Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10


Movie Date

Hi, people, I'm really new to editing. I saw this:;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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 and see -- SPOILERS. --Choi9999 11:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


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 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)

[] 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 (talkcontribs) 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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, 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) 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 [], since 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 (talkcontribs) 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!!!


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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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)

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. >:( 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. 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. 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, all whites out closing up on kataras face. no thats what i call romance. Wikialexdx 10:00, 08 October 2007 (UTC)HeartCard


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 (talkcontrib) - 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 airdate

So, the airdate is the 21st then? i just need ot knwo for my dvr.-- 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 :[]. 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*-- 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 (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 (talkcontribs) 22:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that there is no substantial reason to believe Katara is attracted to Aang in the same way, or to differentiate her behavior towards Aang as either romantic or motherly. Insinuating so would jumping the gun.

However, it is very clear that Aang has romantic ambitions with Katara.

Also, speaking of romantic ambitions, we can safely say Toph has "a thing" for Sokka. As seen in episode 3 of season 3 I think.--DeDster 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

reinforincing dedster's assumption "the serpent's pass"

reinforcing that the feelings are mutual between aang and katara "the day of black sun: the invasion" Jkdz100 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 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 (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 (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)


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 (talkcontrib) - 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 (talkcontrib) - 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)

You are talking about two different uses of the word "spontanious". The contributor you are refering to is likely refering to "Spontanious combustion" which is a combustion without an external ignition source "spontanious combustion wiki". You are refering to a psychological behavior. Nevertheless the contributor is still wrong about the hitman's firebending. His bending causes the ignition, it is simply high intensity heat focused in a very small area during a very short period of time. After episode 7 of season 3, we can also note about his bending's vulnerability; the tatoo's sensitivity. --DeDster 18:56, 5 November 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? 01:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone's been tampering with the main page. Hold on, and I'll post the link that confirms that Season 3 as the final season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, y'know, it never actually says three is the final season. We are just assuming it. It says it wraps up the story of Aang and Zuko, but that doesn't say anything about the other characters. I know, I'm probably grasping at thin air, but a man can hope, eh? 14:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes you are, but I don't blame you. Still, it's made clear that the current three-season arc is the end for Aang, his friends and current adversaries. In fact Bryan, at this year's Comic Con, also made it clear that while this is the last season dealing with Aang and the others, a new series may be produced based within the same universe though it won't involve the original cast of characters from the past three seasons. MegaZilla 18:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)MegaZilla

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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Watch the episodes (episode two, The Headband, to be more precise), and you'll understand. ( Oh, and Aang isn't bald, he used to shave his head. But it's a little hard to do that while you're unconscious, eh? =) ) Bagpipeturtle 02:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Character Bios

What happened to all the minor character bios? I tried to search for Fire Lord Sozin and Azulon and I used to get redirect to their bios, but now they are gone.

ShadowRanger 06:35, October 30, 2007 (CST)

Go to the minor recurring characters link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That may take care of the two I mentioned, but I am asking about the articles in general. Half of the minor characters no longer have bios, and I don't see why the shouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowRanger (talkcontribs) 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The pages were deleted due to lack of notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender minor book 1 characters. --Herald Alberich 20:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinese characters above the title

I've heard somewhere that they translate to: "The divine medium who descended upon the mortal world", or something like that. I don't know for sure; I can't read Chinese. If I'm right, I feel that we should put in in the article. Ghostexorcist, am I correct in the translation?--Freespirit1981 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; I see that it is in the article already. --Freespirit1981 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Characters' ages

It's now being listed in the article that everyone is a year older. I know almost a year has passed in the Avatar world, but is there a good source that states that everyone has had their birthdays? I mean, Aang couldn't be 13 yet; he was born in the fall, and it's only the summer in the series. --Freespirit1981 22:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no official source indicating birthdates at all at the moment. The creators haven't made specific birthdays for any of the characters yet. And IF (and this is only speculation, since this logic only applies to the resurfacing of the next Avatar) their ages did correspond with the seasons, none of them is a year older yet except maybe Zuko and Azula. So, until we have confirmation on the birthdates, there should be no tampering of ages. 11:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Megazilla

I agree that unless it says some where we can't change there ages. Speaking of ages I thought Katara was 15 (like Zuko), but currently it says she is 14.Smileyface 12 91 11:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Katara was always officially 14(I believe it was even stated that she turned 14 only a few weeks before the show started). Her age change to 15 was one of the aforementioned speculative edits. Sokka is 15 and Zuko is stated to be 16 at the beginning of the show. 11:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Megazilla

I know that Aang was born in the fall; Avatars are born in the season of their element, and a week after death. Since Aang was born into the Air Nomads, he was born in the fall. I'm not saying that all Air Nomads are born in the fall, but that's how it was with Aang. :) --Freespirit1981 18:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No..... I'm pretty sure they are born with in a week of the Last Avatar's death. I don't think season matters at all. Where did you hear this? The Placebo Effect 18:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also Freespirit1981, the next Avatar is determined according to the *cycle* of the elements: Water, Earth, Fire and Air, not the seasons. I believe it's never really been specified or stated whether they're born in the season that matches their element.

Actually, it says it right here in this article's Premise section that the elements parallel the seasons,and that Avatars are born within a week of death. :) So, Aang is still twelve, as his birthday is sometime in the fall. --Freespirit1981 03:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it says the elements parallel the seasons, but nowhere does it say members of an elemental nation, even the Avatar of that element, are born within the season corresponding to the element. Avatars are born within a few weeks of the death of the previous Avatar, and that can be any season of the year. Where is it said that Aang was born in the fall, or even that Roku died in the fall (By which it can be inferred when Aang was born)? JBK405 04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. All we know is that the next Avatar will be born a few weeks after the previous one's death, and that they'll be born into a specific tribe (Air Nomads or Water Tribe) or nation (Earth Kingdom or Fire Nation) that corresponds with the cycle of elements. It doesn't state, neither on the article or within the canon show or outside sources, that they are born on the same season as their element. It would make sense if they were, but since it's simply inference and fan speculation, it can't be used as evidence. If you can cite a source where it says that the Avatar is born in within the seasons that parallels with their element, that would be great. 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Megazilla

Hahah! If all benders have to be born into their respective seasons, then all the avatars would have to die during certain periods, which is completely ridiculous. Like, water avatars will die between winter and spring, earth avatars between spring and summer, fire between summer and fall, and air between fall and winter. I guess since we don't know when Roku died, we can't extrapolate on Aang's birthday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretss (talkcontribs) 10:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Avatars are born in their season of their element. There is no way they are conceived within a week. I don't think it varies depending on when the next season of the next element is when they are born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Avatar: the Last Airbender flash site even states that they are born within a week of the previous Avatar's death. Nothing about them being born into the season that corresponds with their element is mentioned, only the tribe and nation. You have a right to be skeptical about them being conceived in only a week, but that's what it says. Like Megazilla said, if it's not explicitly stated or verified in any source, we can't regard speculative inferences as factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Avatar: The Legend of Aang"?

I suggest that this article be moved to "Avatar: The Legend of Aang". The US should not have a monopoly over what the show is called, and even though it was created in the US, the rest of the world knows it as TLoA. See also metre and litre for examples where the spelling used in the "precious" States is trumped by how the rest of the world spells it; if it works for those words, it should surely be used for the title of this programme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nickelodeon is an American company so we use the American Name. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is written by a British author, so we British English. Is that a good reason why we use this name? The Placebo Effect 01:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Compromise: let the page "Avatar:_The_Legend_of_Aang" redirect to this page. Everyone happy? Ge4ce 06:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It already redirects, but you could have just done that. If not it is like Placeblo Effect said it is an American show. If I'm not mistaken your Aang doesn't have an English accent. The voice acters (for the english speaking countrys at least) are almost all American (some maybe Asian).Smileyface 12 91 07:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
So, why *is* it called "The Last Airbender" in the US and "Legend of Aang" in the UK? - I've found nothing on imdb referring to it. If something sourced can be found, it probably ought to go in the page somewhere. (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign in... Brickie (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's an American series, thus it should be listed under it's American name. (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree it should be listed as "Last Airbender" - but if I as a Briton went looking for information on something called "Avatar: The Legend of Aang", I might find myself a little confused as to whether it was the same show, or a spinoff. Just a line somewhere on the page that says "The series is shown in the UK under the title of "The Legend of Aang" due to copyright restrictions/focus-group feedback/whatever." But mainly, I'm just curious, having not found any info anywhere else about why the title is different. Brickie (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference # 58 and the Katara action figure

Two problems: 1) the link for reference # 58 can no longer be found online, and 2) it would seem that there won't be a Katara figure after all! Mattel, from what I understand, has dropped the entire Avatar figure line. I've read this at a forum at the Avatar Spirit site (yes, I know that forums aren't always reliable sources), and learned this from a seller on eBay, too. Should we add this to the article as soon as I have more proof?--Freespirit1981 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, instead of removing ref. #58, maybe we could find an alternative source. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake; it isn't reference # 58, but # 48 that is dead. We need to remove it. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. 48 is still there. I'd remove it myself, but I don't know how to do that. Plus, we need proof that there will be no more Avatar action figures made by Mattel. Does anyone have a reliable source that we can use in the article? (Reminder: Forums aren't always good sources.)--Freespirit1981 (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Images of each character and minimal use of non-free images

These images have to be removed from this article per WP:NFCC. The characters are illustrated in their specific articles. To illustrate them here violates Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3. Rettetast 23:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Regardless of what exists on other article, this article should still provide sufficient coverage of the show as a subject. Images of the main characters is essential to do that.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 23:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


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)

Good God!!!!! episode 305!? How fuckin' behind are we Americans!! I thought Avatar started in America ,but DAMN, 305 episodes! Is there a movie yet or what?[[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)]] 19:53,6 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SxeFluff (talkcontribs)

I believe "305" is actually an annotation meaning "Season 3, Episode 5". —Preceding comment was added at 03:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooohhh...I guess that's a 'no' to the movie huh? thnx dude.[[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff 04:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]] 22:35, 10 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SxeFluff (talkcontribs)

Again, I feel that I must plead with anyone outside the USA to NOT put info on episodes that we haven't seen yet in our Wiki articles. We want to learn this info ourselves when we see the episodes air. Thanks! :)--Freespirit1981 (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And again I say NO. We did not keep spoilers off Wiki for those in england so they would not see it, why should we be treated differantly. If it aired somewhere on earth then it will be mentioned. The Placebo Effect (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Woop de fricken do. If you don't want to find out what happens in the future episodes, Don't look at them. I find that it is annoying that the information has to be delayed because you Americans don't have the self control to not look. As soon as the show is played the information should be available to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkyne (talkcontribs) 13:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Auto Archiving

I know this is being lazy and all, but instead of constantly having to archive this page (usually nobody remembers), we could put a bot on the page and have it automatically archive conversations older than, let's say, 21 days. We could use this bot to auto-archive the page, making sure to change to a different archive page after it has reached a certain size. Do I have anybody that agrees with me? Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 22:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If anybody is willing to consider my proposal, all we need to do is post

{{User:MiszaBot/config|algo=old(21d) |archive=User talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender/Archive %(counter)d |counter=9 |maxarchivesize= 250K |minthreadsleft=10 |minthreadstoarchive=5 |archiveheader={{talkarchive}}{{archive-nav|%(counter)d}}}}

Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Martial Art Base of Firebending

I am almost sure that firebending is based off of Northern Shaolin, not Long Fist. I'm going to change this. I f any one objects, I'll find the prrof and put it on here. geowhiz1010 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

your right, it states in the avatar creating the legend short. the martial arts consultant Sifu Kisu stated that the firebending fighting style is based off Northern Shaolin.Akuzio (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Toph the only metal bender ever

I just read over the wiki articles and noticed about toph being blind makes her the only metal-bender ever. At this point of the show we [b] do not know whether others can metal bend or not [/b]. Examples could be King Bumi , Avatar Kiyoshi , later Aang or anyone else . Suggesting changing it to[b] "might possibly be the only metal-bender ever"[/b] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot issues

I know Aang is without a doubt the central character of the series, but don't you think that the plot synopsis is a bit too detailed on the history of his character? The phrase

By creating an air bubble around them and then freezing it, Aang was able to ensure that he and Appa could breathe and be protected from the storm until it dissipated.

seems way too specific, especially since main characters Zuko and Azula together only have a single sentence.

--Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, but I'm honestly more upset by Zuko's description. Namely the part that reads "(who later joins the Avatar)" which was a major spoiler from the most recent episodes.--Jacobpaige (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pai Sho

Where would a link to a Pai Sho creation project site go? I'm thinking external links, but so far that only seems to contain official links. --Qhiiyr (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Should we have this article semi-protected? There are just TOO many idiots vandalizing it. I just had to fix the names of the creators of the show, for example. (Please don't ask me what the vandal put down; it's not worth knowing.) Also, we end up with too many spoilers from overseas. Take DOBS, for example. I could have lived without knowing some of the movie details until I saw it (and I saw it Friday). Therefore, I propose a vote. All those in favor, say "aye". :)--Freespirit1981 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye. I checked out the history edits for List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes today and one of the edits had the entire episode tables gone and replaced with the leaked synopsis for the upcoming chapter =S It's annonying! --Secretss (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, It should definately be protected, I came to check on some names and I saw a childish thing that of course need not be said. I would support the cause of a semi-protect on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
if you all feel this way, why did none of you nominate it? Oh, and the list of episodes is protected. Rau J16 03:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A source that could be used: Jerry Beck's Not Just Cartoons: Nicktoons!

I found a book in the bookstore called Not Just Cartoons: Nicktoons! by Jerry Beck. I'm not going to buy it and join the project, but I will ask the other members to get the book so that they can add real world information about various fictional characters.

This makes the creation of separate articles for *many* fictional characters feasible. Having information about the development of the character will make the articles satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not at the NY library so I may have to go and buy it. I'll check. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 20:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New section/article idea

Would anyone be interested in writing more about the types of fantastic animals in this series? (Like those "penguins" with 6 limbs, and the "turtle-seals" in the first season.) I'm not familiar enough about them, but the ones I've seen are really fun. It would be really nice if we can get some images of them also. --tess (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Something like List of Avatar: The Last Airbender creatures, you mean? :)--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 21:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Thanks! tess (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Avatar: The Legend of Aang, no redirect?

I was wondering if anyone could make a redirect from Avatar: The Legend of Aang to here? I would do it myself but I don't know how. (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There already is. Rau J16 17:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

New link in

There is a new link in Asia - Click here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darremon (talkcontribs) 10:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


The Avatar template at the end of every Avatar page has had the Air Nomads link changed to redirect to the Guitar Hero III page. (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Its taken care of. Rau J16 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kids Choice Awards nomination

Avatar has finally been nominated for a Kids Choice award for Best Cartoon. How do we add this to the article? Here's proof: [[13]] . :) --Freespirit1981 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We dont, unless there is a section for awards here, it doesnt go here. It will probably end up on the season 3 page, seeing as that is the season that is out when the nomination was announced. Rau J16 17:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Um...there is a listing of awards here. To answer the question, KCA is actually already there.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ugh god, i feel like a total airhead, i even looked for that section, and i didn't see it. Thanks for pointing it out. Rau J16 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


If all of the awards are mentioned here, do they even need to be mentioned on the season pages? Rau J16 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends. The only awards that should be on the main page are general show-wide awards, while awards on the season pages should be season- or episode-specific awards. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 20:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that is not the way it is, if it was, i'd have no problem about it, but its not. I suppose that makes my next question, do we migrate them all here, or distribute them throughout the episodes lists? Rau J16 21:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Reference Links

i had an issue using some of the links provided. notably the article titled "Where's Katara?..." Magikmouse (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally! Someone else noticed! :) I made this complaint at least a month ago, maybe two! We need to find a new link for it. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That article at least appears to be gone. The Blogspot account for that article looks like it was closed or deleted. I did a quick google search and it didn't look like it moved to another blog host. I also checked the internet archive, but it looks like they didn't back it up. Didn't take the time to find out what this reference relates to in the article, but if it can't be sourced it should probably be removed. Hewinsj (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Asian culture section is a mess

The 'Asian culture' section is a mess. Some sections look unorganized and others are not even cited. Here are a few examples (the bold text is the section in which the setence appears):


"The show employs calligrapher Siu-Leung Lee as a consultant and translator. See also: the Oracle Bone Script for the origin of many Hanzi characters and some Oracle Bone characters themselves are even used in the Avatar series."

Please provide a source for Siu-Leung Lee. The 'see also' at the end of the paragraph looks odd. It is also uncited.

Fighting styles

The overall problem I have with this section that it is undersourced. I realize the opening paragraph lists the styles and provides sources, but the proceeding paragraphs make very specific claims that need to be supported with citations. In addition, I believe that this section could be reorganized into some sort of a chart similar to this page. It would only have to include the name of the styles and why they compliment each bending art. There is no reason to go into great detail about the style itself since they have there own articles. Something like this:

Style Reason (I'm sure someone can come up with a better header than this)
Tai Chi Embodies the art of water bending because ...
Hung Gar Embodies earthbending ... Chu Gar Southern Praying Mantis is a sub-style untilized by toph ...
Northern Shaolin Firebenders ...
Baguazhang Airbenders ...
"The forms of Changquan are beautiful to watch, almost resembling dances, but also incredibly deadly, such is the nature of fire."

This sentence is nothing but someone's own opinion on the style. It needs to be rewritten to avoid POV statements and cited.

"Non-Chinese arts have also appeared. The pirates who appear in Book One, Episodes Nine and Eighteen, employ Japanese weapons, a possible nod to the historical clashes between Shaolin monks and Japanese pirates. In The Headband, Aang's adaptation of martial arts forms into dance techniques evolves into a game of Brazilian capoeira, complete with roda and batteria, with Katara."

A "possile nod" is nothing but speculation, which violates WP:NOR. The Bit about Capoeira is speculation as well if there is no supporting source.

"The flow of chi is the engine behind the bending arts. Benders require chi to flow from the breath as form of energy derived from breathing and oxygenation, and then extend that energy past their body to manipulate or manifest their element. This chi is stored in the abdomen of the bender, known among martial artists as the Dantian. Different choices of directing energy are referred to different kinds of Jing, a system used to describe movements in sparring such as positive, or aggressive, negative, or defensive, and neutral, which is neither aggressive nor defensive."

The entire paragraph is uncited. I'm really surprised that a Featured article would have so much uncited and speculative material. It needs to be fixed. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle (The Book)

Hey i just heard about "Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle" and it is real. You can search it and find results on lots of official websites. It will be released May 20, 2008. Here is evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7rasengan7 (talkcontribs) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what to make of this, i mean it looks fake. And its not like you can't trick sites into posting fake stuff, but i think think it should be left out until Nick announces it themselves. Rau J16 00:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just looked the ISBN up and it is being sold by Books-A-Million and Barnes and Noble as well (see here). --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea, shame the publisher is not Nick. Rau J16 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be left out until Nickelodeon releases an official statement.Besides,the timing is off.The Western Air Temple almost certainly won't air this month,and since the Boiling Rock is a two part event,there will likely be another break,albeit briefer,after it.So,we're talking the beginning of April before the next 3 episodes air,at the earliest.Just seems unrealistic.TheNobleSith (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, im certain this will be the last break for the U.S., also, the boiling rock is not confirmed, so you should not count that in your calculations. But i agree it should be left out until some official word is announced, the same goes for the other books. Rau J16 06:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

New Links

  • Request to establish the Avatar Wiki as an external link. (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not reliable, it is a fan site with no official ties to Nickelodeon. Their information is either user gathered; taken from the same sources as here; or most likely, but not always, unreliable. Rau J16 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


cant really add anything to this great article, and what i have is just speculation (and as mentioned therefore breaks NPOV)... was interested to see all the wonderful things that influenced the creators and went into their creative melting pot. just wondered in response to that, something that struck me on first seeing the show (first 2-3 episodes) --- much influence from, or even a desire to bring back, a flavour of some classic older nickelodeon shows that also followed a long/epic story arc with various foreign and historical/literary influences? bet there was... good to have this calibre of material back in front of kids eyes again :) too bad it went away for a while —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with assuming!

I have noticed a lot of descriptions that assume an ending has occurred. There is very little said about what became of some characters. Please do not say they're dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about. I read the ends of all of them, each was accurate. If they died (with the exception of Jet) it is mentioned. If they did not, then it is not mentioned. If it is unknown, then the last known fact appears to be there. Rau J16 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My main problem is with the explnation of the southern water tribe waterbenders fate. the artical say clearly that thay died. There is no information on the water tribe POW. i have watched and rewatched the puppetmaster to find where you got that fact and could not find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Any soldier who is captured and kept in prison is a POW, as for dying, if the old lady was the only one ro escape, then the others have either died as POW's or are still incarcerated. But there is a minor edit war going on there, so give it time. Rau J16 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to all Contributors

Hear Hear with regards to the nomination for best article! I LOVE this series and I love that my nephews are so into it. This article is SUCH a great accompaniment - providing a tremendous resource for folks that haven't caught the bug yet and want to know about the show, its premise, history and story line. For anyone who might k'vech about Wikipedia's accuracy and so forth - this article is a great testament to what the real possibilities are. GREAT ARTICLE!!! Thank you all for the good work. (Especially like the map inclusion - very "hobbit-ish", wouldn't you say???)  :) Don't ask me why I felt it necessary to put this here...I just think enough good things aren't said about articles here some times and was compelled to recognize good work for a change. I'm done now. LactoseIntolerant (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Complaint on the Separate Character Articles

All of the separate character articles that are linked on this main page have been losing relationship sections and had significant portions of their character histories deleted. Request that this stop IMMEDIATELY due to the declining quality of the articles. The characters' history sections regarding their roles in the show's three seasons should be once again expanded upon to keep readers informed on their roles and contributions to the show's events. I have read in some articles that the relationship sections are being deleted due to their "in-universe" nature. These articles should be rewritten but remain closed to speculation so that they don't resemble fan fiction or discussion sites. Whoever keeps deleting these article sections in the character databases, PLEASE STOP IT. (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the articles has gone up since the removal of that information. This is an encyclopedia not a fansite. Entire in-depth biographies do not belong here. If they were important in an event, then it is mentioned. But we arent going to go into how Katara discovered Aang, or how Aang knew to choose Toph, or that Sokka bought a purse. If they contribute something of worth, then it will be mentioned, otherwise it will not. And the relationship sections were either speculation, or trivial and unneeded. Of course, i am but one editor, if another disagrees, provide a real reason for the informations inclusion and then go ahead a do it. Rau's talk 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I am the person who removed the majority of the relationship sections. In short, the sections were WP:Cruft and contributed absolutely nothing to the scholarliness of the articles. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

end date march 15?

I was just wondering where the information that the series will end on march 15th came from because I've been looking everywhere and cannot seem to find any sort of information that the serie will end on that date. Darkhero31 (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fake. There is no way in hell it would end next Saturday. Rau's talk 05:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Iroh's age

Ummmm....where did this info about Iroh being 43 come from? This is obviously either fake info, or just a guess on someone's part. I very much doubt that he's that age.--Freespirit1981 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like there is any mention of Iroh having any age. Seems like more and more fake edits are being made with some of them making it trough. I knew that the 43 was put there, but had a second thought in reverting it. Ge4ce (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source with his age, please provide it. I removed the 43 because that is false. But i did not add a new age because i do not know it. Rau's talk 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a source for his age either. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References

I can see all of the Asian and Inuit references in the show, but Mayan? May I ask where this came from? My only guess is episode 313, "The Firebending Masters", which, of course I have not seen yet (I've only seen the summary of the episode here on Wikipedia). Am I right, or did someone just stick this in as a guess. If it's a guess, then it should be removed. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It was definitely mesoamerican in flavor, but it could be any of those groups, Aztecs, Mayans, Toltecs or any of the other groups of that region. The costume was in the general area.--Kolrobie (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The only episode that I know of was 313, and when the article was still up, there were numerous references explaining the Mayan architecture of that episode. It was a very well built article, and one of the few I miss. But I am unsure of whether there have been other instances of that kind of architecture or cultural references within the show. Rau's talk 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Award Nomination

Avatar has been nominated for another award! :) Look here: [[14]]. If you click on this link, and then on Festival at the top, you'll see that Avatar is nominated for DOBS! :D--Freespirit1981 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I gave the wrong link! Here it is: [[15]]. Click on 2008's selections, and then TV shows, and you'll see Avatar at the top! :)--Freespirit1981 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Direct link. click. This will be added to this page, and the season page. Rau's talk 19:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Moon Spirit

Princess Yue (Johanna Braddy) was the beautiful Princess of the Northern Water Tribe. She is Sokka's second love interest introduced in the series. Yue sacrifices her life to restore the Moon Spirit at the end of Book 1. As a result, she becomes the Moon Spirit herself.
Admiral Zhao (Jason Isaacs) was a hot-tempered Fire Nation admiral in pursuit of the Avatar and Zuko's principal rival throughout Book One. He was killed by the Ocean Spirit after he temporarily killed the Moon Spirit in an attempt to cripple the Northern Water Tribe.

Yue "sacrificed her life" and the Moon Spirit was "temporarily" killed? But Yue is still alive as stated in that episode where the Foggy Water Tribe is first met, I always figured that meant Yue replaced the old Moon Spiret... felinoel (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In order: Moon Spirit saves Yue. Years later, Zhao kills Moon Spirit. Yue becomes Moon Spirit. Ocean Spirit (and Aang) kill Zhao. Yue lives on as the Moon Spirit with every appearance being an apparition, or a figment of someones imagination. Better? Rau's talk 02:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, of course what actually happens is better... I was just making sure that what I thought actually happened, actually happened before I changed it myself, I had just a few minutes ago watched an episode where Sokka speaks of Yue being the Moon Spirit and that confirmed it for me and so I was going to change it myself, but I see this page is quick to respond. felinoel (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


When did the protection of this page run out? Rau's talk 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A WHILE back. Not sure exactly when. You think it should be protected again? (Not too much vandalism yet, emphasis on yet.) Parent5446 (t n c e m l) 03:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
to quote the protection log "17:42, 22 February 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs | block) unprotected Avatar: The Last Airbender ‎ (No longer Today's FA.)" The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If it does not die down, yes i do think it should be protected again. I hope it is not necessary, but if it does not, i will request another protection. Rau's talk 04:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Going over the history for 24-25th March (my time), there have been 18 edits, 5 of which are reverted, 3 of which are revert edits. I don't think this is enough to protect a page. Especially since most of the additional content was by anons. There are enough people watching this article to realise when vandalism occurs. --liquidGhoul (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention most of the edits are good faith edits, which means that this page would not be protected. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not requested yet. I am simply bringing it up in the event that the vandalism worsens. Thats not so wrong is it?. Rau's talk 04:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No it is not. But articles are usually not protected preemptivley. If the situation worsesns, by all means, I will protect it. But currently there are no problems. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it be done now, I simply wish to be prepared in case it does in fact require it. I find it better to plan ahead than actually wait for something to happen. Rau's talk 05:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


shoud there be of the mention of the current hiatus? (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any information on it? Because all I know is "The show has been on break ever since January 2008. When it will resume is unknown." I wish there was more info..... Rau's talk 12:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've heard unverified claims that the hiatus has to do with the desertion of creative personnel from Nickelodeon, and from another source that the show will continue airing in May, after the North American release of the new DVDs. (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Unverified claims cannot be put in as they are unverified. Rau's talk 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Naturally. (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I heard April 4th is when the next episode in America is supposed to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is only an eight o clock episode, no guarantee it is new. Have there been previews? Rau's Speak Page 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Porco Russo? Yue's age?

What on earth is a reference to that movie doing in the quote in the anime section of this article? I doubled checked the article by changing the zoom level on my window to 150% and read the quote. Porco Russo wasn't in the quote at all! It should be erased. And, as for Yue's age, Parent, she was 16. Remember the celebration the night that the Gaang arrived at the North Pole? The chief said, "We also celebrate my daughter's 16th birthday. Princess Yue is now of marrying age." (The Waterbending Master,Book One: Water, Chapter 18.) So, if my edit to that section was accurate, then why was it erased?--Freespirit1981 (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a transcript of episode 118: [[16]] . :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freespirit1981 (talkcontribs) 03:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Names of the Characters

I went through the series and picked out the names of characters in Chinese that I could find. Since I don't often edit wikipedia, much less the Avatar articles, I figured that I would leave whether to add this information up to the people who edit these articles often enough to actually check the talk page.

卡塔拉=Katara= Kǎ Tǎ La
昂 = Áng
托夫 = Toph = Tuō Fu
艾洛= Iroh = Ài Luò
索卡=Sokka= Suǒ Kǎ
蘇科=Zuko= Su Ke
摸摸=Momo= Mo Mo

In the places where there are no accent markings, it means that said character doesn't have only one pronounciation, and therefore, it is impossible for someone like me, who has almost no experience or education in Chinese to figure out what it is. KumoriKage (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The individual character articles have their names and translations. Nice effort though. Rau's talk 16:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that sources (episodes, published material) should be given for the names. This definitely goes for the English translation (a link to a good Chinese-English dictionary would suffice). You never know if a person is coming up with their own characters based on the sound and maybe even translating them into English incorrectly. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sources would be nice. Perhaps KumoriKage could provide the source for his/her translations. Rau's talk 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I was mainly referring to the names already present in character articles, but the above editor should provide sources as well. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, i suppose sources for those would be sources for the English meaning of the words. But does anyone have the sources anymore? Rau's talk 00:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
My sources for what the names of the characters are is Episode 2x35 Tales of Ba Sing Se, and the "School Time Shipping" special. For instance, for "The Tale of Iroh", it has written beside it in chinese, 艾洛的故事 or "Ai Luo"'s Story. The name for Aang I wasn't quote sure about due to the fact that it had 安昂的故事 written (note the 安 (an) written before 昂 (ang)), as well as me not being totally sure of what the 兴 (this is the simplified character, so it will look different if you look it up in the episode) written in "The Tale of Toph and Katara" (卡塔拉兴托夫的故事). However in "School Time Shipping", when Aang writes the invitation to the dance in the air, Katara's name is 卡塔拉, and Aang's name is 昂, so one can assume from there that 兴 has the meaning of "and" or something similar. Also since the characters "Tuo Fu" are fairly close to Toph, that seems to add to the idea that 兴 merely has some grammatical role in the sentence. KumoriKage (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go:

  • 卡塔拉 is transliterated as Kǎ Tǎ La. The first letter can mean card or calorie. The second letter only means a tower or tall building. The third letter can mean pull, seize, or lengthen.[1]
  • 昂 is transliterated only as áng and is only translated as high (along with the synonyms of high also, of course).[2]
  • 托夫 is transliterated as Tuō Fu. The first letter can be translated as either hold up with palm or support/rely. The second letter can be translated as male, husband, etc.[3]
  • 艾洛 is transliterated as Ài Luò. The first letter can be translated as artemisia or mugwort (not sure what that is). The second letter can only be translated as the name for a river in the Shaanxi province.[4]
  • 索卡 is transliterated as Suǒ Kǎ. The first letter can be translated as large rope, rules, to search, or isolated. The second character can be translated as punch card or calorie.[5]
  • 蘇科 is transliterated as Su Ke. The first character can mean thyme or to resurrect. The second character means section/department.[6]
  • 摸摸 is transliterated as Mo Mo. The letters, being the same, mean to caress.[7]
  1. ^ "卡塔拉 Character Search". Mandarin Tools. Retrieved 2008-03-28. 
  2. ^ "昂 Character Search". Mandarin Tools. Retrieved 2008-03-28. 
  3. ^ "托夫 Character Search". Mandarin Tools. Retrieved 2008-03-28. 
  4. ^ "艾洛 Character Search". Mandarin Tools. Retrieved 2008-03-28. 
  5. ^ "索卡 Character Search". Mandarin Tools. Retrieved 2008-03-28. 
  6. ^ "蘇科 Character Search". Mandarin Tools. Retrieved 2008-03-28. 
  7. ^ "摸摸 Character Search". Mandarin Tools. Retrieved 2008-03-28. 

Now all we need to do is find sources from Nick to specify which of these meaning each letter represents, then we can update the article. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 00:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need them? I mean, isn't it better to include all possible translations? I mean, yes i know we need them for the official meaning of their names, but the translations themselves should be allowed as long as it is noted that they are not official translations. Rau's talk 02:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Isn't whether or not it is considered an anime subjective? Because I consider it an anime. Rau's talk 05:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen the term be used subjectively unless you want to draw the distinction as to where you live. In North America, the term anime has been used to separate animated film and television properties from Japan from traditional cartoons. It's a term that implies region of origin, and since Avatar doesn't fit that one condition (being from Japan) it fails to be anime. That said, if you were in Japan, anime translates to cartoon and the term has no regional qualifier. They have no word for American cartoons (at least not that I know of) so to them Avatar would be anime by default. Hewinsj (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I use the word by definition, but only on cartoons of a certain style; namely, Japanese. Any show that has that animation and storytelling style, I call it anime. And by that, I call Avatar anime. But, if you use the term to refer to region of origin, then it would not be anime. That is how it can be used subjectively. Which also makes having the article say one way or the other original research. See my point? Rau's talk 07:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. Hewinsj (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that was some informative information on the subjective thought of Anime. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Into The Inferno

Is there an article for the third game yet? Rau's Speak Page 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

no, WP:BOLD The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up on a new "source" we might get people adding new info from this, so heads up. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just used it. Is it unreliable or something? Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
well, it is not 100% confirmed that this is a legit source. I would assume that, cause it is oozing with market speak, but i would hold off until we get offical confirmation. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that this flyer was one time. But, now it's out of date and inaccurate. has a link with more info. [[17]] . --Freespirit1981 (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Avatar Ride

I have noticed that you put up an article about the avatar ride in the Mall of America. I think that is okay, but I am insulted that an article hasn't been put up about the avatar ride in King's Island (I live near there and go often to ride the ride) especially since the ride at KI has been there longer. It is a really neat ride too. It is kind of like a skateboard. Mew Mitsuki (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? (I never knew it existed.) Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I found info about the ride at Paramount's King's Island if anyone wants to include it in one of the avatar articles... there's probably more out there, this is just a fact sheet from the park. Hewinsj (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
But what article are you referring to when you mention the Mall of America ride? Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't refering to the Mall of America one, I think you want the Original Poster. However, if I have time I'll do a little digging and report back with what I find. Hewinsj (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a reference to it here in the article for the Nickelodeon theme park in the mall, but it's only a sentence. I still haven't looked at the Avatar article itself to see if this was added, but that seems to be one line on this topic. Hewinsj (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to say that there is no need for any other ride references in the Nickelodeon Universe article, as the section is specifically about the Nickelodeon Theme Park. As for the Avatar article itself, I do not think that there is any references to it, nor do I think that there should be, considering this article should concern mainly of the show, and should not be a compilation of every Avatar creation there is. If you want, feel free to add a reference to the ride in KI in a different article (maybe in the article for King's Island itself), but not here. I hope I cleared some things up. If not, post your questions below. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is mention of it in the main article under Promotion and merchandising. It's noted briefly in a paragraph about efforts used to promote the franchise. I'm used to people clamouring for real world uses of fictional material in articles like these so I'm happy with it. Still, open to discussion on the subject. Hewinsj (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Avatar Airbender Thats the article that they were talking about. Rau's Speak Page 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Somehow missed that one when I did a "what links here" on the Mall of America. Thanks for catching it. I wouldn't be opposed to merging this. Hewinsj (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think a merge is appropriate. A redirect would suffice, considering there is literally only three sentences of information in the article, one of which is already mentioned in this article and the other two containing information that is not needed in this article. As for the KI ride, it needs to be analyzed whether or not it is really notable enough to deserve a mention. I am sure that the SpongeBob article does not give mentions to every SpongeBob ride in existence. (It should be noted, though, that the SpongeBob article does mention its Mall of America ride.) Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It used to be a redirect when it was created by Placebo back in october 2006, of course that changed when a ride was made with the same name. Rau's Speak Page 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
ReBoot does talk about several rides in a very brief section. Not a FA but it does talk about the fact that they exist in the real world. A redirect would be fine, I just don't know if you can propose a redirect in the way that you can propose a merger. If you can request for redirect, I would prefer that. There is sufficient coverage in the main article, and no need for a separate stub that consists of 2 sentences. Hewinsj (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to request for redirect. As long as we are in consensus here, somebody can just be bold and change the article to a redirect. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 11:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Done and done. Sorry about that, recently I've edited a few other articles where discussion takes precedence to being bold. Nice talking with you. Hewinsj (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Huge Character Descriptions

Check out featured articles The Office and Aquaman. Such cute, small character descriptions of one to three lines maximum, describing what they are, and not what happens to them in the series. Please let's do that, and save plot for episode and character pages, rather than this page. Please? Somebody throw me a bone here, I've already had spoileriffic stuff I deleted restored because it was "needed." --Buinne (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That won't happen here. We are about the quality of the article, not the amount of information we can cram in. I'll begin removing material. Rau's Speak Page 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Better? Rau's Speak Page 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks much. Apologies for not doing it myself.--Buinne (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I preferred the more descriptive character descriptions. They were not to big and complemented the Summary. Besides, they were here when this article was featured, so I don't think there is a problem with it. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There might not have been a problem with it, but it was not needed. Most of them have an article with more than enough detail on each of them. Rau's Speak Page 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There was no problem with it exactly. The other articles have much more information to add and if they did that then it would have too much info. We don't have as much info, so i think we should just leave it like this. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 00:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You're saying that we should kind of balance it out? Rau's Speak Page 01:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying until someone says this breaks a guideline or something like that, we should leave it as it is, because it is more informative this way. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 11:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. Rau's Speak Page 01:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging Media Information

Just in case nobody noticed, there is a merge suggestion notice at the top of the article. It would be good if somebody attempted to discuss it. It is located on the media information article's talk page. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Feature Film news

Empire Magazine is running a story with specifics about the upcoming movie. Two things to note, it's dropping the title Avatar to avoid confusion with the James Cameron film of the same name and simply going by the title "The Last Airbender", and has a prospective release date of July 2, 2010. If I have some time I'll add this to the article, but if someone else beats me to it that's fine too. Hewinsj (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cast images

Not that I'm a very stringent copyright purist or anything, but in future some may object to the many images in the cast section. Could it be easier to find some images with multiple characters in them, or just let the reader click the characters' articles to see what they look like? Alientraveller (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Avatar will return....

Despite the DVD release of Volume 3 (of Book 3) being released on May 6th, it was said by Bryan K., one of the co-creators of the show, that the show will return in JULY. This is according to [[18]] Should we add this to the article? --Freespirit1981 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not thing dongbufeng is a reliable source. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The trailer said that the journey concludes in july. not that new episodes begin in july. Rau's Speak Page 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Dongbufeng is not a reliable source for episode names. This information, however, wast taken directly from NYCC. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have another link that says that it will start and end in July: [[19]] . Is this one ok to use? :) --Freespirit1981 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, uses toonzone as a reference here: [[20]] .--Freespirit1981 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little uneasy about Toon Zone. Maybe Placebo knows more about this. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if they're reporting what happened at the convention, I don't see any reason not to use it.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 21:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yo yo yo, nick just said on there site avatar returns Monday July 14th. Placebo Out!!! The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, it does say that, but its useless to us beause we have no where to add the information. And pardon my boldness, but your word choice seems odd... Rau's Speak Page 23:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can say that is the next episode's air date in the US in the Season 3 article. And i just felt in the mood to answer like that. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 01:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess we could do that, and everyone has their spurs I guess.. Rau's Speak Page 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC) has removed the airdate from their Avatar page. We may have to change the article soon, that is IF they've changed the date and haven't told us yet. :(--Freespirit1981 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We know. The articles have already been changed to reflect this. Rau's Speak Page 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw a commericial on Nick a few hours ago saying that new episodes would air in July, so it is definate in July, but no exact date was given. Korah7106 (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


The editor forgot to mention it, but this article has been flagged for a Featured Article review because of some questionable sources and several unsourced statements. Please see the FAR box at the top of this talk page for more details. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I thought that was already brought up? Oh well, it's about time anyway. Rau's Speak Page 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, didn't forget, its at the top of the page. That is usually sufficient notification for anyone watching the page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
But its not for people who just stop by on occasion. Or for people who do not use watch pages, but still frequent the page. I think this kind of section is more of a courtesy to them. Rau's Speak Page 00:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how. Anyone coming to the talk page will see the notice at the top before they see the menu or this section :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
But how many pay attention to the top? And even if they do, thats why its a courtesy. Rau's Speak Page 00:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, RauJ, Featured article review is what I meant when I said the article should have an FAR and be "looked over" not that long ago. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe... Yea, I ended up figuring that out... that was what the "I thought that was already brought up" was. I just thought that it had happened, we just hadn't gotten any results. Rau's Speak Page 01:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

This might seem like a stupid thing to say, but whenever I access this page to find out about Avatar (ususally to see when the episodes are airing) I always type in "The Last Airbender" instead of "Avatar: The Last Airbender" because it saves time. But now, I've just noticed that when I type this, it takes me right down to the live action film adaptation. Does it have to be this way?Wild ste (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone had apparently created a page called The Last Airbender for the feature film. It was redirected here per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF, etc etc, but when the redirect was done it was done to the film section. Since The Last Airbender is really more of a general short name for the series in general and not specific just to the film, I've fixed the redirect so it should just go to the top of the page. Hope that helps. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how the movie is in the works and is separate from the cartoon series I think that in needs its own article. Also, when you moved the information I had you cut that some of the filming was to be done in Vietnam even though I had a link citing that. It took some digging for me to find that, you know.Skyrocket (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


This is ridiculous. Somebody tagged the page claiming the article overuses non-free images. According to policy, non-free images should only be used if there is:

  1. No free equivalent
  2. Minimum usage
  3. Previous publication
  4. Encyclopedic Content
  5. Compliance with Media-specific policy
  6. Significance

I am not sure about anybody else, but here is the run down: Every picture in the article is a screenshot, so it is impossible for there to be a free equivalent; The images are only used where necessary, those places being in the infobox, in the premise section, and in the characters section; As said before, they are screenshots, so they are all previously published; Each picture provides encyclopedic content because it gives the reader a feel for the show (I will explain further on this topic below); All images comply with the image policy; All of the images are significant (see below).

I think I am correct in assuming that the dispute here is that the images are unnecessary, and therefore there is too much non-free content. I am ready to argue otherwise. This article is pages upon pages of text. The only images in this article are the title card (rationale for inclusion self-explanatory), a map of the show's internal universe, and the character pictures.

The map is significant for the article because it literally gives a map of the world within the show. If there was a perfect description for a reader's visual guide to an article, this is it. It provides context for the whole article, demonstrating the four nations in the show, thus effectively helping the reader to separate the four concepts of "Air Nomads", "Earth Kingdom", "Water Tribes", and "Fire Nation", as well as giving the reader the ability to follow the plot of the show better (note that plot summaries include the characters section, since that is basically all plot).

The character images are especially significant because it represents what each character looks like. Specifically, it gives the reader a feel for the character. For instance, Aang's character description states he "is the fun-loving, 12-year-old". Now, if somebody who stumbles upon this article reads this, what do they envision? Do they think of the bald, arrow-headed, exuberant, immature, twelve-year old that Aang is, or do they think of a normal twelve-year old? In other words, it conveys to the user that this is not your typical show, and that each character takes on his/her own personality and character traits (both internally and externally). Notice how there is not even one mention of Aang's baldness in the whole article, yet it is assumed mainly because the editors here at this article felt it convenient to put a picture of Aang in instead of extensively describing him in prose. This does not go only for Aang, it goes for every character. Zuko, Toph, Katara, Iroh. They all have character traits that are not described in the prose that are conveyed through the image. And I do not mean just their physical features. The expressions on each of the character's faces, and the character's overall appearance imply much more than what is shown. Because of this, the reader develops an internal point of view for the show, and the reader gets more "in" to the article. These pictures are not for show, they are visual guides so the reader can be led through the article with ease, and effectively learn what the show is, where it was developed from, and who the characters are.

That is my main argument. Secondly (uggh, I know you do not want to read anymore), the influences section at the bottom mentions a lot of Asian, etc. influences, with all the mentions of fighting styles, etc. How much does that section mean if you cannot even see how these influences were implemented. Can the reader go through a whole section like that and automatically form a connection between Asia and Avatar? No! Aang's bald head and arrow, Sokka's "warrior's wolftail", everybody's clothing, the background the images are portrayed in. These are all minor notes in the images, but they contribute greatly to the article, whether it is obvious or now.

I really hope that anybody out there would reconsider the use of the images in the article an overuse of non-free content, because it is not. And I can guarantee that there are many more things that the article gains from these images, whether they are noticeable or not, and that removing them would only throw this article further into despair. This article was a great article at its FAC, and it still is a great article, no matter how much vandalism it has suffered. If it is really time to bring copyright paranoia into this article, only to have the article's quality suffer, than a sad time has come over Wikipedia. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 02:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already left a note at WP:NONFREE asking for additional opinions, however the overwhelming consensus before has been no individual character images in lists (1-2 group image is fine) and that individual character images certainly do not belong in main articles at all when there is a group image. You may not like it, but that is policy now. It is excessive and unnecessary. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to show me where this consensus was established and where in any policy it states this. (Just so you know, I am willing to accept I am wrong, so please show me which policy this is stated in, because I must have overlooked it.) Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 02:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
See WP:NONFREE, and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Excessive Non-Free where others agreed it was too many (and note someone else has removed them). AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for showing me that. It seems that this sentence slipped by me when I was reading that policy over last month. I hope you will accept my apology for the whole situation. It was my ignorance that got in the way. The only thing I am curious about is how this article got past FAC with those images there, because I know all of those images (not the exact images, but you get the point) were there during the nomination. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 02:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. When Avatar passed FAR, it was in January 2007, but the Foundation didn't hand down the edict that resulted in the changes to Non-Free until March 2007. Since then, its been a catch up to correct articles that are no longer in compliance as they are found. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, more copyright paranoia. Ah well, sign of the times. Anyway, anybody know of any good group shots we can use? It'll make for an inferior article, but its better than nothing.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the copyright card is getting so irritating, but US law trumps all seeing as if we do not recognize their authority we get incarcerated. But I personally like the image that Placebo provided. And if we have a problem using images found at dongbufeng, then I can make a screenshot from the same scene. Rau's Speak Page 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That ones not bad, but it dosn't really show much detail...maybe we could get a couple shots, one of of Aang and co and one with Zuko, Iroh, and Azula. I'd have to look, but I figure that'd probably be doable, and hopefully two shots won't provoke anybody's wrath.
Oh, and just FYI: US law doesn't really enter the picture, here. The way we had it before and more would be easily acceptable under that. Its actually quite permissive for non-profit educational stuff like Wikipedia. The policy here, however (or its enforcement, at least) is much tighter.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs)
One shot is provoking someones wrath. Rau's Speak Page 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question RFC

Parent, you added the RFC; what is the question? If this:

Is linking to a site with copyrighted information considered such a major copyvio, that it takes precedence over the improvement of an article's quality?

is really the question, WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:EL are quite clear. We don't knowingly link to sites that contain copyright violations. Why do you need to ask? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it might have to with the fact that avatarspirit, a source for this article is considered not a useable source for anything, even original interviews they did, because they host some copyrighted material. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [21]).

What is unclear about that? And why would someone argue (as they are on the FAR) that we should IAR for one article, putting Wiki in the position of contributory infringement because one article wants to? There must be more to this dispute than meets the eye, because if this is all there is to it, the answer is patently clear. What are we missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Collectonian is misinterpreting WP:COPY. Avatarspirit does seem to have information on the website that are copyright violations, but the policy only prohibits linking to the copyright violations. It does not prevent someone from linking to a different page that website as long as that page does not also contain copyright violations. A pretty good argument could be made for Avatarspirit not being a reliable source, but to prohibit linking to an unrelated page on the site simply because Avatarspirit contains copyright violations elsewhere seems to be an unreasonable extension of WP:COPY...--Bobblehead (rants) 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, I still do not see how is this affecting all of wikipedia. I called IAR to apply to this one website, so that we could use the website and its information. We just want to use information from interviews at a site that one editor is peeved about. We have removed every link that we had to copyrighted material. Rau's Speak Page 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, the point is that the lawsuit that caused the institution of this policy was a case where a company was sued for directly linking to copyrighted works. In this case: 1) We cannot be sure it is even copyrights, and more importantly 2) The links are to interviews, not any copyvio material, and 3) Rau J gave good reasons to justify the use of IAR if this policy keeps being interpreted as not allowing us to link to any part of ASN. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, if you people want to put a RfC to the entire community, it would be respectful to correctly and succinctly take the time to define the issue you want people to look at. This is just a rude and hasty abuse of other editors' time. So it now appears that the site contains copyvios, but you want to link to other pages, not the copyvio page, correct ? Please take the time to clearly define the RfC issue. If a site includes copyvios, how are you going to claim that the site is reliable? Please explain why we should trust a site that violates the law ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the application of WP:IAR here, it's that ASN is not a reliable source, but they are claiming IAR because if the text supported by ASN were not part of the article, it would be to the detriment of the article itself. Correct? --Bobblehead (rants) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Rau's Speak Page 22:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, incorrect. ASN is a reliable source. The argument is that since ASN might contain "illegal" episodes transcripts and mp3 files, that the site violated Wikipedia:Copyright, and that no link from the site can be used. We are applying IAR here because that policy is absurd, as there is no chance at all of Wikipedia being sued for linking to ASN unless we linked to the copyvio itself, and also that the article has some good information from this source, and it is being taken away because of a misinterpretation of copyright law. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 02:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually the argument i sboth. That it is a fansite and not a reliable source, and that it violates copyright laws and shouldn't be linked to making it double unusable. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Your claims of unreliability have absolutely no basis, as we've said time and time again. Just because a website is a fansite, it does not mean it is unreliable. I realize it is a common stereotype to connotate "fansite" with "unreliable fanfic, etc.". But that is not always the case. ASN is a very reliable source. The only thing that could be considered unreliable would be their forums, and the reason for that is obvious. Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 02:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No, they have plenty of basis. The site does not meet WP:RS and it does not meet WP:V, period. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have concerns about whether or not ASN is a reliable source, you can ask on the reliable source noticeboard. It doesn't sound like you'll resolve the question here. Collectonian, WP:COPY does not prevent all links to websites that have copyright violations, it only prevents linking to the copyright violations themselves. That's why WP:EL allows links to youtube on a case by case basis despite the rampant copyright violations on the site. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Funny, a month or two ago it was decided in one of the noticeboards that linking to a site that is deliberately and knowingly breaking copyrights (which does not include YouTube), such as fansub and fansub sites is a big fat no no. This occurred during the big discussion over the many Sailor Moon articles using links to a site with every episode available for download, even though none of the links were too that page. It also resulted in all links to anidb being stripped from every anime/manga article and its templates all deleted. It didn't matter that people weren't linking to the fansub pages, the site itself was acting deliberately to violate copyrights. YouTube removes copyrighted materials when found, hence it not being the same thing at all. They don't knowingly upload it. Allowing a site like ASN and saying "nah, its okay as long as you don't like to that page" is no better than saying "here, go link to the fansub distributors, just not the download page" or linking to warez site as long as you don't link straight to any download page. It is still violating WP:Copyright, if not in letter then in spirit. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Including a transcript of every episode and screens of every two seconds or so for every episode drifts into heavy copyright violation; ergo, we shouldn't be linking to it. Same rationale has applied in the past to linking to fansub sites. The stretch of WP:IAR here is ridiculous, as WP:COPYRIGHT is something we take very seriously here, and IAR hardly, if ever, allows you to disregard it. IAR, if anything, is a common sense tool for clear cut situations. This isn't it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But nobody is getting the point. All of your arguments have no meaning because we are not linking to the copyvio material. As for Collectionian's comment, the site that was under scrutiny (as you said yourself) was "acting deliberately to violate copyrights" while YouTube "removes copyrighted material when found". ASN is not in any way deliberately violating copyrights. Do you really think the people at ASN sit at home and think "How can I violate Nickelodeon's copyright today?" As for Sephiroth BCR's comment, I do agree with you on the use of IAR here, and I do agree that copyright policies are very important. However, as it says specifically in WP:COPY, "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." It does not say "Do not link to anything on that website." No matter how large the copyright violation may or may not be, there is no application of the policy because we are not linking to said copyvio. (Oh, and if somebody has not already, I will ask about ASN's reliability.) Parent5446 (t n e l) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You're dealing in semantics - following the letter but not the spirit of the policy. There's nothing stopping a user from clicking onto the copyright infringement upon going to their site, and even the minute chance of legal action is enough to deter the usage of the site. Anyhow, it's a fallacious argument altogether - by your logic, I could link to a site with nothing more than a single link that goes to a set of copyright infringements, and it would be fine, which is obviously not the case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You just do not get it. The spirit of the policy is to stop copyright violations, put simply (that's why its WP:COPYRIGHT). In addition, you have to remember that the spirit of the law does overpower the letter, but the two are not completely unrelated. There is absolutely no way when you link to a site that just contains copyrighted material that is becomes a copyvio. Not even the slightest chance. As for the single link suggestion, that is just ridiculous (spirit of the law takes over there). Parent5446 (t n e l) 11:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Important Question

Hey book three isn't going to be the end of the series is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it sure isJoeldipops (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the whole point of the series is for Aang to defeat the Fire Lord before Sozens Comit comes. Since that commit arrives at the end of series 3, what else can they do?Wild ste (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Have Aang lose the fight and then prepare for the entirety of Season 4 to defeat him. But because they have announced that this is the series finale, that is not going to happen. Rau's Speak Page 16:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is? SHIT! They didn't even have book of air. It was such a good series one of the top two best in nickolodean probably the best.

Yeah, it really stinks. But I guess we are going to have to deal with it. Parent5446 (t n e l) 03:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


You wrote:

Filming will begin in Philadelphia in May 2009

But here is written that filming will begin in March! -- (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Then instead of complaining, change it. Rau's Speak Page 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
What part of "Be nice to the new guys" confuses you older wiki people? (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mai's Age

It looks like her age comes from Nick's official site? But in "The Beach" it's said that she was an only child for 15 years and in "Return to Omashu" it's said that her brother is two years old (though Azula might have been rounding up). So shouldn't she be 17ish? If I've misremembered my details, please correct me. Otherwise, it might be nice to add a line that there is a conflict between the two ages given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. All I know is that looking at Nick's site itself is better than guessing around with multiple details from the show. Unless it says specifically "Main is 17", she could be anything. Maybe the people who wrote the episode overlooked something. Either way, I think that we should stick with the site's evidence. Parent5446 (t n e l) 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I noticed that the counter that displays the number of episodes aired is at 55, yet still only 53 episodes have actually aired. Does the counter need fixing, i'd do it myself but i dont know how =[ Ocelot (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to correct, since the next two eps aren't scheduled to air until the 6th. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Hewinsj (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
They aren't scheduled to be released until the 6th, don't mislead anyone. Rau's Speak Page 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'v taken to watching em as they appear online.--Jakezing (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As someone said on the talk page for the article on Season 3 alone, internet leaks are NOT release dates and as such the Canada dates for 312 and 313 and the DVD release dates are the official release dates for the episodes. Just a little FYI. Caterfree10 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Return the Major and Minor Secondary Character Articles

Crucial information about characters has been deleted. They should be returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSaiyaMan (talkcontribs) 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has agreed that no, it is not crucial information for an encyclopedia. For minute details about a character, you will be better served visiting a fansite. This is not the place for that. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

-where is this consensus. I think wikipedia absolutely is sucking now. You said that this isn't the place for that. Well what is this place for then!!! This IS the place for that. It's not fan cruft at all. May I have a link to the consensus? And Collectonian, I'm not targeting, sorry if it comes across like that. Jason Garrick (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is an encyclopedia. What do people use an encyclopedia for? They use it for reliable, quick, research (unlike proper research). They expect to find the passing facts they are looking for and they expect them to be absolutely correct. While this may not hold true for all of Wikipedia, it is what we strive for. In the character articles, it was ALL (no exaggeration) plot summaries. In addition, they were plot summaries that were mentioned in other articles. Considering the fact that plot summary of a TV Show can often be OR (since the show has to be paraphrased, and not everybody can perfectly paraphrase without any OR), the articles were 1) Non-notable since they concerned minor characters, 2) Redundant since the plot summaries could be found in some of the other Avatar articles, 3) Unreliable because of my previous statement concerning original research, 4) Unnecessary since this is an encyclopedia, and NOBODY is going to come to research the minor details of a minor character that appeared in one or two episodes of a children's animated television series. If you want more in-depth answers, please see WP:NOT (WP:PLOT specifically), WP:N, and WP:OR. Oh, and the consensus on this topic was reached here. Parent5446 (t n e l) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder where this enthusiasm was when the articles were up for deletion. Rau's Speak Page 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I remember on another AfD (might have been Ba Sing Se's), that an editor said "Delete - since the project has not done much to save the article". I just had to sit there and laugh, because I knew that the article would get deleted, and only then would people say "Hey, who agreed to this, bring everything back." This is also not limited to AfDs, it also happened when we removed the Relationships sections from the character sections. *sigh* I guess we will just have to deal with it. If they truly disagree, they can bring it to deletion review. Parent5446 (t n e l) 03:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please. Can the patronizing garbage and party lines, will you? You and I both know if any of these folks had said anything on those AfDs, some hotshot editor would just drum some essay or other WP:ABCs for why they were wrong and their opinion didn't matter. Let's at least be honest with ourselves here, K?--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 19:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
But, of course. The articles were under the criteria for deletion. I'm just saying its annoying when everybody comes to the talk page afterwards asking "Please bring the article back", or even "Where did the article go?" Even if experienced editors put down comments to keep the article, at least people would be aware of the situation, and have their say, not to mention it is good experience for a use to participate in AfDs, considering they might learn a thing or two about policy when their comments are debated (I sure learned a lot). Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Avatar action figures?

It still says in the article that the Katara figure was supposed to be released in 2007. It's now 2008, and still no more Avatar figures on the shelves. If the action figure line was really dropped by Mattel, we need to put this in the article. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Do it, but source it. It could just be delayed. Rau's Speak Page 18:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find an official webpage that says whether or not it's been dropped. What do we do?--Freespirit1981 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove mention of the 2007 release schedule, as it is false. But add no new information as it is unsourced. And a news post would work as well, it does not have to be an official webpage. Rau's Speak Page 19:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I regrettably threw away the response to a letter I sent to. However, someone posted acopy of the image under the references section a while back.... like last year. I wonder if it is still archived. --anwserman (talk) 07:16 31 May 2008 (CST)

Episode Summary

I'm just wondering, why can't Avatar have Plot Summaries when other shows such as "The Simpsons", "King of the Hill" and "South Park" have them respectively. Is it just because those shows haven't had their episode descriptions purged?

Just wondering. --anwserman (talk) 07:29 31 May 2008 (CST)

Pretty much. This series used to have them, but back around January, we merged them into season articles. Rau's Speak Page 18:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a lot better back then. I can't believe they got rid of the list of minor characters article! When the movie comes out, some of those characters could be in it. -An angry wikipedian 7:30 AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not better. Simply had more information. It was far from Wikipedia's standard. Now it's closer. Rau's Speak Page 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard is lame. I suppose it makes practical sense. Save space, cost, maintenance, but it sucks that "popular" articles don't have to conform to the "standard" even though they should probably be the first since they arguably have proportionally more editors. I mean granted that how purges work, you start with the fringe before you go after the jews, but really, what can you do eh? (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason those series have individual episode articles is because almost every one of those shows' episodes have been critically claimed, meaning that the episodes have been reviewed by critics. When a episode is reviewed by critics, it gives us outside information to put in that episode article. Unfortunately, there is not enough outside information, such as newspaper articles, etc, on each and every episode to make episode articles. As for this article specifically, it should have a longer plot summary. The current one is ridiculous. — Parent5446 (message email) 16:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected bad grammar

I'm not terribly familiar with the processes for changing things here but I changed the line about the new series from being making to being made. I'm not even 100% sure the grammar was wrong but it definitely read rather awkwardly.

Grammar and spelling normally don't need talk page mention. An edit summary would have been enough. But you were right, that grammar was wrong. Rau's Speak Page 12:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references

In the article it is not stated that there are strong european cultural references. But in fact the series is quite full of European cultural and mythical references. For example that dragons are asociated with fire in the series. Only in the European traditions are dragons asociated with fire. In china they rather have an asociation with water. Further, there is a very striking moment in episode book 2 chapter 20: the crossroads of destiny. After ang has been struck by Azula's lightning bolt and katara holds him in her arms, the image is exactly that of the christian "Pieta". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the bit about the dragons, but the last one about the Pieta is a major stretch. I imagine the European influences would have appeared in the article by now if the creators had acknowledged it in interviews. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look up the painting/statue (I forget which it is), you'll see the similarities between the Pieta and that particular scene. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a statue.--Freespirit1981 (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Legend of Aang

I'm just curious, in which countries is is referred to as this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowRanger (talkcontribs) 05:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

At least Great Britain, but multiple countries. I think the U.S. is one of the few to use The Last Airbender. Rau's Speak Page 21:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary mistake

Originally slated to start in November 2004, the show was postponed twice: first to September 10, 2005,[2] then to February 21, 2005, where it finally made its debut;

How could it have been postponed to september 10 2005 then aired on feburay 21 2005??????? i think this needs fixed not sure what is right so i will leave it to someone who knows —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talkcontribs) 11:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect a typo/error here. The summary at the top now says "aired on February 21, 2006" but the Background section says "February 21, 2005." I expect the 2006 date is correct, but I am not sure of the facts and would like them verified and fixed by someone more knowledgeable about the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The show premiered in 2005. Because they did not air two seasons in 2006. Also, the source for the delay is invalid. So I have fixed it. Rau's Speak Page 01:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


I've been hearing alot of stuff on the internet lately that Avatar is an anime. Well, I'd like some proof of this that goes further than the answers 'o it has a japanees them' and 'ur just sayng that becuz u hate the sho'. If this does happen to be true, it should be added to the article. Tonberreh (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article already has a section regarding the anime features that Avatar has. TakaraLioness (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The definition of what makes something anime is subjective. In Japan, anime means anything that is animated, so technically it is (along with any other American cartoon). However, in America anime typically means something that was developed in Japan (as a subset of animation in general).
While Avatar borrows things like the occasional facial expression from anime and has strong roots in eastern philosophy, it was developed by Americans and produced in Korea, so while it is anime by one definition it is not anime by the other. Hewinsj (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
And this subject is discussed in the article here. Hewinsj (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It is anime. Why is it considered to not be anime because of its United States origin? By that definition Aeon Flux isn't anime either - yet a large number of websites and people seem to regard it as one. Trying to classify Avatar as one or the other is pointless as there are just as many people on either side. That should be mentioned instead of classifying it as an "American cartoon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The article only classifies it as an "animated television series" and as "anime-influenced animation". No mention of "American Cartoon" at all, simply that it comes from America in two different places. It does classify it as a Nicktoon but that is true.
I personally like the sentence that's in the article right now, "Avatar is not considered an anime because of its American origin; one review has commented that "Avatar blurs the line between anime and (US) domestic cartoons until it becomes irrelevant."" The article then goes on to cite specific anime that has influenced the series creators. Hewinsj (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the IP on this. As I've said before, it depends on your definition of the word. Some us it to mean any animated program from japan, others (like myself) use it to refer to the style. I think the statement saying it isn't an anime should be removed. Rau's Speak Page 00:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The IP also said that it wasn't worth changing because there's an equally large number of people on both sides of the debate. I'd be careful though that you don't start on a slippery slope with this line of thinking. Changing one American series just because of it's influences could lead to others. Next thing you know, people are arguing that Batman the animated series, or Venture Brothers, or the Boondocks be cited as anime.
If your going to change the definition of anime, you may want to start with the first paragraph of the anime article. Hewinsj (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit I disagree with the anime article and it's probably best to have the definition changed there first. I just feel that anime is an art and its influence spreads just like any other artform. Limiting it to "Japanese-only" is an incorrect statement, and while people may not see that now I feel that it won't be long before they start viewing other anime-inspired TV shows and films that are popping up from Korea and the US as anime and not an "American cartoon". In a few instances they already do without realising it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I see what your saying and I do agree that western art is being influenced by Japanese style. I just don't think I can agree with you on the definition of the term. That said, Wikipedia prefers to go by facts that can be backed up rather than opinion, and at the moment the definition at the top of the anime article is the academic defintion as given by Webster's dictionary. Hewinsj (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I just feel, that because of the conflicting views, it should not be stated either way with out a source. And no one in there right mind would consider The Venture Bros. an anime. Rau's Speak Page 16:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking back VB may have been a little extreme, but there are plenty of western series that have been visually inspired by the anime style that some well meaning editor could classify as anime if they decided that they prefer their own definition of the term to the definition in the dictionary.
I do like the current wording, because it mentions that it is American in origion without being so derogitory as to use the term "American Cartoon" once in the article. I equally like that the article quotes the creators saying they were inspired by anime, and specifically points out which series and studios they like, which is cited by what appears to be reliable sources. Rather than get into further argument with you over this I'm going to just agree to disagree. I've laid out my points and I'll just be repeating myself if the discussion keeps going the same way it's been going. Hewinsj (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


I have seen o youtube official Japanese promos for Avatar in Japanese. Also, on the article here on JApanese Nickelodean, Avatar is on the list of shows on air. I watched an episode on the Japanese website,a nd they are already on season two. Heres a link: WHy then is there nothing on this article about it being dubbed in Japanese? Mew Mitsuki (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, Avatar is dubbed in multiple languages. Why would we mention one when we don't mention the others? Rau's Speak Page 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that. But I think all of them should be mentioned. Unde rhte language section in the little righthand thingy (i don't know the correct term). Because on almost all the shows I see that are dubbed in different languages have all the different ones under htere. Mew Mitsuki (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that it should be mentioned, I don't think the infobox (the righthand thingy) is big enough. Rau's Speak Page 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then what is? Maybe a totlaly new section about Avatar in different countries? (oh, and thanks for the correction. I'm a bit new to Wiki terminology.) Mew Mitsuki (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've been here almost a year and even I don't know the terminology. I search new terms in google or FireFox's search box. And I could see a section on it. Or I've also seen it where the infobox has it all, but it's hidden with [hide/show] beside one of them. If someone could gather the information, I could figure out how to do that bit. Rau's Speak Page 00:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to put it behind a hide/show in the infobox, but I do know that the infobox will expand if you insert a break command between each entry to move the next language to the next line. The only trouble with this is that the infobox could bump into something further down the article if it gets too long. It's the same way the writers and voice actors sections were made to take up multiple lines. Hewinsj (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know it expands. But I figure we are talking several countries. That simply would not look right. And I don't want to add an incomplete list. Rau's Speak Page 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Ok. Tomorrow night's the finale, so we'll have to start making changes soon by putting certain things into past tense, right? Also, I doubt we'll see a Katara action figure any time soon, so let's add that no such figure has been released up to this point. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We still need a source for that. And everything should be in present tense, as per MOS. Rau's Speak Page 03:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

New incarnation series for Avatar.

Ok. I've heard this news before, but we need to change the link of this information in order to keep it in the article. I'll go find one. :D--Freespirit1981 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference # 31 (the interview)DOES state this news in a way. I had a interview in mind, but I can't find it (the website was "upgraded" and no longer has it). If anyone can find this interview or something better for this part of the article, I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks! :D --Freespirit1981 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I finally found it! It's at [[22]] . I hope that this is good enough to use in the article! --Freespirit1981 (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The day Newsarama isn't reliable is the day Satan announces his homosexuality successful bid for President of the United States. Good find. And I too hate the new site. Rau's Speak Page 20:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the reference to the article. However, I'd retract the,ummm, "comment" you just made. You may offend someone. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. I think this is better anyway. Rau's Speak Page 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! :D But can still be a reliable source for this article, despite the changes. I'm also a part of their Avatar forum. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I use it to source all the time. But we are getting chatty, only a matter of time till someone tells us to stop. Rau's Speak Page 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I just checked your reference and it seems to be incorrect. They had made an edit to the interview and stated "Newsarama Note: The original article stated that there were three more seasons of of Avatar coming. According to Nickelodeon, that is not the case as of this time. We regret the error." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Articles have been created for both Mai and Ty Lee. I was wondering if we should restrict character articles. Perhaps to main characters only? Rau's Speak Page 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that character articles should be limited to main characters. Also, the previous age that was listed for Azula before all of the editing madness going on recently was 15. She was the same age as Sokka and one year younger than her brother. (The reference listed for the character ages is a Nickelodeon interactive page, but I don't think that the character bios are still there. She is, however, only one year younger than her brother.) Lore aura (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, according to Nick's description of her (the one that's referenced), it lists her age as 14. TakaraLioness (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright then. I was under the impression of something different. Could you tell me where you found this on that website, because I could not find it. Lore aura (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, just don't go past the list of character's you already have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ninja Assasin (talkcontribs) 03:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to "Season 2" → "The Avatar State" → "Characters" → "Azula", there are instructions on her article, but not here because the ref is used for more than just her. And she's two years younger than Zuzu. And if we limit them to main characters, what about Suki, Mai, and Ty Lee? Rau's Speak Page 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Mai's age is listed as 15 on that site (episode 203). I could not find Ty Lee's age though. Lore aura (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Ty Lee's age isn't listed. But when I wrote those, my internet was being wonky so I couldn't check. Rau's Speak Page 23:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No, Ty Lee's age isn't stated on the main Nick site, though with Mai, there's actually a discrepancy in her age between what the Nick site says, and what the show says. While the Nick site lists her age as 15, the shows implies that her age is 17. In episode 305, "The Beach", Ty Lee does state that Mai was an only child for 15 years, which was when Tom Tom was born. However, in episode 203, "Return To Omashu" it's stated that Tom Tom is 2 years old. Obviously, if Mai was 15 when Tom Tom was born, and Tom Tom is now 2 that would make her 17. Now, I don't know if the writers simply forgot that Tom Tom was 2 when they wrote the Beach, or if they decided to slightly increase Mai's age when they were writing season 3. Ktulu84 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In episodes "Nightmares and Daydreams" [Book 3; Chapter 9], "The Day of Black Sun Part 1: The Invasion" [Book 3; Chapter 10], "The Ember Island Players" [Book 3; Chapter 17], and "Sozin's Comet, Part 4: Avatar Aang" [Book 3; Chapter 21]... it clearly shows that Aang and Katara have a romantical relationship. I think this should be included in their descriptions under the Character section of the article. Many other episodes also show some hint of their relationship and I believe that it is something worth noting and having under their description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There are more than that. But these are supposed to be brief. we don't need to add stuff like that. Rau's Speak Page 02:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sozin's Comet article

I would like to propose the creation of an article for the finale. I already know of a Toon Zone review, and I am certain that both IGN and AnimationInsider will have them. I also noticed a Native American culture reference in the Giant Turtle with the earth on it's back. I'm certain that there are more culture references. Rau's Speak Page 02:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There are articles for each episode. If there is not currently an article for the various episodes of the finale (parts 1-4 individually), then you could begin it, following the same format as the other episode articles. Lore aura (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There are no articles for each episode. They were deleted a while back. However, I agree that Sozin's Comet has the notability to pass an AfD. Do it, and I will help after I get some sleep. --haha169 (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This shows how long it has been since I have last been editing in this section, but I agree. Even if there are no articles for individual episodes anymore, if you feel that the descriptions in the Avatar Season 3 episodes section is not adequate (although it looks to cover all of the important points already), then you could try creating an article for Sozin's Comet. Lore aura (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll start it once more reviews are released from sources like IGN. (The only one so far is from Toonzone or something like that.) I'll also like viewership counts, etc, as well as production. If we can produce a compilation of links right now, it would be very helpful. The article can be started in about...3 days or so, if the correct info is released. :) --haha169 (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That's why I hadn't started it today. People might just redirect it. Rau's Speak Page 23:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

White Lotus

Under Iroh's description on the Avatar main page, the White Lotus is described as being made up of benders. However, they are not all benders as shown by Sokka's master. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M9jorodb (talkcontribs) 05:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And why are you telling us this? Go to Avatar Wikia and tell them that...Wikipedia doesn't control Wikia affairs. --haha169 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Future faux pas?

"Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko have also confirmed that a new series of Avatar, focusing on another incarnation of the character, is in the process of being made."

I checked the linked section and there is a disclaimer that thee will NOT be a season 4 as also shown from the "The End" in the final episode.

The website states: "Newsarama Note: The original article stated that there were three more seasons of of Avatar coming. According to Nickelodeon, that is not the case as of this time. We regret the error."

Did I miss something about a new series in that linked reference, or is it talking about the movies?

shadzar-talk 06:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Those are two completely different things. What the article says and what DiMartino says in the interview is that they hope to give us more from the Avatar universe, not a 4th season. How is "a new series" and "a 4th season" even remotely the same thing? The corrected notion from the interview, as is reflected in this article, is that another Avatar series may be created - it just won't be about Aang, the Last Airbender. Malumultimus (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean a spin-off. --haha169 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually more like mini episodes starting in the Spring of 2009. :D Here's a link that I found. [[23]] It appears to be an actual flyer from Viacom. I just hope that this isn't a joke flyer that someone photoshopped. You'll have to zoom in at 200% to read it clearly, but it states this news at the bottom.--Freespirit1981 (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You can read it clearly at 100. But with out any plot details, I think we should only mention it. Not go into much detail. Rau's Speak Page 02:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I also found this: [24]. It says that while there won't be a Book 4, there will be three hour long movies after the series AND the live action movies. :) --Freespirit1981 (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDB still isn't reliable. Rau's Speak Page 02:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. :) We won't use that "source" then. BTW, there will be an Avatar panel at this year's San Diego Comic Con. Maybe we can get some answers about the flyer there. Maybe a video of the panel will help---IF they allow taping this time. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I KNOW!!! I hope they clear up a few things. I mean geez, it's like they don't know what a hard time they give us... Rau's Speak Page 02:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Avatar is such a great show - but they feel like they have the right to wait HALF-a YEAR to give us new episodes. Such quality material...but they like delaying a lot...and making us (fans) wait... --haha169 (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean any of that. That is not what a new series means, and "new incarnation of the character" means "an Avatar that isn't Aang." You see, what we saw was not "Avatar"...but an Avatar series. What we saw was "The Last Airbender", the legend of Aang. According to what the creators have said, they hope to produce another series based on the legend of (presumably) another Avatar. This is what "more from the Avatar universe" implies, in my opinion. Not a movie; not a mini-series; not a fourth season... Frankly, I'm shocked to see I'm the only one to read it that way. I'm fairly certain, in the past, the creators said this exact same thing, but I could be confusing it with something else. Malumultimus (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this had something to do with my reasoning: the interview An Avatar Spring Break with Mike and Bryan from April 6, 2007 ( In the first part of the interview, Michael Dante DiMartino says, "We love the avatar universe so we want to keep telling stories in it if we have the outlet for it. We're just not interested in watering this storyline down, or filling it...keeping it dragging on. We try to make it as potent as we can. That's our big priority. Still, we'll do some other things. (laughter) We're not retiring." Malumultimus (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what a spin-off is. A show that is based on elements of another. Whether this involves a new Avatar, and old one, or none at all remains to be seen. Rau's Speak Page 16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, though, it is not -- there is no "split" from the original series. Is Final Fantasy XII a spin-off of Final Fantasy Tactics? A different game based on a different story of the same world. I'd think some other element (such as, characters) needs to be shaved off and capitalized on for it to be a spin-off. From what they said...this is just another legend. If they had had the foresight, I imagine this one could've come first, before The Last Airbender. Would it be a spin-off then? I do not believe a spin-off can go both ways... Frasier couldn't have come before Cheers, unbelievably minimalizing the main character's role with the other 98% of the series being completely unheard of. Malumultimus (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Finale Statistics

Here are some statistics from the finale/the week of the finale. This should be incorporated into the Response/Ratings section. Also, in the lead, the following sentence needs to be changed for the finale statistics:

"Avatar: The Last Airbender is popular with both audiences and critics, garnering 4.4 million viewers on its best-rated showing..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a useful link to hold on to when the Sozin's Comet article is created, per discussion above. --haha169 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. Rau's Speak Page 21:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's another one, and it is an amazing review. Must read. --haha169 (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And another. --haha169 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we've pretty much got all the info that's needed for an episode. Let me look at FA episode articles and get back to that. --haha169 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We've got the plot (no sources needed), we've got reception, and we've got some minor cultural references if we can find cites. Now...we need production. Anybody? --haha169 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, this is the original to the link provided by the IP above, and this is a whole new, awesome article! --haha169 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm making a sandbox for the Sozin's Comet article here. Please do not create it if the link is still red, as I am probably working on it. If it is blue, please edit as much as you like - but no vandalism please. --haha169 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Aang and Katara's Relationship

In episodes "The Day of Black Sun Part 1: The Invasion" and "Sozin's Comet Part 4: Avatar Aang" it clearly shows Aang and Katara's romantic relationship. I think that Aang and Katara's relationship should be added in the character section in the article under their descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Give an example of this being used in any other character bios on Wikipedia. Yes, they have a relationship, but it accounts for perhaps 0.2% of the series, and 1% of the episodes you've mentioned. --haha169 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
We've got a problem with multiple IP's re-adding the fancruft about the kiss to both Aang and Katara's individual articles. I urge other editors to monitor these pages so we can nip this thing in the bud. I've already warned a couple of anon's, but more warnings are due. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Your logic is riddled with failure. Many fictional characters have a section dedicated to their relationships - be they family, friends, enemies, or significant others. They are included because of their affect on that person's characterization and also because many fans consider these things to be an important piece of knowledge to know. If these pages are meant to be an encyclopedia of all things Avatar, I see no reason to forbid mention of canon and fact because you deem it irrelevant for some reason. In fact, if we want to get super-technical, Aang's relationship with Katara is critical to the ending of season 2 itself. Long story short: this personal vendetta you have against this and the other characters' pages really ought to stop and is borderline abuse. --Cheeseswan (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way a big, flashy text box with the words "ZUTARA FAILED. GET OVER IT." can be placed on the Avatar page? (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Rau's Speak Page 11:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

More relationship fancruft

I just removed relationship crap from Mai, Zuko, and Sokka's pages as well. These pages need to be watched also. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception section

If possible, we should stick a table with viewers numbers into the reception section of the season article as well. Hewinsj (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be difficult to create. Two tables on one line is kinda hard. I don't even think its possible... --haha169 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Haha169, I'm not sure what your talking about. Two tables on one line? We would just have to do one table in the reception section that describes viewership per episode. There's a similar table over at Bionic Woman. Not totally necessary as long as it's discussed in that season's reception section, I just have a preference for visually displaying information. Hewinsj (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, like that. I understand what you mean now - but that would require a creation of a "Reception" section, making those articles non-lists, and therefore harder to achieve Featured Standard. Plus, writing a reception section for this subject is kinda difficult. --haha169 (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not being more clear when I first mentioned it. The season article already has a reception section, which is (at the moment) a paragraph that talks about critical reaction. I did a quick check of two featured season lists and found that they both have a paragraph describing viewer numbers that analizes the number of viewers for important episodes or cases where viewership was exceptionally high or low along side critical response. A chart isn't standard, just my suggestion as a way to display some or all of the numbers along side a paragraph that discusses important cases.
Normally I would have started putting something together to show off, but I've got a personal obligation that's taking up most of my time. When I get a chance I'll see what sort of data I can collect. Hewinsj (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a great idea. I would love to get that article back to Featured status. We could go for WP:FT. --haha169 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


At the SDCC They said that there is going to be an MMOG for Avatar out in september. There is also a video on youtube about it. Shoul we add something here on it? Mew Mitsuki (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what SDCC and MMOG are for the less hip people who don't use acronyms. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
San Diego Comic-Con, Massive Multiplayer Online Game. Wow, look at all the ' marks.... Rau's Speak Page 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I've always wanted to go to the SDCC. Anyway, I don't think it's worth mentioning. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like osmeone made a page about it already. It wasn't me! I just noticed it today. It is really messy and needs some work, if it should even exist that is. Mew Mitsuki (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the link for the page? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Avatar: Legends of the Arena Should probably be redirected to a section here. Rau's Speak Page 01:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pai Sho

I was recently looking up some information on the game Pai Sho from the Avatar series; however, when I searched for it on Wikipedia, I found that the article redirected to the show's page - which has no information regarding the game whatsoever. Is there a reason this prominent game from the series is not mentioned, yet is provided a redirection? :/ -- (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely fictional, created for the show. The redirect should probably be deleted. Rau's Speak Page 02:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis

I noted that the Plot Synopsis had no detail at all about the individual seasons. I added one sentence summaries for each season, but that is certainly an area that needs major expansion. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Secondary characters

I'm trying to understand and justify why characters like Suki, Mai, and Ty Lee have character pages. I can understand Aang, Katara, Sokka, Toph, Iroh, Azula, Zuko, Appa, and maybe Momo. But these other characters haven't contributed much to the show and overall storyline of defeating the Fire Lord. I think it would be wiser to do as other show wiki's do, and merge ALL secondary characters together onto their own page "List of secondary characters". There is little information on all three of them, I don't think they each deserve their own pages. MisterZeppo (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Suki has a page because a sockpuppet insisted on creating one, and Ty Lee and Mai have pages because someone made them. But I agree that they shouldn't have pages. Rau's Speak Page 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Good job redirecting the secondary characters of Suki, Mai, and Ty Lee to the secondary characters page. Before anyone thinks of adding them again, please discuss it here and justify how they aren't secondary characters. Individual character pages should be for the main characters only. MisterZeppo (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the pages for Suki, Mai, and Ty Lee should be restored ASAP, as they have played an important role in the events of the series despite their status as secondary characters. First of all, Suki and Mai are major love interests of the main characters. Second, it was Suki's capture by Azula near the end of Season 2 that directly resulted in the fall of Ba Sing Se and the events of Season 3. Third, Mai and Ty Lee's betrayal of Azula mid-way through Season 3 was the catalyst for Azula's eventual defeat in the finale. Their eventual betrayal, which was obvious from the moment of their premiere, paved the way for the results of the final battle in the finale. Though they have not enjoyed the screentime of other characters, they have had a major impact on the events of the series and its eventual outcome. Therefore, they are entitled to their own pages, which will also serve to fill any plotholes existing in related character articles. Please reconsider the reinstatement of these three characters. Thanks for listening. (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not about importance. It's about notability. Something they lack. Rau's Speak Page 22:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if they aren't notable enough to receive separate pages, they definitely should be submitted on a secondary characters page, which was inconveniently deleted half a year ago. I mean, we don't even have a bio on Fire Lord Ozai, and he is undeniably noteworthy. I insist that the secondary characters page be reconstructed for these characters, because they are important and are fairly notable. (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have valid reasons as to why suki, Ty Lee, and Mai are NOT secondary characters. Mai and Ty Lee were basically the sidekicks of Azula as Iroh was to Zuko and Katara and Sokka are to Aang. Mai was also Zuko's girlfriend for the most part and even ending the series as so. Fire Lord Ozai is Zuko's father and the whole concept of what Aang and Zuko's fates are focused on. Ty Lee is not only a sidekick of azula but Mai saving Zuko caused Azula to almost attack her but was stopped by Ty Lee, resulting in them both being considered traitors causing Azula's insanity and loss at the end. Ty Lee also joins Suki and becomes a kyoshi warrior. Suki has appeared in all 3 seasons as Sokka's main love interest, as a prisoner helping to escape, and later she is considered part of the main heroes "Aang, Katara, and Sokka" becomes "Aang, Katara, Sokka, Toph, Zuko and Suki". Suki is the one who saves Sokka and Toph in the war at the end. These are much more than secondary characters. Secondary characters would be more like the ones who built technology in the Air Temple with the boy in the wheelchair, or the earth benders, or The Bolder, or that girl who had a crush on Zuko at Ba Sing Se, of the family he met on a farm, or Jet, Smeller Bee, Pipsquick, or The Duke. THose are much more like secondary characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Azula's fate

In the section about her in this article, Azula's fate is left out. I just happen to know for a fact that she was placed in a mental health hospital. Here's proof: [25] . Go to the final chapter on the map, then click on Characters and finally the picture of Azula. It says it there. Should we put this in the article?--Freespirit1981 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

I think the Last Airbender should get its own article now as Paramount has officially called for casting and has a website devoted to it. The article could display as much information, such as the Plot synopsis, brief introduction, trivia (if any), and a link to the Paramount Picture's casting page. There is also an official logo too. Thanks.

It hasn't started filming. Nothing is really set in stone until then. Paramount could decide they don't like the direction it's going in and pull the plug. Could you give a link to the site? Rau's Speak Page 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC), here ya go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Solar Eclipse

Why would they need to wait until a solar eclipse to attack the fire nation? If all that does is blot out the sun, well, that happens every night except for a longer period of time and the moon is out, which strenghthens water benders. ForteKane (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Firebenders can still bend fire at night (e.g. when Zuko fought Katara at the spirit oasis in the Northern Water Tribe), it's just weaker. The whole deal with a solar eclipse is that their powers are completely blocked. Probably something to do with the sunlight being blocked at a closer distance to the light source, rather than being only blocked half a world away.Tetris11 Speak Page 02:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

At night, there is still sunlight reflecting off of the moon. But during an eclipse, the sunlight is being blocked. But thats all speculation and this really doesn't improve the article. Rau's Speak Page 22:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole deal with the firebending/eclipse relationship wasn't well thought out. But for the record, it explicitly says that firebenders are weaker at night. TheNobleSith (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you think about it, people are usually up and about during the day, not the night. If the water benders didn't already know the fire nation was there and wasn't already fighting them, I'm sure they would've been asleep like on the previous nights before the fire nation attacked when Sokka and that princess met up on the bridge. During the Solar Eclipse they're all out, awake, and it's daytime supposedly the time they SHOULD be strong and on defense but can't. I'd say the water benders would be smart to attack at night to defeat the fire nation, but they don't have a way to stop the Fire Lord once the sun comes back out. They only planned the attack on the Eclipse hoping Aang would face him then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Water benders are stronger at night because they generally come from the north and south poles, where there are enormous lengths of time where it is night, the Firebenders come from nearer the centre of the world, where there is normal daylight or perhaps even more than night, which is how these events work in both nations favours. (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sequel series

I heard there was going to be a new series featuring a new Avatar. The person who said it claimed it was in Nick magazine. I can't find anyone talking about it, though, so I suspect they're wrong? -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A verifiable source would be nice. I've heard that too, but with no substantiation, so I'm going to assume it is just rumors that are flying around. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 05:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Naturally, we need a source. But this someone claims it's in the new Nick magazine, so I was hoping someone who has it would respond and say it is or isn't. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
There is more Avatar in the works, that much is fact. They have said so at the previous two comic-cons and a recent issue of Nick Magazine shows Avatar movies in the spring. *SIGN* 07:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Now we've got a section on this "new series"...but NO references for it. Unless we can find proof of the new series, I suggest that we delete it. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


How come there is no section about music?. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There was... at one point or another. Or at least information on it. There should be... *SIGN* 01:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I see. The information needs to be readded. I heard there was petition to release the soundtracks. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Really? Thats a juicy piece of info that would make that section rather good. *SIGN* 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Here, That is the best piece of information about the music of The Last Airbender. I wish they will be sequel to this or something. :(--SkyWalker (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


(I have posted this on the Bending talk page, as well.) Just a quick question: do we consider "bending," and all derived terms, proper nouns or not? While the obvious answer is yes, they are thrown around so often that it can become visually noisy to have all of that capitalization. Either way, the style across all of the articles is literally half-and-half, and there really ought to be a standard. Ngorongoro (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would count them as proper nouns, just because they are unique to Avatar only and have not gained prominence throughout the English-speaking population. If you do find instances where the are lowercase, feel free to change it to uppercase :) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 14:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider them proper nouns. I wouldn't consider them nouns at all. They are verbs. *SIGN* 18:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
More specifically, they are Gerunds, like the word swimming. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Show off, it's still a verb. And verbs don't get capitalized... I don't even think that there are "proper verbs", are there? *SIGN* 03:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
In some cases, yes, there are. Especially because gerunds are used as nouns. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
But even then, you don't capitalize it. You don't say "hes a Swimmer", you say "hes a swimmer". *SIGN* 10:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
But that's because "swimmer" is not a proper noun. Garyzx (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Neither is {{element}}bending. *SIGN* 01:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
But they are proper gerunds. You should say "that Firebender" or "his Firebending." NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense to me. This type of gerund is a verb. Verbs do not have a "proper" form. I've been educated in English for over a decade, and I have never heard of a "proper verb". To me, capitalizing this is like capitalizing swim. *SIGN* 03:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Let me put it this way: Would you capitalize "Firebender?"—Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talkcontribs)

No. I would not. *SIGN* 22:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not a real term, it's made up. The only thing that even tells you people how it's written is the title calling it "airbender" which doesn't have to be capitalized and only is due to it being a keyword in a TITLE. You don't need to be educated in English other than knowing how to speak english at all and knowing the basics. "bending" is a verb. It is an action. "bender" is a noun, it is a person. Firebending means to "bend" (move) flames. When they say "bend" they mean like in the form when people mention bending time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Series title

The page says that the series is "also known as Avatar: The Legend of Aang", but it doesn't say when or why, or even give a reference. Was there some legal conflict? Did some licensor decide that a different name would sell better? --DocumentN (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It is called "Avatar: The Legend of Aang" here in the UK and apparently most places over then the USA (I am not sure about Canada) I am not sure why the name was changed. Nick's UK webite ( calls it "Avatar: The Legend of Aang" so you could use that as a source for the name. ::::
In canada it kept the name last airbender. -- (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well actually it's both. Throughout the series it was called Avatar: The Last Airbender (hence the reason the film is called The Last Airbender) but durign a certain point of the story they called it "Avatar: The LEgend of Aang" and towards the end it was changed back...either that or a regional difference. Though I believe the series itself is JUST called "AVATAR" as when talking about what previously happened, they usually say "Previously... on Avatar" not mentioning the second part of the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the UK and, at least when I was at school (which admittedly was back in the 1980s) a "bender" was a pejorative playground slang term for a homosexual, so maybe they didn't want to emphasise it in the title of the show -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

More award nominations! :D

I've just learned that Avatar is up for two Annie Awards this year: "Best Animated Television Production for Children" and "Best Directing in an Animated Television Production or Short Form". Here's the link as proof: [26]. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to update this section, but I'm having a lot of trouble. Could someone please help me?--Freespirit1981 (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I think I fixed it; see my edits here: [27]. There were some issues with the formatting, so I just copied some previous lines and readded the formatting. Thanks for finding this information! - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. :P Avatar isn't eligible for the 37th Annie Awards. And I found it useful to just simple copy&paste the previous formatting when trying to do complicated coding on Wikipedia.--haha169 (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, NuclearWarfare, and thanks for fixing it. I found the link at this week. They're actually very reliable. :D--Freespirit1981 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting the list of creatures in Avatar?

Everytime i click on a link for a creature that has appeared in another article, it links me back to the main avatar page. did there used to be an article on this or are the redirections wrong or something?-- (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that there used to be articles for these. Those false redirects should be delinked; I'll do that now. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 17:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

New Article for the Movie?

Why don't we make a new article for The Last Airbender? I've got sources lined up that we could use. -Dylan0513 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Then go ahead, be bold in doing so! I'll help out if you wish. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I put a start on the article. Please everyone feel free to help in expanding it! -Dylan0513 (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:NFF. Why this particular film deserves an article when filming has not begun is something you cannot justify. Alientraveller (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, first of all, you are being rude. Secondly, you need to discuss changes before making them yourself. I agree that we shouldn't have the article now that I read the policy, but 2 does not make a consensus. The article stays as an article until discussed first. -Dylan0513 (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if you feel I'm rude, but I believe you are ruder for violating guidelines without a decent reason. For this, I will nominate the article for deletion. Alientraveller (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, taking action against a non-user-related article based on personal offense against an individual user, after said user admitted their error and offered to discuss the matter, while throwing out consideration for the opinions of others and refusing to discuss the matter civilly, is not rude? Ngorongoro (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I've lost track of what's going on myself, but if anyone's interested here's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Airbender. Again, sorry for whatever unintended offense. Alientraveller (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Continue discussion here alientraveler, and please, make it civilized. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Look at my sandbox please, its there temporarily until production starts. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Ok, I'm back

Who else wants to help make this article Featured again? The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in :) Welcome back. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back Nico! This article's been unfeatured for too long. -Dylan0513 (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm putting this article ON peer review so we can get this ball rolling. Also, I think we should try to work on getting as many character article either Featured or Good clas so that way we can make it a Featured Topic as well. (Great Job when I was gone by the way) The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
While we are talking about Featured Topics, Wikipedia:FTC#Seasons of Avatar: The Last Airbender is pretty relevant :)
As for the character articles, we don't really need to GA too many. It might be hard to do so, especially with the lack of sources. One easy solution is to try to improve the Aang article and merge everything else with List of characters in Avatar: The Last Airbender. Then a massive cleanup project for that should be done, and we should have everything done for a basic FTC. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, for this article, I think I know what needs to be done. We should try to reorganize the lead and also the entire article. I'm thinking we could do it like the 30 Rock article, which is really really good.

  1. Production - Conception, Influences, Storyboarding
  2. Cast and Characters
  3. Series Synopsis
  4. Response
  5. Releases on DVD and other media

What do you guys think of that? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Last Airbender redirect

I'm sure I am not alone in this, but when I am looking for this artical, I simply type The Last Airbender into the search box (it is too much hastle to type Avatar: The Last Airbender and Avatar has many meanings). Anyway, I have just done this now only to be redirected straight to the bottom of the page to the film information. Can someone change this (I have no idea how too) as The Last Airbender is (even though the series has endded) more commonly refeded too the show more then the film at this moment in time and it is annoying to have to scroll up to the top of the page when you shouldn't have too.Wild ste (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Last Airbender is the name of the upcoming movie, and actually was its own article for a while. If you have a source for TLA commonly referring to the show rather than the movie, we should do that, but it doesn't seem like that in my experiences. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The main reason I said that was because this has happened before. Someone did this earlier last year and I put pretty much this same comment on here and someone reverted it. As the film hasn't even cast anyone yet, surely the show is more important?Wild ste (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The film already has cast some people, although it is still shaky and rather controversial. In any case, since there is already a section on the film, then the redirect should go there. For future reference, you can change the redirect by going to the redirect's name + &redirect=no in the url bar. --haha169 (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Article structure

Sometimes it gets really annoying when one has to plow through all these other cultural stuff to get to the parts directly related to the show. I think it would be great if those things could be moved under the show info (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Manual of Style recommends that the article be laid out in the following format:
Other media
The cultural influences go best with production.
Consider using the links in the table of contents. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fire Lady

Just something I noticed, the synopsis for the third seasons mentions "Fire Lady Azula". I don't remember this ever being mentioned in the episodes, she was refered to Fire Lord Azula by her father when he named her such, and she herself used Fire Lord rather than Fire Lady.

Where did this come from? (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It might have been a bit of assumption. If you remember Azula using Fire Lord, I'll change it. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 13:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, they never use Fire Lady in the show. ..I remember having this discussion before here, wonder how it snuck back in the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Anime Section

Why does the section even exist in the article? It's not an important part of the show. The section just includes some trivial quotes. There really is no controversy, Avatar is American Animation, not an Anime. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this shouldn't exist as it is own section, but points should definitely be made about this. Avatar is completely different from both Japanese and American animation, and recognition of that fact is a necessity. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the section definitely shouldn't be titled "anime." What else might go in the section? Maybe it could be included in a "reception" type section. We've already got Ratings and Awards under Response, so we could put it as another sub heading under there with some other info on how critics have reacted to the show's style? -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

New award nomination! :D

Avatar is nominated for another award! :) Here's the link: [[28]]. --Freespirit1981 (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my belated response. Thanks for keeping us updated with this! It has been helpful. :D --haha169 (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Oooh, I'm sorry I missed this.
Haha, tell me when you are thinking about doing a GAN push. I can drop another project to help out then, as Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender has finally been mainspaced. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Good God. That universe article needs some serious cut-down, but that can wait. I've given this (not the Universe one) article a read-through, and it certainly has potential. But there are still minor issues (like the lead, it mentions "making it a mixture of what were previously traditionally separate categories of anime and US domestic cartoons." That has a cite somewhere down in the article, which should be duplicated here. In any case, I'm too tired to do anything right now (after running 5 miles in the pouring rain), and I'm going on a ski trip. I'll be back next week if you have any questions, although I have some free time tomorrow as well.
But my impression of this article is that it could pass GAN if someone responds to problems promptly and fixes them. That's essentially the only skill required to pass GAN - all in all, it is much simpler than FAC. (One reviewer verses however many). --haha169 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm on call enough to fix GAN problems, but there might be a bunch of edits to do.
As for the Universe article, it has already been cut 1/3. It has down to 100kb now, from 150kb. Feel free to help cut though; it took me like three weeks to do this much. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Games Section?

Does this article really need an entire section on the console games? They have their own articles, and they're mentioned in the introduction.

Furthermore, there's conflicting information-The section here claims that "The Last Airbender" video game was THE top selling THQ product of 2006, while the actual article for the game claims that it was the top selling NICKELODEON product. Could we get some verification and cleanup here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They relate to the article, and are written as one sentence summary style pieces. I see no reason to remove it. Also, I have fixed the mistake I had put when writing it. Thanks for noticing! NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
For this being the main article there is not only no problem, it is necessary as the topic covers the entire series and all notable media to some extent. That they all have their own article is irrelevant. Whether they had their own article or not, they are still relevant to the series.じんない 08:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much information

The section of this article that gives the backgrounds of Season 1, 2, and 3 give away a lot of the story, almost spoiling the show for dedicated fans of Avatar who haven't seen season 2 (and/or 3) yet. Dragon798 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Spoiler BOVINEBOY2008 14:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal


The result of the discussion completely different from the proposal. We are going to do a massive rework of the entire article and base it off of List of Naruto characters and List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow. The rework has already started; User:haha169 has done a massive rework of the lead and character conception, and the rest is to be done soon, hopefully. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leaving messages to WT:AVATAR and Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters I've been looking through the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters article for a while now, as I have done in the past, and I just don't believe that it deserves its own article. A lot of that information is repeated information , and honestly, 50% of that information at the very least, does not need to be on Wikipedia. It would be so much more useful on the Avatar Wikia, where they have the project scope to go into massive detail. We don't. We are supposed to keep things nice and short, not go into every little detail. I propose that we expand the Characters section on this article by merging in List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be expanding the character's section in this article. But I wouldn't argue the proposal to remove the list. I'll see what other reactions are. --haha169 (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This has been something that's been debated here for as long as I've been editing the Avatar articles. I always have though the characters article is pretty stupid. But if you merge it, you'd have to include the secondary characters on the main page, who shouldn't be there. I think we should either bring back the minor characters article (an article just for the minor characters) and delete the characters article or we should put the minor characters into the universe article and delete the characters article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't really want to crunch together more into Universe than it already is. What I'm arguing for is the removal of secondary character information altogether. They're just simply not worth keeping an entire article dedicated to them. At most, this would require a few hundred to a thousand extra words in Avatar: The Last Airbender#Characters. Doing that would allow for much easier maintainence, get rid of list and fancruft, and give to Wikia what we don't really need - excess fan details. These articles are supposed to have have some real world connections in them. Articles like Universe we might just need, as there is too much to say otherwise and is citable, but Characters is minor enough that it is possible to exclude without losing any major points. In addition, Characters has nothing that can really help cite it, and we aren't losing any well-written information at all either, as the article is in pretty bad shape and whatever is there is duplicated at the Wikia anyway.
Hopefully, that ramble made sense. If not, tell me, and I'll give it a better shot. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nuke. I think it should be merged - as long as too much information is not taken out. Rashu0 (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the information should be taken out because we think it's less important than some of the other stuff that would be kept. You have to draw a distinction at some point and remember Wikipedia is for information. It would make everything easier to take out the secondary characters, but that should not be a factor. My argument is, why would we delete the secondary characters, and not delete some of the stuff in the universe article? -Dylan0513 (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Irregardless of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would be happy if much of the information in Universe was trimmed. In any case, I don't propose doing a massive delete of the secondary characters, just a transwiki and then a merge to here, as much is uncited and could go into so much more detail. The information currnetly does not pass either WP:N or WP:V, and so should be merged with a parent article. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 14:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think the secondary characters belong in the main article. We'd definitely take heat for it if we nominated it for FA again, and it would end up being taken back out; it's just too minor. -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
From what I can see, there are no secondary characters that deserve another mention on List of Characters anyway. The three season articles (1, 2, 3) describe the actions of every single character listed. For example, Azulon mentioned in enough detail at the "Zuko Alone" plot summary in the season 2 article. The longer summaries for Ty Lee and Mai just seem to rehash the plots of season 2 and 3, and can be cut down substantially. The only thing that I don't see on the season articles are the four other avatars, which could be moved to Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender#Spirit World. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You're talking like we should delete the character page, not merge it into this article. If you want to, nominate it for AFD; I think that makes more sense. -Dylan0513 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
In a sense, that is what a merge truly is. What I'm proposing is that we save the useful information and split it off into multiple different locations for where it is most appropriate. Ottava says it well when he says that the "whole page is propping up maybe 4 or 5 secondary characters." I don't want to delete the information; that is the last resort. Merging information can be done quite easily, and many of the pages will benefit from this. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
As long as all the information is still there, just within different locations, I support the merge. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Many of those characters already have their own page, discussed elsewhere, or are not needed. It seems that the whole page is propping up maybe 4 or 5 secondary characters of no note and is just a summary of others. Merge. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else feel like chiming in? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So, we have pretty much unanimous consensus so far. I'll start implementing the merge tomorrow, unless anyone else has an objection? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just catching up. After your done, there will be no more list of characters? What measures are you taking to point someone in the right direction if they are looking for info on a supporting or minor character? Hewinsj (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The current redirects shall be turned to the appropriate episodes (Fire Lord Azulon, for example, would redirect to the Zuko Alone episode) or part in Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender (Long Feng --> Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender#Dai Li). I'll research a bit more and see if it shall be allowed to place the Wikia in the Characters section itself, but I am unsure if that will be possible. At the very least, I'll add a footnote to that effect inline. The merge should keep most of the relevant information. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
We're not linking to Wikia. Wikipedia should function as its own encyclopedia. Like I said, I'll support the merge if all the information is kept, and I mean here at Wikipedia. -Dylan0513 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll throw in an oppose on this one because I think it would hurt ease of access to the information. Character lists make it easy for people who aren't familiar with the material to find information on characters that they may only remember slightly. If I'm looking for info on Long Feng and can't remember how to spell his name or what his name was for that matter, a redirect wouldn't help me. I also may not know to look him up under a section about the Dai Li because I may also not know the name of the organization he was associated with. When all I want to do is quickly find out who someone is this merge would make that process much harder.
I'm all for pruning redundant information from an article, but completely removing the whole list creates more work for the reader. They either have to know exactly what they are looking for before hand so that they get the right redirect or it becomes necessary to dig through a lot of information to piece together bits of info about a character when a short paragraph in a character list would provide that information more quickly and clearly. Hewinsj (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Also Echoing what Dylan0513 said about regarding Wikia. Hewinsj (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Holding off on a merge now. One of the problems I see right now is that the information in the list is simply not notable. Avatar is a popular show, but keeping every single bit of information that we can pull together is not useful, especially if it is unsourced and not notable, like the list currently is. Who knows, perhaps someone could find some brilliant source that explains the developmental history of all of these characters, but until then all I see if a bunch of nonnotable information. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Episodes do count as sources. And if you incorporate the character info into another article (not the main one), then them being sourced only by episodes won't be a bad thing becuase of the other non-show sources in the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Episode sources are usually accompanied by quotes, though, so it may require re-watching some episodes. I'm not sure if there is one for television shows, but I know that it is the standard for RPG video games. --haha169 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
And another thing: This article is too congested to merit the inclusion of secondary and minor characters. Where could that information even possibly go? --haha169 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't need quotes for episode sources. And see above for NW discussing where the info could go. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, we don't have to have a lot of information about each character. Azulon could be summed up as Ozai's father; Mai and Tai Le certainly don't need as much information as are given, just a couple of words, maximum. Many of the rest of the characters are simply non-notable one-use characters that simply fall out of our project scope. I think a lot would become clearer after we started merging the information. If we decide there is additional information that is notable enough to save and input in other places after we redirect the article, it would be simple to merge it through the history. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Character list expansion idea

I just had an idea. Instead of merging the Characters list to this article and risk congesting it - why not we just merge all the individual character articles (except Aang) to the List? This way, we get to keep all the secondary character information, include real-world text from the individual articles, as well as finally cut down on the excessive images and plot-details present in a few of the individual articles.--haha169 (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the character articles are in pretty good shape. I know at one point we were trying to get Zuko FAed. I don't think we should only merge certain character articles and not others. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Then we could leave the character articles alone. It doesn't matter too much, anyway. But I just began working on the character list, and I personally think that it has some potential of becoming an FL. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Dylan, these days, there is no way that Zuko, or even any of themc, ould get through WP:FAC, as standards have grown too high. It would be a nearly impossible to even get them through WP:GA. Haha, this idea to at least distill two or three paragraphs from the main articles, a bit longer than those of List of Naruto characters, should be pretty good. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The point was that it was close at one point. It only takes a little effort from a few editors to get articles into shape. Also, let me reiterate that we should not be deleting content to make things easier on ourselves. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't think that that was my original intention. I'm fairly happy with the way that haha has to taken to start a massive rewrite (and synthesis from the main article) for List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. Once he is done, I'll take a look at seeing where we could clean up, cite, synthesize more, etc. If we could get this to WP:GA, that would be perfect. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the character article really doesn't look too bad now. And this is coming from the person who most adamantly opposed its existence. Actually, might not be too hard to get it to be a featured list. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't much like the lead from this article (since lists require a different style from articles, so I borrowed it mostly from episode list and changed it to focus on characters. (List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow) was actually my template b/c it is the only "Character list" FL in existence. Anyway, I'm a little tired now, so I'll be taking a little rest. I'll start up on working the individual character's summaries later.--haha169 (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

5 images, 72 citations, quite decent article, needs to fix refs per 2008 FAR. No fan site refs. JJ98 (Talk) 10:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)