Talk:The Legend of Korra

Portal, and Vandalism

1st, I would like it if someone would make The Legend of Korra portal.

2nd, why is there an Avatar The Last Airbender portal on a different article!?!?! I mean, thats like vandilism! Now it there was there was a The Legend of Korra portal with it, it would be fine.

3rd, on the Katara article, I suggest there should be a young Katara and an old Katara.

4th, there's not a lot of character articles for The Legend of Korra.

And Lastly, there to mush small errors on the article. I suggest we protected (some article shows have protections). {{edit semi-protected}} .

 Not done: Please request protection at WP:RFPP. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the portal— As this is linked to The Last Airbender, I don't think it needs its own portal. Legend of Korra isn't really a big enough topic, especially since it's pretty new right now.

Regarding lack of articles— Like I stated previously, this is a fairly recent topic; in addition, it will never be as prominent as the original show. As a shorter series, it doesn't need as many character articles. It should, however have its own list of characters. It's been suggested that the characters section in the article become part of a list containing all of the characters from Avatar: The Last Airbender; however, I think that Legend of Korra should have its own list.

71.254.183.96 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Princess Azula?

The opening say it takes place after the defeat of Phoenix King Ozai and Princess Azula. Shouldn't it be Fire Lord Azula? Or Fire Lord Ozai. It seems weird to give one their new rank and not the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.123.126 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Azula never technically crowned fire lord, so it's both their titles at end of series. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

True, Azula was only princess as Zuko and katara interrupted the coronation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.186.147 (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Characters page

I was wondering what you all think about spinning off the characters section of this page. Some of the minor characters, like the Lieutenant, would probably fit better on that page. We could make a brand new page, or we could at least initially add this information on this show to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. What do you think? Oldag07 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the characters belong on theAvatar page, as the cast of the two series has only a small overlap, and there is not yet enough out-of-universe coverage (per WP:WAF) to make a separate article viable.  Sandstein  16:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be the biggest reason to act least temporarily use the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters as a place to put TLOK characters. But I am not that attached to any particular set up. Oldag07 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As shown in recent edits, characters like Iroh, aren't major yet. Why can't we have these characters on either a separate page or on the ATLA characters page. Oldag07 (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe it merits its own page, separate from that of ALTA. This show will have as many, if not more characters than ALTA, and there is minimal overlap to them. We should prepare that it's only been one season, and we have a character section a mile long, I assume it will exponentially grow in the next 3 seasons. Grammarxxx (talk) 1:48, 24 June 2012

Actually as of right now there are only 2 season planned which will consist of 24 episodes compared to 61 for the original series. A character list for this series will likely be much shorter than the one for the original series.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Tenzin and Pema's newborn son is named Rolan, not Rohan. This could be a slightly embarrassing mistake to point out, but I am not able to fix it myself. It is possible, however, that I am mistaken. This should be confirmed sooner rather than later and duly corrected if necessary. ∑Terrentius (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)§

In response to the original request, the two articles should remain separate. The new series is completely different from ATLA, featuring different plots, backstories, and characters. The only overlap is that the events of the first series happened in the past relative to the events of Korra. And the only characters that appear in both are Aang and Katara (not counting the brief cameos of Toph and Sokka in random flashbacks). Unless the show begins demonstrating major overlaps in characters, which I strongly doubt since most of the original series characters are deceased, there should be two separate character list articles. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 00:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the merge tags as I can see no consensus here, I would wait for the character info to become more pupulated with sourced info first, there is no need to move a small bit of unsourced info to a new page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 June 2012

Minor note: Tarrlock is noted as using "increasingly repressive methods." The word repressive needs to be replaced by opressive. 98.127.31.62 (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC) .

Not done for now:. The words are similar in meaning. Why is "oppressive" better suited to this context? Those of us unfamiliar with the subject of the article might find it helpful if you'd provide a source to support your rationale. (Just change the template parameter back to answered=no to get this reviewed again.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

the legend of korra keeps redirecting

i don't know if this is a general problem but every time i like on any link inside the legend of korra i keep getting redirected to this http://adsfadsfadsfasdf.blogspot.com/2012/06/function-randomstringlength-var-chars.html then this http://irc.irchighway.net:6667/ i went and typed in other in other things in the search bar and it works fine but only this page is doing it to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.10.180.72 (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That is likely a problem on your end, maybe some sort of malware, or a DNS problem. The links work fine for me.  Sandstein  18:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

New edit Controversial ending

An addition should be made to the main page discussing the controversy surrounding the Finale and whether or not Korra was planning to commit suicide — Preceding unsigned comment added by AttackingTomato (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of controversy surrounding the finale of The Legend of Korra in that many people believe that Korra planned to commit suicide near the end of the last episode of season 1. For a children's show that is pretty grim and therefore should be talked about on the main page. here is a link to more info http://voices.yahoo.com/was-avatar-korra-contemplating-suicide-end-season-11497622.html?cat=39 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AttackingTomato (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is one article a controversy? It's an interesting aspect, but is that a WP:RS or an editorial opinion?  Sandstein  18:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's now in the plot summary, at least.  Sandstein  18:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It has since been removed due to the source in question being an opinion piece.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Noatok???

In Yakone's description, it's described as Noatok's father, and as I know his REAL name is Noatak. Please, correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.5.7.50 (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Format of the Characters Section

Currently there is a dispute as to how the Characters section should be written. Light2Shadow believes that we should keep it the way it is in the regular Avatar article (see Old revision of The Legend of Korra). I'd much rather follow the example set forth in WP:MOSTV (see Old revision of The Legend of Korra). I'd like to get further opinions. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 13:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the current layout that does not distinguish between "main" and "recurring" characters, because it is not clear to me how one can make this distinction without original research. Also, I don't think that the form "Janet Varney as Korra" is appropriate here, because this is an animated series: Varney does not act Korra, she only voices her. "Korra (Janet Varney)" is therefore preferable.  Sandstein  14:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated in WP:MOSTV, the distinction between primary and recurring characters should be made based on the producers' decisions. I haven't yet personally checked which are which, but if you watch the credits of a Korra episode, there will be a "Starring" section for the main cast and then an "Also starring" section for non-primary cast. This is how most TV shows, including ATLA as well, distinguish. And as for the fact that they're voice actors, it doesn't matter. The point of the format is to make the section more out-of-universe. This shouldn't be a characters section as much as it should be a casting section, which is why WP:MOSTV says an alternative would be to get rid of the Characters section altogether and simply integrate it with the Plot section. Also, I'm not sure whether the current version uses boldface properly. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 15:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, the downloaded versions of the episodes I watched didn't have credits beyond a plate with the creators and directors. I wouldn't object to integrating the characters into the plot section, although that might make the plot too long.  Sandstein  18:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to double check what I was looking at. But yeah integrating into the plot section is a viable option if we can get the length down, and then real world casting information will go into the Production section. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

26 more episodes

Nick has ordered 26 more episodes for the series. This is the most reliable source I found at the moment: Nickelodeon orders second season of 'The Legend of Korra'. I'm not really sure where this information should go, so I'm going to leave this here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for those who can't be bothered to read a link, this is 26 on top of the 26 already known about. They explicitly mention books 3 and 4. So, yeah, this is interesting. Probably should be added into the broadcast and production areas (assuming it isn't someone really getting their wires crossed). Derekloffin (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring

Because the series will have a total of four books (functionally equivalent to the seasons of other shows, it seems), and coverage of book 2 begins to appear, I have restructured the related articles as follows:

• Book One: Air has been created, for material directly relating to that book. As currently most material is about Book One, I believe that most of the production, plot and reception content should remain in the main article for the time being, where it is easier to find for most readers. As soon as production, plot and reception content is available for book 2, we can apply summary style and move stuff into the book pages, leving only summaries in the main article.
• The main table in List of The Legend of Korra episodes has been moved to the episodes section of Book One, following the standard layout for season articles. The series overview table has been moved to the main article. This makes the list article currently superfluous, and I've redirected it to the aforementioned section. We can recreate it as soon as episode information for book 2 is available.
• The ratings table is now in {{The Legend of Korra ratings}} to allow its incorporation into all appropriate articles.
• I'll begin work on Book Two: Spirits next.  Sandstein  15:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We should already be reducing the plot summary now. There is an absurd level of detail here in the main article that is unnecessary and takes up three paragraphs for a twelve episode half-season. Also I temporarily un-redirected the main episode list article. It would be best if we followed suit with ATLA and had a short list in the main list article and then plot summaries in the books. Also we should not create Book 2 until it airs because of notability reasons. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 15:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's easier to do it like in Game of Thrones (season 1) and List of Game of Thrones episodes: a table with plot summaries in each season article, which is then combined via inclusion into one big episode list. But since only one book has aired, we don't need a separate episode list yet. This only duplicates the content.

I disagree about Book 2 not being notable, what with all the SDCC coverage. But that can be discussed at AfD if need be.  Sandstein  15:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm proposing we do, as it's currently what the original series does. And you have a point there, so I might just re-redirect the list article until the second season airs. As far as the Book 2 article goes, this isn't like Game of Thrones where we have multiple sources describing what the season will be about, what new actors are being casted, etc. The only announcement of the season has been the SDCC panel, which is basically a primary source since it's all info from the show's creators. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the current version of List of The Legend of Korra episodes we have again all the introduction and context material that is in the main article and (now also) in Book 1, that is a bit much I think and invites duplication of effort. As to notability for book 2, insofar as the SDCC panel has been reported by media we have secondary sources that are sufficient for notability. As a practical matter, it's a useful WP:SS subarticle for developing coverage of book 2's production, without overwhelming the main article with that too.  Sandstein  15:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But there isn't any production to cover. The only information about the season is an announcement saying its going to happen and some minute plot details the creators decided to give out. Most of it can be summed up in about a paragraph worth of information. There's no need to have a separate article until more information is released. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, just because the panel was reported on by outside sources does not make them secondary sources. A source would have to be reviewing the information and synthesizing from it in order for it to qualify as a primary source (though I should note that this is not true under the traditional definition of a primary source, only under the definition in context of Wikipedia's usage of primary sources in articles and in defining WP:OR). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see what others think in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Korra (Book 2). In general, outside reporting is what conveys notability, no matter how transformative (or not - as is often the case in entertainment topics) the reporting is. 16:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was the (Book 1) page even created? It's way too early to even have a separate Book page. This is just causing too many problems. There's nothing wrong with the way the List of Episodes page was before. Besides the fact that there's usually a "Proposal to Split" discussion before any separate season (or book) page is created. What gave you the thought to just go ahead and create a page and think it's okay? - 50.36.95.22 (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, WP:BOLD. See also the discussion below.  Sandstein  07:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: How do we organize the content related to the individual books of The Legend of Korra?

This request for comment and the subsequent one is an attempt to find consensus about a range of questions related to the continued development of the articles about this series.

Where do we put information about production, casting, reception, ratings, broadcast dates and so forth? As of now, we have the main article, The Legend of Korra, as well as The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and The Legend of Korra (Book 2) (on AfD). Assuming that the AfD does not end with deletion, what do we put where? I see roughly the following options:

1. Keep everything in the main article, forego creating separate book/season articles for now. The argument for this is that most media coverage we have is about book 1, and media coverage of book 2 is mostly about one recent SDCC panel discussion.
2. Create a separate article for book 1, but not yet for book 2, keeping book 2 content in the main article because there's relatively little coverage of it for now.
3. Create a separate article for season 1 (books 1 and 2). This has been proposed in the AfD, with the argument that Nickelodeon considers the two books to be one season, and that we should follow the example of other TV series articles that organize their content by season.
4. Keep the separate articles for book 1 and 2. This allows us to apply summary style by summarizing the important information in the main article and relegating detailed coverage to the subarticles.

Please list your preferences below and comment on the merits of the individual options in the subsections below.  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Preferences

I recommend that you list your preferences in descending order, to allow a quick assessment of the discussion's outcome.

• Prefer 4, second choice 2, third choice 1, disagree with 3, per my discussion of the four options below.  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC) (Swapped preference of 2 and 1, 07:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
• Prefer 4, second choice 2, disagree with 1 and 3 Considering the creator of the series considers the Books separate story lines unto themselves, I think we should follow his lead. - Presidentman talk · contribsRandom Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Prefer 2, second choice 4, disagree with 1 and 3 — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Prefer 2, second choice 4, disagree with 1 and 3 I second Parent5446's decision. There isn't enough info on book 2 to make a separate page yet. Oldag07 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Prefer 4, second choice 2, disagree with 1 and 3 Each book needs its own article and not a combined article. Light2Shadow (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Prefer 2, second choice 1, disagree with 3 and 4 At least for now. Book 2 isn't slated to actually air until a year from now, and there really isn't going to be enough information until then that would require a separate article. Once this date gets a lot closer and reliable info starts pouring in, then it would certainly be appropriate to split it off into its own article, but its too soon at the moment. Rorshacma (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Prefer 4, second choice 2, disagree with 1 and 3 See my comment below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Discussion of the four options (or more, if any other are proposed) goes here.  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Option 1 (only main article)

I could live with this, but as a practical matter, we will need separate book or season articles at some point because they will all get media coverage as they air. And as more material accumulates (and bloats the main article), splitting it up into subarticles will just become harder and harder. And then we have to have the whole discussion about when to spin off subarticles again. That's why I think option 4 is preferable.  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that this option isn't too lucrative. I'd rather keep the plot summary where it belongs in the season articles. There is plenty of information to fill the Book 1 article as has been demonstrated. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Option 2 (main article + book 1 article)

This is also doable, but in the course of the next half year coverage of book 2 will accumulate and will be added (more or less haphazardly, probably) to the main article. It will be difficult to apply summary style (or really any reader-friendly structure) to the main article when we have a summary of the important information about the series as a whole next to relatively detailed production information about book 2. Having a separate article for this also de-clutters the watchlist of those who watch the related articles. And not creating a book 2 article now only postpones the question of when to do it.  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I say when the first trailer comes out. Oldag07 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Option 3 (combine book 1+2 into one season article)

This was proposed in the AfD, but for the reasons given there, I think it is inappropriate: For all practical purposes, and as explained by a creator of the series, the books are the seasons of this series: they tell separate stories and are produced and aired (and covered by the media) as much as a year apart. Nickelodeon's "season" designation appears to be a purely internal and administrative matter. Combining two books into one article makes as much sense as combining two random seasons of another series into one article.  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Option 4 (separate articles for book 1 and 2)

This is my preferred option because it allows for organical summary-style development of the main article and subarticles: important stuff goes into the main article, details into the subarticles. (We will still need to discuss separately how much of the book 1 content such as plot summary or production info we want to move into the subarticle.)  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support The articles both have good references to them, a merge is just going to make things more confusing later down the line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose in relation to option 2. Book two isn't coming out until Summer 2013. Most of the new stuff on the page while sourced, but it is still borderline WP:CRYSTAL. Oldag07 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Each book needs its own article and not a combined article. Light2Shadow (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Do we currently need a separate list of episodes for The Legend of Korra?

Wikipedia coverage of TV series is customarily organized into a main article about the series, separate articles about the seasons (if notable; see the RfC above for a discussion about this), separate articles about the episodes (if notable) and a list of all episodes from all seasons. For an example, see The Sopranos, The Sopranos (season 4) and List of The Sopranos episodes, respectively, and compare WP:MOSTV which describes how to set up such articles.

The Legend of Korra is a TV series whose first season, The Legend of Korra (Book 1), aired in April-June 2012 with 12 episodes; these episodes are listed in The Legend of Korra (Book 1)#Episodes. A second season, The Legend of Korra (Book 2) is in production and expected to air sometime in 2013; it will have 14 episodes but nothing else is currently known about them.

The question is, do we currently need the separate List of The Legend of Korra episodes, or is it appropriate to redirect it to The Legend of Korra (Book 1)#Episodes until such time as there is enough information for writing a list of the second season's episodes? This has been the topic of discussion at Talk:List of The Legend of Korra episodes#Proposed redirection, and there have been several reverts.  Sandstein  07:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Redirect for now. The current content of List of The Legend of Korra episodes is entirely duplicative of content in other articles, to wit: the episode list in The Legend of Korra (Book 1)#Episodes, and broadcast and production information that does not belong into an episode list and has already been copied to the articles for which it is appropriate, i.e., the main article and/or the season articles. There is no point in maintaining duplicated content; it only complicates maintenance. Users who click on the List of The Legend of Korra episodes link will be directly redirected to the episode list in the season article. To be clear, I'm fully in favor of restoring the episode list as soon as we have enough information for a table of episodes in The Legend of Korra (Book 2). – Of course, this assumes that the result of the preceding RfC is to keep at least a separate article for book 1. If that is not the case, then evidently we need to restore the episode list.  Sandstein  07:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• I pretty much agree with Sanstein on this one. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Do not redirect As I indicated at Talk:List of The Legend of Korra episodes,[1] the lead of List of The Legend of Korra episodes contains overview information that isn't in The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and which is useful to readers (I've never watched the show but I now know a little bit about it because of what I've read in the lead). The same is true for the series overview and episode list sections, which contain information about seasons 1 & 2. Clearly there is opposition to the redirection as several editors have now reverted the redirection. I think it would be better just to leave it as per most other shows to avoid what are bound to be ongoing problems. Despite any consensus here, redirecting the article is going to be reverted numerous times. I'm basing this on my unfortunate experiences at other shows of this type. I also think that, as this discussion concerns the episode list article and not this one, this discussion would have been better held there. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• There is a link on that article's talk page to this RfC. Which useful content, specifically, is there that has not already been copied to the main article or to the book 1 or 2 article? If we were to move this useful information to these other articles (which is where it should be anyway - an episode list should not contain much information beyond the list of episodes), would that address your concern?  Sandstein  07:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Do not redirect As Aussie mentioned above we do not need to redirect. The reason the information is duplicated is because the (Book 1) page was created prematurely. We don't really need separate pages for each book (or season) yet. The reason you want to redirect it to (Book 1) is because the page is there but we don't need it at this time. We need a List of episodes page. To be honest the page should look like this. - Alec (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Er, in the RfC above, all contributors agree that we should at least keep The Legend of Korra (Book 1), and nobody has nominated that article for deletion. Your argument however is based on the premise that we should not have The Legend of Korra (Book 1). Assuming that article remains, which appears very likely based on the RfC above, do you still believe we should keep a separate episode list with the same content?  Sandstein  07:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Do not redirect The article List of The Legend of Korra episodes should cover all of the series episodes and individual seasons (books) like The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and The Legend of Korra (Book 2) should cover only the episodes for their book. Light2Shadow (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree entirely, but... until 2013, all the episodes that exist are those of book 1. Why do you think it makes sense to include the identical episode list in List of The Legend of Korra episodes and The Legend of Korra (Book 1)? In other words, what is the added value in keeping the first article as a functional duplicate of the second?  Sandstein  07:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is why The Legend of Korra (Book 1) is premature. We wouldn't be running into this problem if the page doesn't exsit (at least not until Book 2 has aired). It makes sense because that's what the list of episodes page is for. We should just eliminate (or redirect) The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and keep the episode list on the List of Episodes page and move production info to the main article until we actually NEED to split into different pages. Then the problem of "duplication" is fixed. Since we do not even know any episodes for Book 2, I don't see why we need separate pages this early on? - Alec (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC the third: How do we refer to the books in prose?

OK, this is not a formal RfC as it is not likely to interest people who have not already commented in the above two. How do we refer to the books in prose? E.g., do we say "Book One aired..." or "Book 1: Air aired..."?

Sources

• The title card before each episode, e.g.:

BOOK ONE
AIR
CHAPTER FOUR
THE VOICE IN THE NIGHT

• Others?

Applicable rules

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), which is for article titles, says: "the article should be named first by the name of the show, and then by the season number, such as "24 (season 1)"". This would give something like "The Legend of Korra (Book 1)", which is too unwieldy for prose text.
• MOS:ITALIC says that we italicize "television and radio series and serials (individual episodes should appear in quotes)", but nothing about season titles.
• Others?

Options

• Book 1: Air / Book 1: Air
• Book 1
• Book One: Air / Book One: Air / Book One: Air
• Book One / Book One
• Air / Air
• Others?

Comparable situations

• The predecessor series Avatar: The Last Airbender does not have this problem because its "books" are congruous with the network's seasons. Therefore Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1) can refer to its topic in prose as "the first season". This isn't possible here because it would confuse readers: Nickelodeon considers two books to constitute a season (see the first of the two RfCs above).
• Others?

Discussion

As the manual of style provides no clear guidance, I propose we settle on "Book One: Air for the first mention in an article or section, and just Book One for subsequent mentions. This is because of the following considerations: Unlike "season", "Book" is not a term of art in television, but the creators' invention. As such, it is part of the formal title of the (half-)season, which is according to the title card: "Book One: Air". As such, the "One" should be wrtitten out as it appears in the title card (to contrast with "season 1"; the seasons have no titles but only numbers), and the entire title should be italicized, because a book of this series is essentially a Serial (radio and television) - a "story arc[...] that span[s] entire television seasons [...], which distinguishes [it] from traditional episodic television that relies on more stand-alone episodes." And according to MOS:ITALIC, serial titles should be italicized.  Sandstein  07:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I could live with this. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As the reliable sources state, we should have it split into 2 seasons with 2 books in each. Season 1 - Book One: Air and Season 1 - Book Two: Spirits. Then Season 2 - Book Three: TBA and Season 2 - Book Four: TBA. Networks can call their seasons and episodes as they wish. If you look at the TV show GREEK, the show is split into four season and 6 chapters. We cannot just use the format like the original series as the format for This series is a different show and still connected but the show does not need to be laid out like the first series. - Alec (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

But wouldn't need a "No. in book" section along with "No. in series" and "No. in season" for each book? As for the book names, we shouldn't italicize them. We already have Avatar: The Last Airbender to use as model so we should construct The Legend of Korra the same way. Light2Shadow (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, what you two are discussing seems to be the structure of articles and sections, which has nothing to do with the question posed here: how do we call the books in the text of the article when we need to refer to them?  Sandstein  07:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above (and you) the first occurance we refer to it as Book One: Air then in the same article just state Book One. Kind of like when we Abbreviate words when we type we say something like To Be Announced (TBA) and use TBA the rest of the article. - Alec (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, then we agree on this, thanks!  Sandstein  07:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)