Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender

Template:WP1.0

Movie Date

Hi, people, I'm really new to editing. I saw this: http://www.filmspot.com/family/index.html?tag=recent;featured;img;4&om_act=convert&om_clk=gumballs . This is a legit source, I assume, and I don't know how to cite it. Someone who does, can you do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.178.172 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging episodes into Books?

Who is in favour of this? We really shouldn't have articles that are just plot summaries - while I am unsure how much of a plot summary a merged page will contain, but in the worst-case scenario, two articles that contain plot summaries are better than forty. In my opinion, a season page is perfect as it is long enough that a casual reader would not be confused as to certain plot details, but short enough that the information does not become indiscriminate. Will ^(talk) 00:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I DISAGREE. Why? The plot summaries in the whole list are too short. I suggest that we just try improving the articles instead of deleting it. Also, it contributes to the number of pages the english wikipedia has. Dar book 12:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not just plot summaries; they also include production information, information on connecting themes, etc. The episode guide includes plot summaries of all the episodes, we've already got that covered. JBK405 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, somewhat. The individual episode articles contain lots of interesting, but sort of useless, info. Like Will said, the articles themselves do not offer any real world context that could not be said in a season plot summary. I would say the best course of action would be to create three new articles for each season, link to them from the list of episodes page (like so, save that it would not be a redlink), and then redirect the episode articles to the new pages. Said new pages could either include a summary of the season, a more detailed list of episodes, or both. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some continuity notes (such as (in "The Crossroads of Destiny") such as this:

It is revealed that Iroh got his nickname "The Dragon of the West" because of his fire breathing ability.

Can be easily integrated into the season summary - in fact, it's even integrated in the plot summary for that episode. Additionally, this is also because the plot summaries are very long - take for example, "The End of the World (Doctor Who)" - the plot summary for that is shorter than that for a ATLA episode, but the episode is twice the length! We should try not to go over 200 to 300 words on one episode alone. Will ^(talk) 13:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to, no, but it may be better to just do it before somebody rides in on a white horse and tells us we don't have a choice...--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not forcing any opinion. If there's major disagreement to it, fair enough. Will ^(talk) 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Like Fyre2387 said, it might be something to consider doing before something official happens, or someone suddenly decides to create a crusade while pushing their point of view (case in point: the way spoiler warnings were destroyed in such a short time). Personally, I would prefer to keep the episode articles, but I feel the best thing for an encyclopedic site is not to have them. Some of them are long enough to become worrisome to copyright issues, and in any case, it'd be easier to understand or brush up on your knowledge of the plotlines if you didn't have to sift through forty articles. By the way, someone should bring this up to the Avatar project.... Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've created a skeleton for Book One here. Anyone willing to improve it so it looks more like an article - do so! Please note, however, the images are only there for aesthetic purposes (I envision that fair-use images would be used when it's in article space, but not too much). Will ^(talk) 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Fyre. I've actually been thinking about this for some time. While I don't want to see all the work just disappear, I don't think each episode needs it's own page. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 00:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. Aside from the fact that, yes, a tremendous amount of work has been done on Avatar's episode pages, there's precedent for extensive episode pages with several series on Wikipedia. As long as volunteers want to contribute their time and effort, and as long as they follow Wikipedia guidelines (altho yes, continued vandalism is terribly annoying) why delete? Restructure, perhaps, but it's not like we'll run out of space.--Choi9999 02:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, trends lately have been going strongly towards redirecting all but extraordinarily notable episode articles. I think its ridiculous, quite frankly, but there's little to be done about it. What I'm thinking is, if we're going to be forced to do it eventually, it might be better to start working on it now, so we don't have to switch over before any new pages are finished.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot of work put into those episode articles. However. This site is not a gathering of writings, in-depth analyses, and fancruft- it's an encyclopedia. You must keep in mind that not everyone who reads these pages are hard-core fans of the series, and as such, at the very least the episode summaries must be shortened. Many of them are way, way too long. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at the individual Pokemon pages. They're all leaving even though two of them were once on the main page. Things are going to be combed soon and we should at least be prepared. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's going to become official Wiki-policy to remove individual episode articles (Which might not be a bad thing) then yes, I feel we should prepare beforehand so that, when the merge eventually happens, we don't end up with a conglomeration of random plot data with the hideousness of Frankensteins monster, but I also feel that we shouldn't jump the gun. Preparation is good, but if we merge pre-emptively and later learn that it's not going to become official policy, then all our work (And the work of past editors) would have gone to waste. I believe separate articles for individual episodes is a benefit, at least in certain instances, because it allows for a much broader delivery of information than one single, giant page. I'm not saying the episode pages can't use some work (I can't recall the last time I even tried to read an entire plot summary for one of the episodes), but shrinking and re-writing is better than merging. On individual pages we can have sections for information on guest stars, out of universe commentary from newspapers and reviews and whatnot, viewing figures, notes on the production and subtle purposes, etc. Now, it's quite true that many of those notes are small, and could easily be added individually to this large page ("This episode had an audience of XXX viewers" doesn't take up too much room, afterall), but all the notes combined take up quite a bit of room.

I'm pretty sure we have these articles for more than just their plot summaries, and the "List of episodes" page already has summaries of all the episodes anyway, so these individual pages give us the chance to add more Out of Universe information, making these more than just fannish "What happened" pages. JBK405 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think episodes should being cut down. All 400 episodes of the The Simpsons, and the nearly 100 episodes of Family Guy have their own pages. Avatar only has 40 and they all have notes that can't be put in an episode summary like: translations of the chinese text writing, production notes, or anything about continuity without becoming some hideously long article that will have all of these things deleted without be put anywhere and just vanish completely.Thatother1dude 17:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was merged, your page isn't very good. What are the 3 langauges for? And, the pictures aren't anything like Avatar. I'm working on mine. Check it out here! --4M4 21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's Lorem ipsum. Basically, it's placeholder text (same goes for the images). Will ^(talk) 22:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get rid of all of the wonderful summaries. They are all great and it would be a shame to see them all deboned and boiled down into mindless goo. Are you all fans of the show or just mindless editors conforming to policies that aren't even set in stone yet? Sgt. Hydra 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful they may be, but plot summaries are specifically mentioned as something that's indiscriminate information. Also, do we really need blow by blow summaries? They're of sketchy copyright status to begin with. In fact, the serialised nature of the show makes a by-season perspective better. Will ^(talk) 02:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If they are overly long then they should be shortened or reformated, not escentially grounded down to nothing. Also, the episodes need their own pages because of things other then the plot would not be covered otherwise.Thatother1dude 04:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, while the overall plot is serialized (especially the end of the second season), the narrative is mostly episodic.

Keep the articles. As for cutting down the summaries, yeah, paraphrase and cut them down- that's why the articles are there. (And to Sgt. Hyrda- I suppose I'm a little bit of both.) Øřêōş 14:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This has actually made me notice that one show needs to episode pages toned down even more in Star Trek: The Original Series.Thatother1dude 15:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am against the merging idea. They are enjoyable to read, and they are not hurting anybody. Is it really important that they become more compact? If it does become a possibility then I guess there is not choice, but until then I sya just leave them for others to enjoy. I wonder if this is why the articles on all the Chrono Trigger characters were merged. That was a stupid idea too.--Mullon 17:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would fully support a merge of all the episodes, but think that if were to happen, they should be merged with List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes like was done here. The fact is, most information pertanent to what happens is already inclued their and can be included. The Placebo Effect 15:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Those episode summaries are only two to four sentences long and only cover the exposition to episode. Thatother1dude 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Right now our vote stands at 11 against, 2 for, with the last vote two days ago (And the last vote before that almost a week ago). How long do we keep this vote open before we make a concrete decision on whether or not to merge? JBK405 02:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for/against merging

Okay, if we're going to seriously discuss merging these pages, we need to summarise this giant blob of text here; the discussion is already a bit long to re-read, and looks like it isn't slowing down at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two arguments boil down to:

For merging: The individual episode articles are unnecessary as they're largely long, badly written summaries that detract from Wikipedia in general or the Avatar project in particular. A single page for each book gives newcomers a better glimpse of the series as a whole, would be more easily manageable, and by necessity would need to be much more compact than the rambling plot summaries we have now.

Against merging: The current List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes already contains short summaries of every episode divided into Book sections, giving that glimpse of the series as a whole, and keeping individual pages leaves room for much more than just summaries. Wikipedia articles on TV shows aren't meant to just be plot summaries, but should present additional relevant information; individual articles leave room for notes on the shows production, explanation for events within each episode, etc.

Now, if my summaries weren't totally off and people don't have anything new to add (And people might, I'm not saying nobody does), I think we should begin to have a vote on merging or not merging. Otherwise, this dicussion will just go on and on (and on) and there will never be a truly satisfactory resolution. JBK405 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the straw poll. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Overwhelming consensus not to be merged into Book articles. I encourage editors to find outside sources, however, in this case, I assume that the openness of the producers shall make this not that hard. Will ^(talk) 17:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Should individual episode pages be merged into book pages? 18:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Against merging: I'm against merging because, as I said, these individual pages give us the choice of adding tons of pertinent and important info beyond plot detail (Awards episodes won, viewing figures, translations of chinese texts, explanations of myths, casting info, etc. These articles need to be more than just a re-statement of what happened in the episodes, otherwise we might as well just have links to you-tube videos of the episodes instead of each page). JBK405

Against merging: per JBK405 --Piemanmoo 01:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Against merging: I think the individual pages should be kept for each episode in order to provide better background. As an inclusionist, I hope one day in the future Wikipedia has a detailed account (an individual page) for every episode of every tv show. Supertigerman 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you REALLY want an article in Wikipedia about every tv episode EVER created? That would be good for a separate wiki, but would reflect badly on the whole of Wikipedia when each episode could be summarized on a the same page as opposed to each getting it own. The Placebo Effect 21:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Against merging: per JBK405. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we vote on this?--Mullon 01:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For merging, but also for addition of sourced real-world information. Will ^{([[User tal Sceptre|talk]])} 18:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "but also for creation"? Creation of what? JBK405 00:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it's confusing. Edited comment. Will ^(talk) 00:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Against merging: per JBK405 -Dylan0513 01:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Against merging: per JBK405 Thatother1dude 19:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For merging a single article would better connect what happens in one episode with another, and would force us to cut down on overly detailed episode articles. plus, when they are all together, the article is more useful than being separated by episode. The Placebo Effect 20:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Against merging: I just don't see the practicality of it.--Mullon 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Against merging: per JBK405 - GeneralIroh ^{(Leave a message after the beep if you gotta problem.)} 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Against merging: There is no purpose to do this. You couldn't spend as much time/information on each episode because that would cause an overly long page. It would make it harder to look at/research individual episodes and there would be less detail. It just doesn't make sense. 4:11, 03 August 2007.

Against merging: per JBK405. Bagpipeturtle 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Against merging: per JBK405. --Dee4leeds 13:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Against merging: Presuming that Wiki isn't running out of disk space, I don't see anything inherently wrong with keeping separate articles on individual episodes of an episodic story such as this. I admit that I'm not a big fan of this level of detail (unlike JBK405), but I don't think that merging the individual episode articles into "Book 2" represents a viable solution to that problem. - AyaK 22:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Against merging: per JBK405, et al. - Presidentman 21:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For merging: per WP:NOT#INFO. There's no way that each one of these episodes is notable. If such divisions deserved separate articles, we'd need to be making chapter by chapter articles of War and Peace and the like far before we got to a series with as little influence (relatively) as Avatar. Millancad 04:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Season Three Information

Normally i'm not one to fly off the handle like this, i keep a firm eye on anything that might be speculation and try to keep people from presenting it as fact. That said, I watch the artist Johann Matte- known as "Rufftoon" on DeviantArt -who some of my fellow Avatards might know works on the show[1]. He posted in his [journal] a link to this which he claims is legitimate. I'd like people to arrive at a consensus about what to do on the articles here, in light of this, before anyone takes any action. Please consider [Avatar Spirit] indicates the information is accurate, and is generally a good resource. Lucky number 49 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This info is true, but no more should be done with it on Wiki oother than what has already been done in the episodes page. -Dylan0513 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. (Rufftoon's female, btw.) Øřêōş 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The name threw me-- although I notice now that I misspelled it. Lucky number 49 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New details regarding Avatar's third season!

Apparently Paramount Home Entertainment (which puts out the Avatar DVDs) announced that the first DVD associated with the third season is due out October 30. So obviously the third season is supposed to start before then...

More importantly, though, is what the cover of that DVD looks like! Go to http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=7629 and see -- SPOILERS. --Choi9999 11:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

9/21/07

When I reported this on Wikipedia's Avatar forum, I said that there was a 90% chance that this was the date. We don't know that this is fact or theory, but we will on July 28th, 2007. I suggest that we wait until then to start posting the premiere date. --Freespirit1981 01:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OOPS! I meant Newsarama's forum. Sorry!--Freespirit1981 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just like everything else from Jake's source, this should not be put on until confirmed by a source we can use for Wiki. that will be when they announce 9/21 at comic-con. Then we can put it in the article. -Dylan0513 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. :) Luckily, that's only 12 days from now. I can wait until then. I still, however, think that dongbufeng.net was right about this. That is one of my two Avatar sources besides the Wiki article.--Freespirit1981 05:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I also obviously think DF is right since I am an admin there, xD. The only thing we need to make sure about Comic-Con, when they announce the date, is that it is in an article or video that we can source. -Dylan0513 12:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[TV.com] confirms the date mentioned above as the airdate of the first episode of series three. Not sure about their source, but they've been quite reliable in the past. -Aaronvangeffen 07:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we should wait another week to put this info up. It will be announced at the San Diego Comic Con on the 28th between 10:30 AM and 11:30 AM Pacific Time. Only then will we know for sure.--Freespirit1981 03:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus, after the date, there's no reference for it. You click on the "8", and it shows nothing on the reference list! We need to fix this on(or by)Saturday the 28th. --Freespirit1981 19:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the date and the bad reference. I don't know what was going on there, but as far as I'm concerned it was unsourced and, thus, went bye-bye.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

August 1 or 9?

According to the pages for The Library (Avatar: The Last Airbender) and The Earth King, the calendar of Wan Shi Tong listed the day of the next solar eclipse as 氜武龍年八月九日. Unfortunately, the two pages list two different translations for those characters; The Library says August 1, The Earth King says August 9 (Actually, they translate it as 'Superior Military Dragon Year Eighth Month XXXXX Day,' but that equals out to August X). I don't read Chinese, at all, so I've got no clue which translation is accurate (Or if either of them are), so I'm bringing it to the notice of the Avatar community (Which I'm sure has at least one Chinese speaker). Which translation is correct, August 1 or August 9? JBK405 02:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

九日 = 9th day, so August 9. (Ghostexorcist 10:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Okay, I've changed it. JBK405 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dai Li

The Dai Li seem to be named after Dai Li, the leader of a "secret police force" that existed in China. If you don't believe me, just type in "Dai Li" into the search engine on this page. And, I know that Ghostexorcist will agree with me on this; he is an expert on this sort of thing. --Freespirit1981 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned as such on the page for City of Walls and Secrets. JBK405 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Now we don't have to add this to an Avatar article. (I found this info by accident; I was looking for more info of THE Dai Li, and found the article about the man and not the secret police of Ba Sing Se.)--Freespirit1981 00:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a link at the top of Dai Li's page so people can read about Avatar's Dai Li.(Ghostexorcist 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

Why is Avatar so important in wikipedia

Why is avatar the last airbender so important in wikipedia? let me guess, because of it's action? Jimblack 22:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Jimblack

How are you judging importance, and what would action have to do with the matter? If you mean the amount of detail and the number of edits related to it, i would suggest that it is partly because a large number of the fans had or have made accounts, and tend to be fairly passionate, as well as the creators being very open to discussing and confirming or denying speculation. There's a lot more to draw on in terms of demonstrable facts in this series than in many other cartoons, and the facts that with which wiki editors are most concerned. Lucky number 49 03:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Avatar isn't important in Wikipedia. If you're asking why people are interested in it more than they are in some other show, well, that's because they are. Wikipedia's growth rate is often...unusual. There are subjects that get no interest, and ones that get a lot. Sometimes too much. As far as it goes, I don't think the level of coverage is expressly inappropriate for this series. I wouldn't say the "action" component is a factor in many people's interest though, but I could be wrong. Mister.Manticore 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Four Nations Article

How bout I start an article entitled: Four Nations because it can be a pretty necissary topic because it is the main theme in the show. Jimblack 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Jimblack

No. Each nation has its own page, the premise is covered on this page, and we already have enough fluff articles. JBK405 22:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A Robot Named "Momo 3"?!

Someone put in the Momo section of the article for major secondary characters that Momo was originally supposed "to be a robot named 'Momo 3' ". This must have been someone's idea of a joke, since I have heard nothing outside the article about this. No one is answering my section that I made on the Talk page of that article, so I thought I'd come here. So, am I right about this?--Freespirit1981 03:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not impossible that it's true, however, the only source for the information I could find is the equally invalid [2] so I'd say the proper action would be to remove it. Mister.Manticore 05:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I think Mister's link is just a rehash of material from the major secondary character's article. (Ghostexorcist 06:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

I just deleted it, as well as fixed some typos that were in the Fire Lord Ozai section. --Freespirit1981 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't miss a beat do ya? Oy, just look at this thing- [3] They give the specific name for him in another article but I don't have the scan for that. Either way, there ya go. Father's Wish II 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK! Now I see! So, it was true after all! :) Thanks! I'm glad, however, that the creators changed it. --Freespirit1981 19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What, ya gotta thing gainst robot monkeys or somethin? I know I do. Father's Wish II 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Production notes on Episode articles

It's just trivia with a different name. Most of it isn't notable. So I think they should all be removed. Many people are going to say that the information should be incorporated into the article, but it's not necessary. Millancad 01:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of it is trivial, but "trivial" and "trivia" aren't necessarily the same thing. The articles certainly could use some trimming, however things like translations of Chinese text, series continuity information, etc. should be kept in; these articles aren't meant to just be plot summaries, but should provide Out of Universe information as well, including the relationships between the episodes, what certain things mean, etc. JBK405 01:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But articles should not have trivia sections. Millancad 01:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But they're not trivia sections (Didn't I just say that?). They're sections which contain information relevant to the production of each episode, to continuing story archs throughout the series, etc. To quote the very page you linked to in your first paragraph: "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, find ways to improve the article so that this form of organization is no longer necessary. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections; others can be grouped into a new section of related material. Convert bullet points to prose or narrowly-focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "Continuity errors"), as seems most appropriate."

Last week each page had one single section, titled "Trivia" or "Notes;" they were split into smaller, focused lists (Like "series continuity," "goofs," "translations," etc.) or integrated into the large plot synopsis sections. Just because they're in bullet-list form does not mean they're trivia or badly written. JBK405 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style says "Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs," and I don't see the purpose given for these lists in WP:LISTS. From what I've seen; the information that needs to could be put in to leads, the rest can be removed. Millancad 02:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"If the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs" I don't think we've even tried these sections as paragraphs, so I have no idea if they work or not, but they might not mesh well (Some of the notes are quite unconnected to one another), so a list is the best way to go. I'm always up for trying to improve the articles, so maybe I'll try to write these up(Or somebody else could), but, as I quoted earlier, cutting them out isn't the right way to go, especially since that very quote uses the oh-so-troublesome "if" (I'm not above using it to my own advantage, but there are so many times when "if" is just a pain, eh?).

Now, much of the info in these articles could be removed, but not necessarily should be removed. Like I said, we've got out of universe info that makes each episode page more than just an overly long plot summary. JBK405 02:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, also, "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." The Production Notes section groups these lists by...okay, actually, I'm not sure if these would actually be called "theme," but the sections (and their lists) have common points and subjects.

So, I decided to try to find a standard for how an article on an episode should look. The featured article I found on an episode was Pilot (House). The article contains no lists. So maybe, instead of "Production Notes" we could do something like their Behind the scenes section. I'm quite sure that the DVD releases come with commentary on a few of the episodes, if not all, and I know that the Pilot for Avatar has commentary. Millancad 02:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I've got no problem with re-writing these sections as paragraphs with proper sentence structure, nor with re-arranging to get rid of these lists; my only beef is with simply slicing this info out just because they're lists.JBK405 02:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Turns out today's featured article is on an episode! What larks! So it has no lists either. Just wanted to have another reference point, I'd say. I'm going to start consolidating the information into paragraphs and removing what's unnecessary. Millancad 23:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I've no problem with re-writing, but I would like to point out that just because there's no lists in those Featured Articles doesn't mean that they're a complete no-no a Wikipedia. Different articles have different sections and different content, what's right for one is not necessarily right for another. JBK405 03:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going on wikibreak for a week, so none of that will be done now, Just to alert you. Millancad 07:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, this is true. It was said in the all Avatar magazine that Momo was originally going to be a robot. But I am not sure about where the 3 came from.

Season three air date

We should know by tomorrow (July 27) when the air date is. The San Diego comicon is tomorrow and they will announce it there. Supposedly it will be September 21, 2007 but since that is just speculation, we will have to wait until it is confirmed.Rosario lopez 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to dongbufeng.net, it's been officially announced already. It is 9/21/07. But, until we have a better, more official source, I say we keep it out of the article. --Freespirit1981 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, guys, 9/21/07 and September 21, 2007 are the same date. Yeah. But they're announcing it at Comicon, so we'll know soon enough whether that date is true or not. We can wait a few more days to put an air date in the article. Bagpipeturtle 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

tv.com has written the dates as well, but indeed, it makes sense to wait some time. I'm so happy!! :). Supertigerman 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No harm towards me if ya wanna wait nother day, just wanna point this out, straight from the Comic con thingie- [4]. The five cards are as follow- 1.[5]2.[6]3.[7]4.[8]5.[9] Might wanna take a look at that fifth one. ;) Father's Wish II 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I saw that on AvatarSpirit. So I suppose we can put that up now? Seems pretty official. Bagpipeturtle 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. It's official since Nickelodeon printed on their special San Diego Comic Con cards.

We need a better source # 5 for this. One with the actual date. I'll go find one.--Freespirit1981 16:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess we can go with the Avatar Spirit site [www.avatarspiritmedia.net/index.php], since www.nick.com/comiccon isn't working; the page won't load for me.--Freespirit1981 17:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good. Some folks might make a fuss about a fansite, but its fine as far as I'm concerned. Heck, I just used it on the episode list. Heh.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

San Diego Comic Con Info

I just figured it be a good idea to list all the information that's gonna be derived from the thing to be used a easy reference. Ya know, get it all nice and neat fore we start makin changes. Father's Wish II 28 July 2007 (UTC)

1. To begin, this this lil' teaser [10] thing reveals:

a. The air balloons from "The Northern Air Temple" are finally seen in action.

b. Teo returns

c. Aang gets a new glider

There's more! :) There will be another Avatar story after season 3 is done. It will take place either in the past, or the future, but without the "Gaang" (Aang and his friends). My source: [11]. Don't know if Aang will even be mentioned, but there you go!--Freespirit1981 01:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I put that up there based on Bryan's comments during the panel. Once we get a full video of the panel, then we can argue on what he meant, XD. -Dylan0513 13:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Dylan, is the video up on your site yet? :) I haven't been able to access the page at all today. Must be a bad connection or something. --Freespirit1981 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, DF is having problems. Video's not up yet. Probably won't be for a while. Kevin from our site and Acastus from ASN have to combine video. -Dylan0513 23:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew something was wrong. I just thought it was my computer or modem. As soon as the video's up, we can discuss the apparent "spin-off", or from what I'm hearing lately on Newsarama's forum, Book 4: Air. (Yes, I know that forums aren't reliable sources of info for Wiki articles, but that's what I'm hearing.)After all, the cycle would be a mess if there were no Air Nomads. So, soon we might be able to put this Book in the article! :)--Freespirit1981 01:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It won't be Book 4 Air, it's going to be a different series likely. Along the lines of Avatar: ______ with the new name in the blank. If that was the case would we have to create a new article for it or just change the main article to "Avatar (Series)" or whatever with sections on the plot of the last airbender and the new one? -Dylan0513 01:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

we would create an article for the new sieres, and then an Avatar (series) article like star trek. The Placebo Effect 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Though we wouldn't have much to put in the series article. -Dylan0513 01:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that way we can wait until their is a third season. The Fantastic Four movies, of which their are two, do not have a series article, yet spiderman and x-men, which each have 3 do. The Placebo Effect 01:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean the Avatar (Series) article wouldn't have much in it, just links to the other two articles. I think it'd be necessary though. And a new series would be after the 3rd season. A 4th season in the whole Avatar series. -Dylan0513 01:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that it might be something like the Star Trek series where Star Trek, ST:TNG/ST:DSN/ST:Voy and ST:Enterprise all in the same universe, but in different time periods. Looking at two types of franchises that have different time periods, I have some suggestions when the time come. Still, we have at least a year to think about it.

One, the Star Trek model. One page with the main details of the franchise with a box linking the different series and moves. I am not sure that this one might be the best idea, but it is a model.

Two, the Dragonball model. The Dragonball page is devoted to the first series, but contains a box with all of the topics including the other two series and their linking to their saga. This one might be easier as it requires less work to modify the Avatar box we already have.

HVulpes 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Brian said at the Con that there would not be another season of Avatar. In fact, he actually said it twice. He did, however, say that they were not going to let go of the avatar world. A new series? Maybe. A movie? Already confirmed. Another season of Avatar: The Last Airbender? No, for sure.

Woot! Genuine 3rd season trailer!!!

Link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0_-OscwkFnQ

This thing is genuine (unlike those other stupid annoying, misleading trailers on YouTube) and, as far as I can tell, most probably from Comic Con or some other convention. It's pretty much undiscovered - at the time of this post there were less than a hundred views. Signal2noize 08:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Errr...didn't see the section above this one, did you?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, didn't see it. sorry about that. At least this one has a relatively better angle then the other one.Signal2noize 07:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

wtf i think theres been a serious mixup here

the new season is book FOUR -.- it was air the first book, water the 2nd, earth the 3rd, and the new season will be the FOURTH, fire. >:( 72.84.25.208 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. There is no season Air. The upcoming 3rd season is fire. -Dylan0513 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of the Avatar cycle. Yeah, and there is no Book of Air, sorry. Bagpipeturtle 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The first season was Book:Water and season two was Book:Earth. It's in the order of the elements Aang has to learn I believe (with the exception of Air which he already mastered).Eenyminy 02:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If they do a Season 4, Book 4: Air would be a likely title.Gamloverks 01:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But there'll be no season 4 for this series. It will become part of a multiverse (If the producers get their way.) But it won't contiue with Aang, Katara, Sokka, Toph, Zuko, and the rest of them. 70.159.109.26 14:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Book I:Air doesn't exist. However, they COULD make an OVA(or the english equal whatever that may be) purely about Aang's previous days at the Air Temple. Which could be called Book 0: Air, about him learning his air bending. That or the next could(if they intend to go so far) be Book 4:Air and be about the either: Rebuilding of the Air Temple/benders/etc or Something along those lines. But I'm more headed towards an OVA named Book 0:Air and Book 4 was "War" or "Endgame" something along those lines. 67.11.46.168 10:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)HeartCard

Thats what i thought, too. Also, they should show Aang having future flash backs with kataras face and and his friends, plus, hell be having nightmare of enemys like azula and zuko and more. and at the end, we see aang and appa in the storm and freezed. and just at the end, aang waks up, he sees kataras face and her hair blows in the wind, then...it all whites out closing up on kataras face. no thats what i call romance. Wikialexdx 10:00, 08 October 2007 (UTC)HeartCard

Film

Anyone willing to incorporate this headline? Also, just a note, I would discourage the creation of a separate film article per notability guidelines for films. In the film industry, a lot of factors can halt a project (see Jurassic Park IV and Logan's Run (2010 film) for a couple of examples), so if this Avatar film enters production, a stand-alone article can be warranted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Hello peoples Book 3 is out now!!! Been out for 3 weeks!!!--MR 21:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Awakening Full Episode Review

And here we are again.->[12] Just givin a heads up in regards to all the Avatards that are gonna read it and start posting the info up left right, and pretty much anywhere they see fit. Believe this happened last time with that whole Secret of the Fire Nation thing. Can't quite remember how it went down, but I'd assume that the info was held until the episode aired. Could be wrong, so is that how its gonna be this time round? Father's Wish II 10 September 2007 (UTC)

the airdate

So, the airdate is the 21st then? i just need ot knwo for my dvr.--68.106.210.205 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Season 3 is starting on Friday, September 21, 2007. That about answers it. GeneralIroh ^{(Leave a message after the beep if you gotta problem.)} 23:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the date, but the exact air time depends on where you are. If you're in Eastern Canada, it will be on at 5 PM EST. Otherwise, people on the east coast of the USA will have to wait until 8:30 PM EST to see it. The new time of the premiere is at :[www.nick.com/shows/avatar/index.jhtml]. It's on the banner under the map. --Freespirit1981 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

ty. oh this is cody6.*damn thing won't let me log in*--68.106.210.205 12:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aang and Katara

Shouldn't we mention the fact that Aang has a huge crush on Katara and that Katara seems to have one on Aang?

I'm sure it'll eventually become a big part in the show....

~Elley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.190.43 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully without getting enraged shippers going crazy, I'll just say that details like that really don't need to be on the main article, here. We only need brief character bios, the articles on each character go into more detail.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep A Watchful Eye Out....

Tonight is the season 3 premiere of Avatar, so there may be people posting spoilers, as well as vandalism. We should be looking out for that tonight. I know I'll keep a watchful eye out for them! (And, if this section causes any problems to happen in the article tonight, I'm apologizing in advance.) --Freespirit1981 15:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job everyone! :) --Freespirit1981 19:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Isn't Momo in the Main Characters Section

If you include Appa in the main characters I don't see why you don't include Momo. He's in every episode. and actually because of his smaller size than Appa susually does more than the other animal character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.204 (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Momo is actually not in ep. one or two, amd he's really like a pet of the group. Appa has more connections to characters (Aang, Toph, Sokka getting snot on him, ect.), while Momo's really just there. Keyblade Mage 02:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Keyblade Mage

The only reason Momo isn't the Main character section is because:

First of all, he doesn't have his own page and the rest of those included in that section do. The reason he doesn't is due to the fact that he doesn't contain the proper amount of character, background and information needed to merit his own page.

Also, even though he has appeared in just about every episode and seen in more shots than Appa, he hasn't played a prominent role in series and mostly acts as comic relief. Appa has had many episodes circle around him, he has jumpstarted many important events in the story and act as an important effect upon the development of the titular character Aang.

Hope that answers it! :) GeneralIroh ^{(Leave a message after the beep if you gotta problem.)} 02:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Iroh did it better than me ;). Keyblade Mage 02:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage hens the second episode of book3 in avatar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.97.99 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in article

In the section of the article where it talks about non-Chinese martial arts also being used on the show, it mentions that the pirates were in episode sixteen ("The Deserter"). However, this isn't true. They appear in the next episode. I'd fix this myself, but I wouldn't know how to do it completely. Could someone please fix this so that when it says "seventeen", it links to the right episode? Thanks in advance! :)--Freespirit1981 00:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I began to fix it, since I have figured it out. :) I will fix the rest of it. --Freespirit1981 00:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Now it will link to episode eighteen as it should. :)--Freespirit1981 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

HELP!

I can't seen to figure out how to fix the link to Southern Praying Mantis; I'm still a little new at this. Any help from the Wiki community would be appreciated. :)--Freespirit1981 01:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh!) Never mind; I fixed it. :)--Freespirit1981 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Film headline

An article from USA Today talks about the film adaptation. Anyone willing to work this in? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't add much information that we don't know about. Just be patient, we'll get some good information soon. The Placebo Effect 19:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this quote is worth including: "We've already done some 'making-of' and interviews with Night that we're putting on the home video releases (for the TV show)." This independent coverage explains the reason for Night's presence on the DVD. Also, USA Today says that the first film is slated for 2009, which the film adaptation section does not mention. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Screen shots for The Painted Lady

I found screen shots that we could use for this episode article at the Avatar Spirit site. How do you upload pictures onto a Wiki article? --Freespirit1981 16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Save the images to your computer. Then go to the "tool box" (under the search box to the left) and click the "upload file". Then follow the instructions there. Make sure you provide source information and choose the correct "license tag" for the image. --Ghostexorcist 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :)--Freespirit1981 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm....while I do have permission from the Avatar Spirit site to use a few of their screen shots, it says something about having to have a license. I'm confused. --Freespirit1981 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Once you have added a photo via the "browse" button, there should be a box for a summary (source, description, etc.) and then a box that says license. This license is a tag that says if the image is public domain, free, or copyrighted and what it is of (screenshot, poster, book cover, etc.). Since you are dealing with screenshots, there is a tag that says "screenshots". --Ghostexorcist 00:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I give up! I've tried to use fair use rationale, but I'm clueless as how to complete it, despite your instructions. I'm going to let them delete the image, and let a professional to the uploading job.--Freespirit1981 00:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion disscusion

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Runaway (Avatar: The Last Airbender) The Placebo Effect 15:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender minor book 1 characters The Placebo Effect 00:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

One more deletion disscusion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters (2nd nomination) The Placebo Effect 16:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Third season

Ok, so the commercials for the third season indicate that we get 10 new episodes in a row. After this, what's going to happen? A long break followed by one episode a month like season 2, or just a few weeks off and it comes back later in the season? If anyone knows, should this info be added to the article? Hewinsj 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there will probably be a break for the winter since this show usually has a 2 month break in the summer and since season 3 began in September and the 10 weeks will be over in November, so a season break for December and January is possible.If they do have a season break for the winter they might return like in February.Thsi the first time that a season doesn't have a summer season break.I don't know if this is true they might do it since they always did that back when they had summer breaks for Avatar and also by the time they're done with the first ten episodes they're already going to be halfway done airing the season three episodes.

This is what I think they might do, it's possible that they do this although they might not.This just my opinion on what'sgoing to happen

--Robors 00:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous Firebending

One contributor seems to believe that Combustion Man's firebending is spontaneous. According to Oxford, spontaneity implies being performed on a sudden impulse and without premeditation. From what I can see in the episode, this is completely false. Combustion Man appears to have complete control over his firebending. This is supported by Nickelodeon's website, which states that Combustion Man achieves his attacks by focusing his energy through his tattoo. Thus, saying that the firebending is performed without premeditation contradicts Nickelodeon's information. b.y.w 10:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

STOP WITH THE SPOILERS!

Whoever is placing advance knowledge of Avatar episodes in this article, please stop! Americans have yet to see episode 6 of this season (it airs tonight), and you are spoiling the series for American fans! :( Thank you! --Freespirit1981 21:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And people in the UK hadn't seen episode 305 till this week, but that didn't stop infomation form being added. Since the information has been released somewhere in the world, it can be added to the article. The Placebo Effect 21:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Season Four?

Okay, it says on the main page that there will be a season four. This makes me confused, because I have previously seen it be denied. The link it goes to says nothing - no confirmations, no denials, nothing. So can anyone point me to an actual link? Either official confirmation or official denial? 71.192.225.133 01:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When did the group change outfits?

I haven't watched Avatar in a while so when I watched this week's, I was shocked to see the new clothes they have. Someone please explain! Like how did Aang's hair grow? I just thought he was bald!