Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters

Delete this.

This is a direct copy from the main Avatar: The Last Airbender page. It provides jack squat. I propose we delete it immediately. Y BCZ 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if Zany would stop removing the deletion tag it would be. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They won't speedy it, I'll try PROD. If somebody removes that, though, it'll have to go through AfD. Which is really pretty ridiculous, but it may be needed to keep the red-tapers happy...--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reacting with an immediate "This must be deleted" it might be worthwhile to consider your options. For example, you could just create a redirect, if there's an already existing better page, or consider whether or not this page is really a problem. It's certainly not unusual to have separate lists for characters in a televison show or book series. See for example List of Honorverse characters, List of Rugrats characters, List of Simpsons characters, and even video games [List of Metal Gear Solid characters]]. This list, could also, for example, be converted into a summary list for the existing lists, as an aid to navigation. Mister.Manticore 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this category might also be informative Category:Lists of fictional characters for even more examples. Mister.Manticore 15:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'm fine with a redirect, but that seems a little cheep, being that its basically deleting the page, anyway. And just FYI: we don't have a single character list because each main character has an article and with have TWO (soon to be more, in fact, one is due for a split) lists already for minor ones. We don't need a list of lists here.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap, that's the point. I don't even agree with deletion. The concept itself is real, the content is not a problem , so I don't see a point in deleting. And personally, I consider the size of the character section of the Avatar: the Last Airbender to be large enough in the scope of the article that it might well be worth keeping this one and trimming that section, with further links to the minor pages. Or possibly combining them all here, depending on what people prefer. At the least, a single list with names and brief(one line) descriptions all on one page could be highly useful as a navigational reference.

It's certainly something to think about, not just thrown into the waste bin because you've already got a section. Take a look at the various Television shows at WP:FA. Of the TV shows listed there, I only found two that didn't have a separate character page (Although Cheers is actually to a category, which I think is a bad idea). Firefly which didn't even finish a whole season, and Our Friends in the North which doesn't even have a character section and is only 9 episodes long anyway.

So that's why I think it's worth considering, and instead of looking at this spin-off as an offensive action, take it as an opportunity to improve the presence of Avatar on Wikipedia. I'd understand the level of concern I see here if the article were poorly written, or full of derogatory nonsense, but it's not. It's just a bold attempt at a split. So, think about it in the spirit in which it was meant, a good faith edit with the best interest's of everybody in mind. The worst that happens from mulling this over for a few days or weeks is a few hundred kilobytes extra on Wikipedia's servers. Mister.Manticore 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh gads....fine. Make this even harder on everybody. Anyway, the main articles got the sugeestion template on it, so this SHOULD be a redirect (seems rather silly to have a template suggesting something that's already done). I would, however, like to point out, again, that we already have character lists. Two of them, and a category. We don't need mega-redundancy like this.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you agree discussion is worthwhile, let's hope folks participate in it rather than engage in an edit war. And there's no harm in leaving this page up nor do I imagine folks will be confused (edited for clarity). The question is, will this page remain live, and that's what I'm asking. Let's hope more people participate in it. Mister.Manticore 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in confusing folk? I can hardly agree with that....--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)}

To be clear, I don't imagine anybody will be harmed or confused. It'd be one thing if this page were trashy, but clearly, it's not. If anybody is truly confused, they need only ask. Mister.Manticore 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indenting) I really can’t agree with that. We have a tag on one page saying its suggested a section be spilt here. They follow that link, and see that the section already IS here. That would sure as heck confuse me…--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, if anything, I'd see the redirect as confusing, as it'd take me back to where I started, and if I didn't know to click the actual link, I might never see that it was a redirect. If they are confused though, they need only read the discussion and hopefully they'll figure it out. If not, asking "What's going on here" isn't a problem. If you want, I can see if there's some kind of appropriate template to add though. Would that help? Mister.Manticore 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Y BCZ. This article does not provide any extra information to what is already written on the main page. Redirecting this article to the main article makes sense to me. If you type this into google, the main article comes up anyway. Supertigerman 01:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request: could everybody take any disscusion about the mertis of this page to Talk:Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#Splitting_Character_Section? It just makes things easier having it in one place.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters

Do we really need each minor character listed here? A simple link to the list would be sufficient, I think.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's appropriate, yes, as it will provide for a more easily referenced index to characters. I also intend to add very short descriptions to that section as well, akin to the ones in the preceding section. Mister.Manticore 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really seems like over-redundancy to me, in all honesty. Still, if it is to be there, I do think descriptions for minor characters would be overkill. On top of that, many of the entires on the minor characters list could not really be made shorter and provide meaningful information. Perhapses instead just list what episode they were in and link to their entry on the primary list? Seems like that would be more useful as an indexing feature. IE, something like this:

Chief Arnook ("The Waterbending Master","The Siege of the North")

In my opinion, that provides the reader with identification, without making the list here overly long. It also provides quick accses to the episodes the character was in. Alternatively, we could divide the season sections into sub-sections based on each character's first appearance.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is certainly intended to be accessible, and redundancy is often a part of that. In the case of Chief Arnook I would say something like "Leader of the Northern Water Tribe in ("The Waterbending Master","The Siege of the North")" which would be clear and informative, just in case somebody didn't know what those episodes were about by the title. If you can't write something that long about a character, they don't need an entry. Mister.Manticore 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really seems like more than is needed, to me. If this is to be a clear index, then it should be just that: providing a reader with where they can find information, not providing the information itself.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More information that is needed would be something like "Leader of the NWT, Father of Yune, prayed to the moon spirit to save his daughter's life". Which is still more useful than just his name (which I certainly didn't recall), as I don't think a mere list of names would be useful to folks, while a list of names with a bit of identifiers is. See for example List of fictional countries which is very useful with such information, versus a mere list of names. Think of it like a phone book. A simple list of names expanded into usefulness with addresses and phone numbers. Mister.Manticore 01:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, this isn't a phone book. A phone book provides information. We already have pages that provide the information, all this needs to do is tell people where to get it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point. Chief Arnook doesn't tell *me* anything. Or Hakoda. Or any number of other entries. Providing enough to tell folks what it is, though, may be more helpful. Mister.Manticore 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this one: List of Star Trek Characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mister.Manticore (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The difference is, for all those articles you mentioned, there are no other lists. That's not true here. And really, for someone with no knowledge of the subject, "Leader of the Northern Water Tribe" wouldn't provide anything meaningful, either. We don't need this page to inform. We already have pages that do that perfectly well.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum: You're right, "Chief Arnook" doesn't tell you anything. "Chief Arnook", on the other hand, does: it tells you where you can go to find out about Chief Arnook.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what if I don't know it's Chief Arnook I'm looking for? Sure, I could go to this other page, and see if that's what I want, but then I might be scrolling around for a while. If Leader of the Northern Water Tribe doesn't say enough, then perhaps you could suggest something similarily brief to inform folks that would be more informative? Mister.Manticore 07:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's just the issue: there really is no way I can see to provide meaningful information while restricted to something that brief. Anything that short is going to be meaningless without prior knowledge of the subject. And honestly, I don't see a need to scroll on a page to find what you want that big a deal. Also, it may be relevant to point out that there's a discussion underway now about spiting the minor characters page up to make it less confusing.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that if you don't have some basic knowledge of the subject, this list may not help, but a short description is still better than a name without description. The extra cost in disk space is nil, if it doesn't help, you can go to that other page. And thanks for bringing the other situation to my attention, I'll look into it. Mister.Manticore 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colons getting out of hand. Manticore the people who do have knowledge of the show don't need this list. If they want to look up a minor character they'll more than likely know that that character isn't a major character and just use the key on that page. So if the list doesn't help the unknowing or the knowing what is the point of it?

H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 21:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't agree that short descriptions are better than none. If we want this to be useful for navigation, the page should be clean, otherwise it doesn't offer anything over the other lists. I'd really think of it like a paper encyclopedia's index: just a volume and page number. Saying which episodes the character was in is really all the description that should be there.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say way a short description is worse than none though? It may not help you, but I know it would help me, much more than just listing the episodes someone was in. This would especially be helpful if somebody was in a lot of episodes, but still a minor character. Mister.Manticore 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SBecause we don't know what level of knowledge a person might have, it's best to err on the side of assisting people the most. I think including that information here is more helpful, and not a problem. Can you explain why it's a problem? Mister.Manticore 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a problem because it clutters the page needlessly. As far as I can see, the entire point of having this page here is navigation. We should be aiming for a clean, uncomplicated list linking to the real content, otherwise we might as well just merge the other page to here (which, just to be clear, would be a monumentally bad idea.)--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(disindenting). Yes, too much clutter is a bad thing. So is too little information. I think one short sentence is not too much to ask. That's not clutter, that's information. It's a balancing act, and I'd rather balance in favor of helping folks more, which I think a brief description does. Heck, I don't like the list of names of real people that don't describe them. Maybe an RFC would get more input? Mister.Manticore 05:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise not even an option, huh? Fine then, looks like an RFC would be the only recourse.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but have I made the changes I have advocated? No, I have not taken action, because this discussion is not resolved yet. I have refrained out of courtesy, and respect. Is seeking further opinion so anathema to you that it is more offensive? The fact is, you haven't persuaded me, I haven't persuaded you. I don't think that's going to change. Thus I feel it's a good idea to seek some outside perspective. Can you explain how it's a bad thing? Mister.Manticore 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, all I'm saying is this: up until a few weeks ago, we always managed to settle this sort of thing through discussions and compromise. Now that's changed. Draw your own conclusions.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZING! H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we're still discussing this, aren't we? Perhaps you have been used to an insular group that goes in a certain way almost naturally, but that can often become a problem, as when others bring in their ideas, there is a reaction against intruders. In any case, can you provide examples of where I've made any personal attacks? Have I been rude or uncivil? I can't say the same for others though. The comment right above mine is quite uncivil I'd say, and there are numerous others. You think I'm a problem, I think there's a problem elsewhere. However, instead of continuing to personalize this issue, let's discuss the subject at hand. Can we do that instead? Mister.Manticore 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past 3 weeks when has compromise ever been the option? Manticore must somehow make sure he gets his way. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:Civil and WP:NPA. BTW, before you make that change to a simple alphabetical list, you might want to solicit feedback yourself. Mister.Manticore 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that on the RfC. I just looked into this a bit more, and it seems a third opinion might be good to try first, see if that can come to a conclusion acceptable to both of us. I'd also like to say, in case this gets acted on quickly, that is currently two in the morning where I live, so I won't be online long after this post.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion, RFC, same difference. It's all about getting some perspective. And there's not going to be any precipitous action on my part. I even reverted a change I consider too abrupt. I don't necessarily disagree, but if the minor characters page is split by book, it would be a real hassle to edit the links here. Mister.Manticore 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyre, just let it go man, Manticore clearly doesn't even read any of our counter arguments to anything he suggests. Not sure why you would want to do that extra work when it's already been done on other pages. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, you might wish to review the WP:NPA policy. Also WP:AGF. If your perception of me is that negative, it'll seriously make this discussion difficult to resolve. Mister.Manticore 07:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I think it's customary, when linking to the "main article" describing a subheading, that at least a summary of that main article be described under the link. It's rather jarring to see a subheading with only a link and no prose beneath it. I think it's entirely appropriate for the list of minor characters to be formatted as the list above it (secondary major characters), with one short summary sentence per character. A reader can always go to the main article for more detail about each character. I note the main article for minor characters contains a lot of detail, so it should be no problem (albeit a bit of effort) to give 1 sentence bullet summaries for each character in this article.

I don't know how dynamic the list of minor characters is. If it's likely to grow and be hard to maintain, you don't want to be maintaining a list in two articles. In that case, a link to the minor characters article could be put under a "See also" heading.

The question of whether unstable content even belongs in Wikipedia is for another third opinion :). -Amatulic 19:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That actually does highlight one point I hadn't considered: this list will indeed become dynamic when the next season starts, and maintaining a list on two pages may not be entirely practical.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know that it's especially unstable or likely to be expanded too quickly. Characters are added at most a few per episode, with often a week (or more!) between them. In terms of maintenance, I don't see it as an especially large problem. Then again, there is always the solution of combining the pages. Of course, there are people who are opposed to the idea of a list of characters at all, so who knows? Mister.Manticore 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion though. Mister.Manticore 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order

Having the minor characters split by book does not allow people to search the list for a specific character any easier. If someone wants to look up Hakoda they might not know where to look and would have to look through two lists instead of one. You're looking for it to be helpful, having them divided doesn't do ANYTHING that the minor characters page doesn't already do in it's key. Also when you reverted my edits you killed a few fixed links and put the list back in disorder (For instance, I don't think I comes before B in season 2). H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they know the name they're looking for, they can just type Ctrl-F to search for it. So I don't see that as much of an issue. Still, I'm not opposed to the idea. It would be easy enough to include the information as part of the description. However, if the minor characters page is broken up by season, I do think that would create an issue for this page, as it would require some back and forth editing to get the links right. So I think it might be best to wait till that's decided. Mister.Manticore 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, feel free to fix any broken links or alphabetizations, that level of editing would not be a problem. Mister.Manticore 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, if ctrl+F is the answer, what is the point of this page? Couldn't they just ctrl+F on the minor characters page? What if they don't know how to spell the name and only know what it sounds like? Find doesn't work at all in that situation. The Wikiproject for Avatar knows quite well what characters are second season and which are first, I doubt there would be any actual problem when editing the links here it's all cut and paste. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're the one who said they were looking for a name. To be honest, I don't think that people will look for names, I'd actually say that's less likely to be helpful on its own, and that's why I think descriptions are important but if they do, unfortunately, there's several pages to look through, which was the point of this one page. And given the proposal to split the other page, it's even more important. As far as it goes, it might even be worth breaking away from the sections and just list all the characters in an alphabetical list, from Aang to Zuko. Not sure of that though. Mister.Manticore 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think an alphabetical sorting will be rather useful after the changes to the primary list go through. If both are split by season, somebody would be rather stuck if they didn't know which season to look at.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a straight A-Z listing of all characters might not be a bad idea, now that I think about it. If the idea is to eliminate the navigational problems posed by multiple pages, dividing them in the same way those pages are doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me, though I think it's worth deciding whether or not the minor characters page is going to be broken up by season before making those edits. Mister.Manticore 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships

This is just a personal opinion but I think the relationships aren't really needed for the character pages. It seems since the relationship pages were created, it has only sprouted more controversy on what is considered a relationship, and what is merely fandom. Especially with an up and coming season, the character pages (Main Zuko's and Aang's) are far too long and the character relationships is the only reasonable thing to cut out. Lionheart08 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, an interesting issue, but it probably needs to be taken to those pages. Mister.Manticore 19:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'd avoid making blanket decisions on a matter like this, best to go at it on a case-by-case basis.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so you know, AfD is not a vote, thus it's not a question of numbers, but rather discussion. More importantly though, this is not the proper place to share this anyway, you really want to try: The actual deletion discussion page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister.Manticore (talk • contribs)