happy about. What did we complete?
We are discussing about changing it because people might like it as the map of the story instead of a picture that says Avatar the Last Airbender —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zach111493 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
I've said so many times it's late April or early may for season 3! And the main image doesn't look that great really small. -Dylan051319:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd use Aang's portrait for the image. The picture for Avatar on the main page should be the Avatar himself, which is far more interesting than the logo. I agree that the map is too small in thumbnail. --Herald Alberich21:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I am back! I cannot believe it actually won the nomination (even though it was pretty likely). Anyway, as for the min page, I agree with Aang's portrait as the picture. However, references should not be included. In addition, the text should not just be a copy of the first paragraph or two. We should tweak it a bit to make it sound better for the main page. A minor edit I want to mention is that the first time the show is mentioned, it has to be a link, not just bolded, but that is minor. I cannot believe that a month ago I was nominating this article for Featured Article status and now we are talking about putting it on the main page! Parent544621:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I changed the layout a little. How would this look:
Image alt-textImage alt-textAvatar: The Last Airbender is an Americananimated television series that currently airs on the Nickelodeon television network. Set in an Asian-influenced world of martial arts and elemental magic, the series follows the adventures of the successor to a long line of Avatars, Aang, and his friends Katara, Sokka, and Toph in their quest to save the world from the ruthless Fire Nation, an industrialized empire run by the murderous Fire Lord Ozai. Originally slated to begin airing in November of 2004, Avatar: The Last Airbender debuted on TV on February 21, 2005. Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko are the creators and executive producers of the series. The show has received high ratings in the Nicktoons lineup, even outside its intended 6-to-11-year-old demographic. Avatar: The Last Airbender is popular with both audiences and critics, garnering 4.4 million viewers on its best-rated showing. The series' initial success prompted Nickelodeon to order a second season shortly afterwards, and a third season has been announced for 2007. Merchandise based on the series includes six DVD sets of the show's episodes, six-inch (15.34 cm) scale action figures, a video game, stuffed animals distributed by Paramount Parks, and two Lego sets.
Looks good to me. Now do we put it up ASAP, or try to get it on the date of the season 3 premier. Or maybe on February 21st for it's 2nd anniversary of the premier... -Dylan051322:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the February 21 idea. If we wait to nominate it until we find out when the Season 3 premier is, it might be too late to get it in on that date. --Herald Alberich23:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
2 things to fix on the summary you have. "long line of Avatars, Aang, and his friends" to "long line of Avatars, Aang, and his friends, Katara and Sokka" would probably we better. Also "garnering 4.4 million viewers on one of its best-rated showings." to "garnering 4.4 million viewers on its best-rated showing." The season finale had the best ratings. -Dylan051301:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be too late, they'll tell use a month in advance and articles aren't chosen that far ahead. I would like to wait until season 3 starts like they did for Lost. The Placebo Effect01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the list for the month, they are only have the next three articles set up. If we request the date as soon as it comes, then we will almost certinly get to have that date. If we get it on the day of the episode then it will remind people to watch it as they see in the article that the third season starts the day they are reading it. The Placebo Effect01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
First for the 4.4 million thing: yeah, it should say best rated, that's detailed in the source cited. As for the date: I don't mind either way, really. The only possible problem I see with waiting is, its hard to say if we'll have a solid date (as opposed to timeframe) for the premiere far enough ahead of time to get the date. They normally do it farther than it is now, I think. Feb 21 would be good, but I've got no strong opinions either way. Heck, do it on my birthday, that'd be a neat present (kidding).--Fyre238701:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, we'll at least get a date two weeks ahead from TvGuide and Nick. Oh, but if we put it up for the premier, would it be the day before to raise hype or the day after when most people look? I think it's 8:00 EST when it changes so it works out perfectly. -Dylan051301:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
(unindenting) You would do it the day of. For the East Coast, it is still the 15th when the 16th starts. Just trust me, it works out in my head. The Placebo Effect02:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You know, the "they" who handle the featured articles is one guy, User:Raul654. Why don't we just ask him whether requesting the article two weeks ahead of time is soon enough? Oh, and I made the requested changes to the proposal above. --Herald Alberich04:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This was just posted in the article nominations and I took it off:¶
¶
¶
Image alt-textImage alt-text¶
¶
Avatar: The Last Airbender is an Americananimated television series that currently airs on the Nickelodeon television network. Set in an Asian-influenced world of martial arts and elemental magic, the series follows the adventures of the successor to a long line of Avatars, Aang, and his friends, Katara and Sokka, in their quest to save the world from the ruthless Fire Nation, an industrialized empire run by the murderous Fire Lord Ozai. Originally slated to begin airing in November of 2004, Avatar: The Last Airbender debuted on TV on February 21, 2005. Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko are the creators and executive producers of the series. The show has received high ratings in the Nicktoons lineup, even outside its intended 6-to-11-year-old demographic. Avatar: The Last Airbender is popular with both audiences and critics, garnering 4.4 million viewers on its best rated showing, the second season finale. The series' initial success prompted Nickelodeon to order a second season shortly afterwards, and a third season has been announced for 2007. Merchandise based on the series includes six DVD sets of the show's episodes, six-inch (15.34 cm) scale action figures, a video game, stuffed animals distributed by Paramount Parks, and two Lego sets.¶
¶
¶
This article is a very interesting article. It just attained featured article status and meets the standards to be on the front page. A picture of the main character is perfect for the front page and the description is easy to follow. Anybody who sees this article is bound to be interested. 71.247.38.11902:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)¶
¶
I think it's not better than the last one. The only thing we have to do is tweak the last one some more and decide on a date. -Dylan051303:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I seriously missed a lot of stuff while at work. Anyway, I never really liked that image of Aang, is there any way we could blow up the opening title somehow, or atleast get a new picture for Aang before the time comes (considering we might be getting a new one for Katara and Toph as well). Also as per the date, I say it doesn't matter. The Fed 21st is a neat idea. I would NOT include this to go up on the day of the new episode, the reason being is that, well, you all remember the crap that happened with the Finale aired. Do we really want all the people coming here from the front page to see a page that is getting a revert every minute? H2P07:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sometime before the new season starts would be good for this to be on the main page, because do we really want Manticore to go "z0mg WP:OWN!" on us because we're just removing the bull from the articl? (I'm so going to be attacked.) By the way, this page needs an archive. --Whydoit08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh oh, you brought the wrath of WP:NPA. I stopped mentioning his name after like the 5th warning from random people on my talk page. H2P09:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
So the 21st it is? I'll be on a look out for a better picture in my itunes. The logo not being there would be great. -Dylan051311:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I still believe that the best date is on the premire of season three. The page would still be vandalized on that day anyway, so combining both days into one measn one less day to worry about vandalisim. And if I remember right, it was vandalized more after the episode not before. And I beleive the logo is proboubly the best image to show. It as least better than the picture of Aang. The Placebo Effect13:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol, I'll take the vandals on my own! XD, popups rock. For the dates, The premier date would help the show, but it's probably not until May. February, 21st is sooner, but not much other significance other than the 2 year anniversary. Oh, BTW, I'll see if I can get pooldude to tell his contact that when it'll be on the main page so people at avatar can see! =) For the picture, the logo or Aang? Lrt's try to come to a consensus. -Dylan051320:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I do Agree, although the trailer for the next season should be released soon so that way we can fix up some things ahead of time. The date for season 3 seems very likely. Well done. -User:AvatarDude360
Dylan and I mentioned it on Pooldude's site to see what other fans opinions are about this. I still hold strong to my belief that we should wait till the season three premiere. The Placebo Effect03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
(unindenting) I meant as a basis to see what other people think. Clearly their is no way to reach a consensus on this. It is on one day or the other. The Placebo Effect05:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Picture for main page
What if we get the picture of Aang when his back is turned to the viewer during the opening credit (right before the title comes up). H2P01:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
2nd one's definitely closer up, XD. After struggling with this and watching the same scene on itunes for half an hour, all the details are pretty apparent. -Dylan051301:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol, so is this better than what we have now? Or may another image be better than this? -Dylan0513
It's good, but I don't know where it would be used. Would it replace the picture with the Avatar logo thing on it? It might fit well on Aang's page somewhere. Maybe. Bagpipeturtle02:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Man I don't know what I'm suggesting, I just hate that current picture of Aang. I also think that if we are trying to get the characters up to FA as well, we shouldn't put any one character as part of the main page picture. H2P02:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, for the main page, ok. I don't think the current article picture is that great either so is changing the main page and the article still in the discussion? -Dylan051302:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that makes more sense. I kind of like the logo as the main picture, but I suppose it would look good with that one too. Bagpipeturtle03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That certainly works better than the logo in thumbnail, for the Main Page synopsis. I think they'd work equally well at the top of the article. --Herald Alberich04:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Kuzon
The creators mentioned that Kuzon, Aang's old friend from the Fire Nation, was going to play an important role in the future. It is possible that he is the person that will teach Aang firebending. - Robert25
Yes, that is (slightly) possible. But we can't really put that in any articles unless it accually happens. And Kuzon would be, like, really old. As old as Bumi (and we all know how insane he is). As I said before, speculation until proven otherwise. Bagpipeturtle03:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
