Talk:Fictional universe of Avatar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Change in Title[edit]

Shouldn't the Title of this Article be changed to 'Characters in Pandora' instead of 'Characters in Avatar' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talkcontribs) 05:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The title Characters in Avatar is more appropriate because that immediately links it to the 2009 film Avatar...unless there are or becomes wildlife characters in other stories titled Avatar (which then we would have to distinguish the title some other way).
As for this current title, I feel that it should be changed back to Characters in Avatar. The wildlife are very much characters as well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Avatar or Pandora are for me equal.
But I changed "Characters" into "Characters and wildlife" because of the specificity of this movie : wildlife have a high place, which give animals and plants the rank of characters. Yug (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not seeing how "Avatar or Pandora" are equal. Titling it "Pandora" is more of an in-universe take, while titling it "Avatar" is referring more to the film; "Avatar" directly links to what we are talking about -- a film.
I also am not getting your reason for the title change. Yes, "wildlife have a high place, which give animals and plants the rank of characters" in this film; that is exactly why it should simply be "Characters." They are all very much characters. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Solution: Lifeforms in Avatar. username 1 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah. I would rather it simply be "Characters in Avatar," because of what I just stated above and for consistent correspondence to the Avatar (2009 film) article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the current title Characters and wildlife in Avatar doesnt really reflect the focus of the article. Information on individual characters are almost none existant. Groups and wildlife in Avatar might be a more fitting name. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree; please see #Suggested move and share your thoughts about my proposal. Erik (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Need for this page?[edit]

Most of this information is already in the main avatar movie article, is there any reason for a separate page on it? I could see if the canon was a little more developed (ala Star Wars) but right now it's just 1 movie and 1 video game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.28.140.203 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, need. The section Avatar_(2009_film)#Cast and characters is actually really poor, and mainly talking about real actors, really few about characters. I started to write a small section about Sully. The movie provide enough materials to write down several lines for each of the dozen main characters. Human and Na'vi. Yug (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The Cast and characters section in the Avatar (2009 film) article actually is not "really poor." That is how Cast sections should be here at Wikipedia. They are not supposed to have a lot of story plot about the characters, per WP:PLOT, unless it is in out-of-universe perspective. A little more can be added about the characters in that Cast section, sure, but not too much detail (such as the characters' whole life story, or anything close to resembling it). Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I positively agree that this page is not necessary. Cameron's Avatar has more than enough hype attached to it, without Wikipedia adding to it. Although, if Cameron would make a large enough donation to the Wikipedia Foundation, I'm sure that I could avert my gaze... Kid Bugs (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You want to destroy the page, because you believe its just hype? These types of articles exist for many works of fiction, mostly popular book series. If someone wants to know more about the movie, something many people are obviously interested in, then this page is a useful and interesting bit of information for them. Dream Focus 18:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a fansite Kid Bugs (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


The page is clearly not needed. This is a single film and does not need a separate article for the characters, which are already covered in the main, and excessive in-universe detail. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Concur with AnmaFinotera; fictional topics need real-world context. The plot summary at the film article is largely adequate. If we have real-world context about specific elements of the environment, we can discuss them in the film article. It's hardly a large article, so we can fit all such real-world context there. Erik (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Too many film articles have separate articles about their characters, which I don't understand. Why shouldn't all the information be in one place? Let's put an end to Wikipedia clutter and merge this article with the main article. 67.78.143.227 (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow do I agree with this IP. Adding another article that will just reiterate information already in the main article or take the reader away from it is pointless. There are already many unsourced character articles and this article isn't that big. Peppagetlk 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no way this information would fit over there. Most would be eliminated entirely, and what is left will be trimmed down, eliminating a lot of valid content. When an article gets too large, its perfectly acceptable to make a side article to hold some of the information. Dream Focus 21:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The excessive in-universe information would definitely not belong at the film article in its current state. Avatar (2009 film) has room presently. Using reliable sources, we can start a "Design" subsection under "Production" and use a source like this to identify some elements of the world of Avatar and explain how they were conceived, designed, and realized. Erik (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
For Erik WP:PLOT; fictional topics need real-world context. See also WP:WAF that reflects that excessive in-universe detail is inappropriate
Please see WP:NF; Your comment is true but not COMPLETELY accurate. Also, there are many resources that verify the reliability of this page. Many films with out-of-the-box characters are having their own separate pages. Eg. Matrix, Transformers, etc
For AnmaFinotera inappropriate split and WP:OR
The article you wished to guide us (WP:OR) mentions that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.". Please note that this is not a original research and is cited extensively through various reliable resources and also seen in the movie. There is no contracting opinion of an individual and does not hamper the factual correctness of the descriptions as shown in the movie.
Erik & AnmaFinotera - See WP:DP Discussion
Please note that before merging or deleting an article, please discuss clearly and properly. There were multiple opinions on the existence of this page. The existence was found to be more appropriate. And on benefit of doubt, it shouldn't be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talkcontribs) 05:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
See WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is pretty clear here. Only two people want to keep it, you and someone who says keep to anything and everything in the world. Eight so far have said it was not an appropriate creation and supported its proper redirecting back to the actual film article. And there is no "extensive citing" and only one minor RS even used at all. Repeating stuff from fansites is not citing (and yes, Wikia is a fansite too). Sources must be reliable. The article fails all of Wikipedia guidelines, and you clearly didn't discuss it before attempting such a split (which is not even linked to from anywhere). As Erik has noted, if there is verifiable, significant info that should be included in the main article, why not bring it up on its talk page to see why its not there (including links or info about the sources would also be good). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Your view of the concensus is not accurate. Four people want to keep it for JUSTIFIABLE reasons (instead of two as claimed by you) :- Yug, Peppage, DreamFocus, Debnathsandeep. Only five want to redirect (instead of eight), out of those only two for PROPER & JUSTIFIABLE reasons (AnmaFinotera & Erik) and the other THREE for bogus, inappropriate reasons (204.28.140.203, Flyer- 22, Kid Bugs), who has already been responded to.
Your view of citations is accurate. I had failed to notice that the citations were from fansites. Appropriate changes and citations as per Wikipedia Guidelines will be made within the next 24 hrs.
You said - The article fails ALL of Wikipedia guidelines - A few mismatches doesn't means that ALL has failed. You are just over reacting.
The split happened slowly and gradually. See revision history. Is there a need to discuss and justify the split as you are demanding ???
The Main Page is semi-protected and large enough for an additional large article like this to be included. If Erik & Anmaetonian still feel that it can be merged into the Main Article, then they may please merge the information on this Page to the Main Article, and only after that may they redirect / move this page. (rather than following the reverse sequence). Till then, let the page exist as in inspiration to expand the main article.
As per Wikipedia, you are requested to wait for one week (after posting your comment) before deleting / redirecting the article. No hard feelings, but you seem to be a victim of Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion bhuto 06:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned nothing of deleting or redirecting. I stated that the name of the article should be changed and why (which was/is not a bogus reason), and how Cast sections here at Wikipedia are supposed to be formatted. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Oops sorry Flyer22, I overlooked your comment. My mistake. By the way, thank you for your interest for the improvisation of this article.bhuto (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, reread that. Three said keep (Peppage agreed with redirect), so that's still seven who want to redirect for valid reasons (who are you to decide the other are bogus when they are based on actual guidelines and policies, not just love of the film?). And no, I'm not over reacting. It fails WP:N, it fails WP:OR, it fails WP:NOT, it fails WP:WAF, it fails WP:MOSFILMS, it fails WP:V, it fails ever relevant guideline. Semi-protection of the main article is not a valid reason to make your own private fan page for the article, nor is the main space the place to keep "inspiration." Nothing in this article is sourced, so there is nothing to merge, and certainly no one is going to copy/paste this overly long plot summary and personal opinion piece into a decently shaped article which many people are working on keeping the main article at. The redirect is fully per consensus above. There is no valid reason to "wait", and pointing to a personal essay that has no consensus is meaningless (nor is it applicable here and claiming such is seriously bad faith). Consensus is very clear. And why are you signing your post with another user name? If you have multiple accounts, please make sure to read Wikipedia's policy about that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
There was not enough time for people to comment. There is no reason to rush. You consider other people's reasons invalid, just as they consider yours. Discuss and form a consensus before acting. Dream Focus 11:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera - You have mentioned that it fails certain guidelines of WP. And to add a little spice, you quote that 'it fails every relevant guideline'. Your polishing of the article would have been more beneficial rather than your interest in redirect, to eliminate the 'fails' you have just mentioned. Your review may be true (although it is not), but your corrective action itself is useless and pointless. In future editing of any article of Wikipedia, consider correcting your behavior for a more viable and useful approach. bhuto (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about consensus not diktat. It was utterly appalling that one editor took it upon himself to redirect this article without regard to the views of others. Such arrogance must be resisted and overturned at every opportunity. As for this article, it is highly pertinent, it is Pandora's fauna that defeat the humans whilst the flora form a neural network that covers the entire planet. With two more planned sequels, this article's importance will continue to grow. Just because somebody doesn't like the article is no reason to redirect or delete it. If you don't like it, don't read it. The rest of us who are the true aficionados of Pandora will get on perfectly well. Tovojolo (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I had to undid Erik's radical content deletion.
Edit summary: (Restore: cancel major content deletions by a very "pro-delete" user (Erik) without previous consensus. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built + the ongoing RFD will decide.)
That's a push strategy : redirects, systematic pro-delete comments on the RFD, and content deletion without consensus. When planing radical deletionist changes, please propose first on the talk page. --Yug (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah even I strongly persist to keep this article. There are not many references or sources for this kind of information on the Internet. Some people (eg AnmaFinotera) feel that Wikipedia should run as per their own understanding of the strict policies of Wikipedia, while they fail to understand the good faith and general belief of the basic requirements of the rules of Wikipedia i.e. to use it as a guiding stick and not to misuse it as a wiping stick.bhuto (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The Field Guide to Pandora, if anyone is in possession of it or would feel inclined to cite it in this article, might be a useful source for information about Pandoran life. There are articles on Wikipedia about many fictional subjects... Rohan, Coruscant, and Quidditch are good examples. Noting that the information is about the ecosystem of a fictional world in Avatar, while keeping the name Characters and wildlife in Avatar, is sufficiently appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afinati (talkcontribs) 03:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Elements[edit]

I have noticed, in the Flora section, that people are mentioning the characters - repeatedly. For eg. HomeTree and Giant HomeTree are one and the same thing. There is no other thing as the small Home Tree. One more eg. is 'Tree of Souls' and 'Tree of Voices'. The voices heard are the voices of the souls itself. So please look into this matter and answer, while I prepare to make the changes within a day or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talkcontribs) 05:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Tree of Voices is different from the Tree of Souls. It is smaller and is in a different location. It is destroyed in the bulldozer attack. Tovojolo (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I do agree it is a different tree, but it is not a different kind of tree. A banshee seen on the mountain and another seen on the ground, are technically termed as the BANSHEE. The name of the species do not change.bhuto (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The Tree of Souls and the Tree of Voices serve two different purposes. They are in different locations. The Tree of Voices allows the Na'vi to "hear" the voices of their ancestors, the Tree of Souls is holier to the Na'vi because it serves as their direct link to Eywa. The destruction of the Tree of Voices and, later, of Hometree makes the Na'vi all the more determined to save the Tree of Souls. Just because two objects are similar does not mean that they should not be identified separately. Consider two holy human objects, St. Paul's in London, for instance, is a cathedral so is St.Peter's in Rome. A cathedral in one place serves the same purpose as a cathedral in another place but it would be wrong not to describe them individually. The trees are holy and separately identifiable to the Na'vi. Tovojolo (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Navi Diet[edit]

Jake in his Avatar form was shown eating a fruit, so Navi are at least omnivores. 75.157.110.77 (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Coverage[edit]

Since the effects in the movie are getting plenty of coverage, surely there is mention of some of the things here. Mostly I see it as a valid content split, there valid information that won't fit in the main article. Dream Focus 11:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] I searched the news archives for the word "Avatar" and then any of the names of the creatures from the film. The first result mentions some of the creatures already, as notable plot elements of the film. Looking through the rest now. Dream Focus 11:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of mentions in the news about this movie, and they all seem to always mention some of the creatures in the film. I think that proves they are clearly notable. Dream Focus 11:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Section headings[edit]

I replaced the section headings for the fauna and flora with bullet points, especially since the passages have yet to provide a real-world perspective per WP:WAF. The in-universe information about the Na'vi and the Great Leonopteryx were pretty excessive. Can we not get any real-world context added about either's conception, design, and realization? Erik (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Resources to use[edit]

Can we put together a list of resources to use here? For example, the "exclusive" clip at MTV does not truly count. It was a promotional clip for the film, and the scene is basically in the film and now taken for granted. A key resource could be The Art of Avatar, which will have real-world context where there are a couple of other books that only have primary information. We need to ensure that the article uses primary information to establish context for providing a real-world perspective, as provided through secondary information, of the elements of this fictional topic. For example, we can describe a creature in brief, then explain its design originating from some Earth-based creature. Erik (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This indicates that that will be some science-related coverage from Discover. Erik (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to take issue with the scientific studies being cited for the "Fauna" section in the article. While I assume good faith of the editor's contributions, we cannot synthesize works unrelated to the film to draw conclusions not explicitly stated by any of the references. This is why I cited the MSNBC article, because they are assessing the science of the film and explicitly making conclusions. We cannot use works that do not specifically analyze Avatar to ultimately analyze it after all. Erik (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The key difference between the fictional fauna of Pandora and Earth fauna is the former's ability to communicate with each other whereas the latter entirely lack that ability, the references quoted show the presence of animal languages amongst higher life forms on Earth and their total inability to communicate with each other. This contrasts sharply with the fictional fauna of Pandora who do possess that ability. The references are relevant because they show the scientific studies into language communication amongst Earth fauna. Tovojolo (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the references do not explicitly make that conclusion about that difference. The scientific studies do not analyze the film at all, which is why it is synthesis. In contrast, the MSNBC article specifically analyzes the science of the film. You are putting together the studies and the film to draw conclusions not explicitly determined among any of them. See WP:FILMSCI for a better understanding of what I mean. Erik (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
References removed Tovojolo (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested move[edit]

What do other editors think about moving Characters and wildlife in Avatar to Design in Avatar? This move would mean that the article could encompass the design of Pandora as well as human technology (covered here and here), not just limiting the topic to the Na'vi and the fauna and flora. (I may also recommend relegating the "Humans" passages to being brief background for human technology in the film.) Erik (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

More information about Pandora: 1, 2, 3, 4 and human technology: 1 and 2. Erik (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor copied the list of "Humans" from the film article to here, but I reverted this. In addition to unnecessary cross-posting, the list had details that has more to do with the actors than their roles. In retrospect, I also removed the list of Na'vi because of the redundancy. I am not sure if the article title is a good scope; like I have said, it leaves out covering Pandora and human technology. "Characters" is a little limited because there can be a mix of details about the actors and their roles, as indicated by the "Cast and characters" section at the film article. "Wildlife" can cover a good deal but not enough. My impression from the AFD is that people see this article as a way to cover the world that James Cameron detailed in Avatar. I hope to request a move to Design in Avatar to adjust the scope accordingly. Please let me know your thoughts! Erik (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure. Wouldn't it be best to leave the title as it is (though I would prefer it be Characters in Avatar, as I stated above) and create a Design section in the main article? Yes, we could have both (a Design section in the main article and have this article as an extension of that), but would we put a link to this article in the Design section and Cast and characters section? It seems better to just let the title continue to specify the characters, so that people know right off the bat that they can read more about the characters here. This article being about the characters does not mean that the actor information cannot be here as well. The more actor information here, the better (since the information in this article should largely be told from a real-world perspective). Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is not really about characters anymore. It's about the species and the wildlife, and we won't be covering humans in such in-universe detail. (There is room for covering human technology, which is moer about design.) I really do not see the real-world context about the actors and their roles belonging here. Content from the main article shouldn't migrate to here if it does not have to. Erik (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The Na'vi and the wildlife are very much characters as well. The humans can be covered in in-universe detail, as long as it is told from a real-world perspective backed up by reliable sources. I did not say that the exact actor information that is in the main article should be replicated here, and leave it that. I am speaking of including a little of that, and anything else we can add about the actors' portrayals of these characters and Cameron's scripting of their personalities. This article could resemble featured article Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (except for the Playable characters part, unless we were to include the unrelated video game characters in this article as well). Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"Characters and wildlife in Avatar" was not a well-planned name, and we should not be bound by it. We need to plan the scope of this article better and re-title it accordingly. In addition, the "Cast and characters" section is already well-developed in the main article; there is no need to duplicate the general structure here. The editors at AFD who want the article kept clearly indicate that it is about the depth of the environment that James Cameron created for the film. The real-world context in covering the environment is clearly design-related, and it can encompass the various elements. We just do not need to boil it down to the individual person; we can link to the subsection at the main article and talk about the humans, the Na'vi, and the wildlife as a whole. Erik (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Characters and wildlife in Avatar is not the title I prefer; I made that clear. And again, I was not suggesting that we duplicate the general structure of the Cast and characters section here. But there is nothing wrong with having duplicate information from another article, especially if it is extended beyond that in the article that duplicated it. And as for the main article's Cast and characters section being well-developed, it only has a little information about the human characters and the actors' portrayals of them; some actors' portrayals are not even mentioned there. I do not call that well-developed, in terms of information about the characters and portrayers, unless there is nothing else that can be added, though it is partially well-developed for a Cast and characters section in a film article. And is that length appropriate for that article? Yes. But if there is more information, it can be covered here. We do not have to cover most of the actor/human character information there. To do that would also be taking up unnecessary space, when it can be covered here. I am not suggesting that we boil it down to the individual person. I agree that we can link to the subsection at the main article...and talk about the humans, the Na'vi, and the wildlife as a whole in this article. The title does not have to be Design in Avatar. That title suggests that this article is only about the design. As I stated, I do not feel that this article should only be about that. Maybe Characters and design in Avatar is the better title. Or something else that at least mentions "characters" in the title. Character design in Avatar also makes it seem as though it is only about the design and likely not about the environment, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The AFD for the article was closed with the outcome being to keep. I would like to request a move soon but want to know what should be the primary candidate. I was considering Design in Avatar, but today I came up with another possibility: Fictional universe in Avatar. This would improve the scope to include real-world context about Pandora as well as humans and their technology. After the move, we can discuss what content can belong here so we can avoid redundancy or gaps of information. Erik (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As stated above I agree that the article should be moved to reflect the focus of the article. Design in Avatar and Fictional universe in Avatar are both good suggestions. Groups and wildlife in Avatar might work as well and not a big change. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fictional universe in Avatar does have a nice ring to it. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, moved to Fictional universe in Avatar. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing how the Characters and wildlife in Avatar title was limiting this article from including real-world context about Pandora, as well as humans and their technology (considering that it was already here and the humans are characters as well), or how it did not reflect the focus of this article, but I already stated my feelings about this matter above. With current consensus being for this current title, it is left at that for now. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone was bold with the move. The moon itself is not a character or wildlife. Humans can be "characters", but their technology is not a character or wildlife. Basically, the original title was incomplete in encompassing the elements of the fictional universe. It needed renaming to encompass Pandora, the Na'vi, the fauna, the flora, the humans (as portrayed in the universe), and their technology. I was keen on "Design" before, but I think that "Fictional universe" is pretty encompassing. If there is a sequel, the term still works as a collective. (Maybe a small move to "Fictional universe in Avatar films" or something of the like.) Erik (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because something is titled Characters and wildlife does not mean that information about the moon those characters inhabit cannot be covered as well. In talking about the characters, things relating to the characters...such as the planet they live on...will likely also be covered. The characters or wildlife part in the previous title clearly covered the Na'vi, the fauna, the flora, the humans (as portrayed in the universe). Though I was not for that title anyway, as was already made clear. I would have preferred the article be moved to Characters and design in Avatar instead of this title, as to symbolize that this article is just as much about the characters as it is about the universe. But like I stated, this current title is now the title. I am not here to fight it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Fictional universe in Avatar is a poor title for the following reasons:
  1. It is not used by any source and so does not satisfy WP:COMMONNAME
  2. It is ungrammatical. To fix this it would have to be Fictional universe of Avatar or Avatar's fictional universe
  3. It is misleading. The article does not describe a universe; it describes a world - the world of Pandora.

A simpler title which would better describe the topic is Pandora (Avatar). For comparison, see Middle earth (the setting of Lord of the Rings). Colonel Warden (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to "Fictional universe of Avatar" per Warden above, as it is more correct grammatically. "X of X" is also the standard naming practice for Wiki articles of this nature. Also Warden, in this context, "universe" simply means that this is a fictional universe apart from our own, just as the Star Trek or Star Wars environments are described as separate universes. It doesn't have to mean that the film itself describes an entire universe. Huntster (t @ c) 08:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The term universe is more suitable for Star Trek and Star Wars as their settings cover numerous worlds and the travel between them. A simple test is this - do we want coverage of Earth and the space ship shown in the movie here? I think not. It is the moon of Pandora which forms the natural topic - its biology, geography and other features. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Any fictional work that has a unique setting (aka, not based in our current reality) is described as a "universe", regardless of its simple astronomical scope. Most definitely we do want all the peripheral material about the movie here. We don't want a lot of articles floating around all talking about the fictional aspects of the film; rather, they should be compiled here in a brief form. As it stands, there's way too much detail already in this article, and it needs to be cut down considerably. You say that the article naturally covered just Pandora...that's because it started out that way, and as more details came out, the article became broad enough in its scope that a more encompassing title was needed. Huntster (t @ c) 08:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Definitely keep the term "fictional universe". Like Huntster said, it is not an astronomical scope. WP:WAF uses the very term. Erik (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lemurs and inconsequent design[edit]

Some kind of six-limbed lemurs can be seen briefly. Dr. Augustine also said their (human) name, but I can't remember. I personally find it disturbing that all animals on Pandora have six arms/legs/wings and two pairs of eyes. The only exclusion being the Na'vi. Apart from that, the animals have tentacles and no hair, but the Na'vi have hair. If the Na'vi didn't develop from the lemur-like creatures or any other big pandoran animal, why can they connect to them? And in the other case, why are they so different?--TeakHoken91.33.22.131 (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


So I didn't see it on first viewing, but some guy had a youtube video which I think was mostly his opinion (he didn't say what primary sources outside the movie he used) and in it he pointed out that on the 6-limbed lemur/primate, the forelimbs actually have the upper part of the arm merged. So the upper arm is merged, the forearms are joined at or a little lower on the elbow, and one of their pairs of eyes has become smaller. The Na'vi and the lemur likely had a common ancestor and, based on whatever evolutionary pressures, maybe its more efficient to swing through trees with less limbs/the combining of the limbs gives it greater grasping ability on the remaining limb (each limb was 2 digits, combined onto a single limb you have 4 digits). Oh, and the reason for less eyes. We tend to lose redundant/unnecessary organs. Two eyes presumably work just as well as four. Although primitive eyes were probably simpler, but if one set of eyes becomes more complex and capable then you don't need the primitive set anymore and they may fade away.

Anyways, I've been looking around trying to see if there is a Pandoran "Tree of Life" anywhere, but so far nothing is popping up. I hope they release it in the books that tie in to the movie.66.25.189.54 (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pandora information[edit]

The article should include more detailed information on Pandora including duration of day/night cycles, appearance of the sky during daytime and at night throughout the year, seasonal temperature variation, landscapes, number of continents, volcanic activity, composition of the atmosphere, air pressure and gravity acceleration on the moon's surface, etc. 189.102.150.208 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, a section describing Pandora seems to be missing from the article.Landroo (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mobile Site[edit]

I searched for Na'vi on Wikipedia on my mobile and it directed me to "Characters and wildlife in Avatar" and when I copied the title into my PC browser I got a redirect. Why is the mobile site different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azemocram (talkcontribs) 03:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Internal cache hasnt updated yet more than likely. DrNegative (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd Helicopter Lizards[edit]

What are they? And how can they fly effectively while spinning around? Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They're clearly based on Earth's leaf-tailed gekos, but I cannot find what they are called in the movie. As for their supposed source of propulsion, or how the back spin spins while the lizard hangs stationary, those are good questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.99.53 (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What is that large content deletion ?[edit]

Once again Erik, I find your MASSIVE revert dangerous since based on a really light explanation ! this is not acceptable. When you alone -without discussion- delete 1/4 of an article (from 39,676 bytes to 27,237 bytes), you have to clearly explain and source your copyvio accusation. I have 5 years old experience on wiki, since your solo behavior and hasty deletions are repetively content destructive and time consuming for others, I'm now considering to ask admins to block you. Yug (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The information is also found on Wikipedia's sister site, Wikia. Not sure which site had it first though. I asked on one of the articles information is duplicated on, asking the author of the information to state whether or not they cared if it was copied over to Wikipedia.[2] According to the rules, you can copy anything from any Wikipedia or Wikia article, you just have to give credit to the original author, using a phantom edit. Just list in the history of the article, that some information came from Wikia articles named for those creatures, and link to the location of that Wikia. Dream Focus 11:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, is that the case? I admit I am not familiar with Wikias. I just copied and pasted a passage from the added content and saw that it came from another website. Even though it is apparently not a copyright violation, the content does not fit Wikipedia because the content writes like the animals and plants really do exist. WP:WAF says a real-world perspective is needed. I thought we were providing a link to that Wikia in the "External links" section so readers could read all the in-universe detail there. (I just added the James Cameron's Avatar Wikia to that list, too.) Erik (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
[From User talk:Yug.]
Yug, I removed the content because I thought it was a copyright violation. I've never really worked on Wikias except to know that they're generally places to contain in-universe information. Even if it is not a copyright violation, it is still excessive in-universe information (akin to the body when the article first started) and lacks real-world perspective. I ask you not to see me as destructive -- a good deal of what exists at Fictional universe in Avatar was written by me because I did not want the article-apparently-to-be-kept to look so shoddy. So I revised it to ring true with real-world context, and I proposed a move to "Fictional universe" so the sub-article's scope could cover Pandora and human technology. Erik (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
In short: you didn't provided any evidence of copyright violation ; you (alone) just 'feel' that the article should be shorter ; and so you -alone and without any talk- decided to delete 1/4 of the article.
This, yes, is disruptive. If isolated, or by an IP, I would call it "Vandalism". But counting your numerous helps, I think it's more excessive deletionist behavior based on purely personal opinion. It stay that this is not acceptable in a consensus-based website (and this is the BASIS of Wikipedia : "we is better than I alone"). Respect that other people have different view than you, and that this view may be better.
Stop to PUSH for your vision of this article.
Thanks, Yug (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
2, you misuse "in-universe information" & "real-world context" concepts. In-universe informations -like Frodo_Baggins (an in-universe character), Hobbit (an in-universe species) - are absolutely not forbidden on wikipedia, there are acceptable when they meet criteria of admissibility : there is many sources commenting them. Yug (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not feel that the article should be shorter. When the in-universe content was first added, it read like it came from somewhere else. I copied and pasted a random passage into Google and saw that it was copied wholesale from James Cameron's Avatar Wikia. I saw this as a copyright violation and removed it. Apparently it is still okay on a copyright level to copy content from a Wikia to Wikipedia. However, the content is invalid on other counts. It was excessive in-universe information with no real-world perspective. It was also uncited; open wikis are not reliable sources. If the goal is to add more in-universe information about the flora, fauna, or technology, then it should be in limited form and be backed by a reliable source, such as the official books about the film. Topics like Frodo Baggins and Hobbit are acceptable on Wikipedia; what matters is the content of these articles adhering to WP:WAF. Erik (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree with Erik on this point. The detail was excessive. It is one thing to list out the major species or items shown in the movie; it is something else entirely when there is detailed descriptions for each of those things, especially when the info is unsourced or otherwise pulled out of thin air. Information needs to come from a reliable source, or needs to be a common property...observable to anyone in the movie. Remember, there is no reason for us to provide detailed in-universe descriptions of everything. That's the whole point of Wikia. Huntster (t @ c) 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The question of the size limit of this article is to set as by editors and is an open issue, sure. My opinion and experience stay: one user alone (not previous talk), deleting 1/4 of the article based on an unsourced copyvio accusation stay an unacceptable, disruptive, and time consuming push. This is welcome in your words documents you write alone, not on wikipedia. Yug (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
We also need to be aware that the information copied from another Wikia could possibly be a copyvio as it stands on their end as well. What I mean is, if the info was illegally copied to that Wikia from a copyrighted source, it does not excuse us to copy it from that Wikia to here. Not that I'm saying this was the case here but it is something we should be careful about. DrNegative (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Erik's edits. You don't need to seek permission on the talkpage to make edits. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to be bold, then if particular changes are challenged, editors can come here to talk about it. Yug, you're making this sound like some sort of court proceeding; Erik isn't on trial here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Quick accusation: Erik made this revert based on an accusation of Copyvio, which was not sourced (!!). Experienced user coming after him were forbidden to act properly (revert or support) because of this lack of source.
2. Bold: We are encouraged to be bold. It's the work of several wikipedians who led to the 39,676 bytes version. Since the accusation was unacceptable, it's Erik's alone choice who take it down to 27,237 bytes. I came 1 days later, and on this hot topic, there already was several additional layers of edits forbidding any revert.
Yes: we are encouraged to be bold, but also to respect others' edits, and not revert them based on unsourced accusation of copyvio. Yug (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception section[edit]

Is this section really needed considering the scope of this article? DrNegative (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The only part of the section that could be included is Gleiberman writing, "Jake and the sexy tribal princess Neytiri (Zoë Saldana) wow us with their fluid, prancing movements, but there's no subtext to their smoothly virtual faces." The Jar Jar Binks part does not really fit, and the rest of the Gleiberman quote is just a description. The section could have potential, but we'd need to poke around for reviews that comment about the depth about the world Cameron created. Shouldn't be impossible. It's just that nobody's taken a real stab at this section yet. Erik (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ebert wrote this: "At 163 minutes, the film doesn't feel too long. It contains so much. The human stories. The Na'vi stories, for the Na'vi are also developed as individuals. The complexity of the planet, which harbors a global secret. The ultimate warfare, with Jake joining the resistance against his former comrades. Small graceful details like a floating creature that looks like a cross between a blowing dandelion seed and a drifting jellyfish, and embodies goodness. Or astonishing floating cloud-islands." These are what we could look out for. There's not really a gold standard for working on an article about a fictional universe, especially one revealed so recently (as opposed to Middle-earth). Erik (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the Reception section belongs in the article about the film itself, not in this one.Landroo (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Jellyfish-like creature[edit]

What is the name of the creature that acts and looks like a jellyfish in the movie, the type that surrounds Jake when he first meets Neytiri? It should be included under "fauna". Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 02:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are atokirina’, or “seeds of the sacred tree, very pure spirits” (Neytiri) – the article calls them woodsprites. They are flora, not fauna. Sebastiantalk 02:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Floating Mountains[edit]

I seriously wish someone could explain the floating mountains. My guess? The moon of Pandora has become tidally locked to its host planet and has the same face facing it at all times. These floating monutains have come loose from the surface and are hovering at the barycentre. But this implies Pandora is being torn apart and may become a ring around Polyphemus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.74.110 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this does not work with known laws of physics. I am struggling myself to understand this phenomenom in geological and geochemical terms. 2010-01-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

These floating mountains are chunks of ground that contain very high concentrations of Unobtanium, which cause these mountains to float in the magnetic currents that permeate the region. See http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Hallelujah_Mountains In other words, there is no "real-life" explanation for this, since Unobtanium isn't real. Huntster (t @ c) 06:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course, if they contained that high a concentration of Unobtainium, then wouldn't it have been easier to mine them rather than moving currently occupied giant trees ? :) The Yeti (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but doesn't the movie mentioned that the magnetic currents made it difficult to operate machinery in that region? Perhaps it just isn't worth the effort. Huntster (t @ c) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A limitless source of power is always worth the effort. Also, all the stuff they wanted to mine was in the floating mountains. Just grab it and go. Blast away anything else around it, and get what they wanted. Dream Focus 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment — If it was a gravitational effect, anyway everything around them would be in zero-g too, so you couldn't walk on them.83.204.247.222 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That's correct, very good. It would be like a space station that spins to simulate gravity...everything feels normal at the very edge of the ring, but the closer you travel to the center of the spin, the less gravity you encounter. Huntster (t @ c) 20:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unobtainium is a room-temperature superconductor, and the strong magnetic fields keep the mountains afloat. It is briefly explained in an official video titled "Pandora Discovered". Levitation in magnetic fields is possible with superconductors (see the article on superconductivity and Magnetic_levitation_device#Superconductors if you want to read about the science behind it). Although they didn't mention any reasons for not mining the mountains, it's likely that it was simply too impractical (due to the strong magnetic fields and because they'd probably need much more advanced equipment to mine there). Mathias-S (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • What if the main mass of Unobtainium is deep in the core of Pandora, and just some force it gives off or cancels out is responsible for floating the mountains? Abductive (reasoning) 05:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The mountains would still have to be made of unobtainium in order to float like they do in the movie. I haven't seen anything that explains what the core is made of, but with such a strong magnetic field, the core is probably made of a liquid material, and it's unlikely that the unobtainium would keep its superconductive properties at such high temperatures anyway. Mathias-S (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess you're right; the water and other objects experience normal gravity, so the rocks are the only things floating. Abductive (reasoning) 10:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The fictional Pandora’s atmosphere[edit]

Should it not be pointed out that Pandora’s atmosphere is toxic to humans? Has James Cameron explained what the toxin consists of? Hopefully he has bothered to think about that.

2010-01-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Pandoran atmosphere contains a very high concentration of Carbon Dioxide (18% there compared to 0.038% on Earth), along with a mix of xenon (5.5% there compared to minute amounts on Earth), ammonia, methane, and hydrogen cyanide, which are also at higher-than-Earth levels. Humans would suffocate in such levels of CO2. (numbers come from the Avatar wiki) Huntster (t @ c) 06:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting! Which source ? which page & Avatar wiki ? there are 2. Yug (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Pandora. I wasn't aware of a second Avatar Wikia. What is it? Huntster (t @ c) 14:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Excluding xenon, the extra gases mentioned as being in the atmosphere would not be stable in the wild over time. Methane, the main constituent of Natural Gas, along with ammonia and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) are all flammable and could ignite upon the first lightning bolt. Ammonia condenses when temps get below -33C (-28F), and H2S below -60C (77F). Both would rain at the surface in the polar regions during winter, and aloft at high altitudes elsewhere, leading to significant variations in atmospheric pressure. This is a recipe for storms. Ammonia and CO2 are used in biological processes. Over time, these gases would tend to be eliminated, resulting in an oxygen/nitrogen combination like our own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtvjho (talkcontribs) 22:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

listing their clans[edit]

The article mentions Omaticaya without explaining what that is, and then later mentions Omaticaya clan. I don't think an article about the universe of the series is complete without mentioning how the major species is organized. How many clans are there? On the official Wikia I see only this one mentioned as well as one other created for the game. The article mentions the clans alliance against the humans. Does each tree that has hundreds of them living in it, count as its own clan, or are they all part of the same clan? The information in the article is a bit confusing. Dream Focus 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are separate clans, but iirc the movie only identified then by general location, not by name. I should also point out that the Wikia site is by no means official, just started by fans like any other Wikia site. Huntster (t @ c) 23:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind that the film was originally 4 1/2 hours long and Cameron was forced to cut it down. So most of the plot holes, like the failure to adequately explain the Na'vi clans, can be blamed on the difficult compromises Cameron had to make to fit it into the mandatory maximum length for IMAX films, 165 minutes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Great set of info: http://io9.com/5460957/the-complete-history-of-pandora-according-to-avatars-designers AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good find! This is something that certainly belongs in the article as an external link. Dream Focus 16:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Pterodactylus giganteus?[edit]

i'm pretty sure that is false, does anybody have any sources on that? i mean the mountain banshee looks nothing like Pterodactylus itself. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AMPs - Psionic link?[edit]

I got the impression that the gloves the AMP drivers used were motion-sensing controllers - the position and orientation of the gloves being measured, with that information used to calculate the matching position of the AMP's arms. Psionic link implies a direct brain-machine connection. There's no source to cite either way, but this fits more with the mechanical, functional design ethos of the other military vehicles. 86.20.198.199 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of fingers[edit]

According to The Na'vi From Avatar, the fifth finger is chopped off at birth. --Anatoli (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That article is for comedic purposes and not to be taken seriously. The Na'vi are born with four fingers and the Avatars have five because of the hybridization with human DNA.

Mythology[edit]

They sure use a lot of names of myth people, such as Polyphemus or Pandora. 75.27.36.231 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

demerge[edit]

Some one should make the Na'vi a separate page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.226.209 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There used to be a separate Na'vi article, but the consensus here was that there just wasn't enough real world information to warrant a separate article. Perhaps in time that will change, but I don't see anything to indicate we're at that point yet. Huntster (t @ c) 16:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Post-Industrial[edit]

I do not think Avatar 's Earth in 2154 could be considered "post-industrial", but just "industrial". What do you guys think? - User:Hpfan1 (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC).


Pandora[edit]

This isn't too much fictional, Polyphemus is based off Saturn and Pandora actually is one of Saturn's Moons.

And the Title of this article makes no sense. -Koloszrodos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.181.179 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're stating in your first statement, but as for your second, I suppose a better name could be found, but the article encompasses the entire 'ficitonal universe' of the Avatar movie (aka, it doesn't take place in our reality). Huntster (t @ c) 23:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The real world moon named Pandora is entirely different from the fictional one. They just happened to have the same name.

2010-05-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Picture of the fictional moon Pandora[edit]

Does anyone have any picture of the fictional Pandora as seen from space?

2010-05-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Helicopter organism[edit]

Sort of similar to the question of a similar title above, Fictional_universe_of_Avatar#List_of_fauna doesn't list this organism. Is it because we don't have a name? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Zhangjiajie National Forest Park[edit]

Shouldn't there be mention in the geology section about the mountains in the Zhangjiajie National Forest Park and their Pandora derivatives? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Na'vi Archery[edit]

All Na'vi who shoot bows appear to be left-handed. A left-handed archer holds their bow in their right hand and draws the string with their left. Jake holds his bow in a similar way to the Na'vi - but when eating or doing tasks in his human form he is right handed.

It is possible for a right handed person to have a dominant eye which might influence their choice in holding a bow. A left handed person might have to make a similar choice.

A right handed person would have a better developed right arm for drawing a bow string and a left handed archer a stronger left and therefore not worry about sighting with the weaker eye.

There is a possibility that these fictional beings are entirely left handed as a race or even ambidextrous.

Is this worth mentioning in the article?

Porthugh (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The helicopter craft has propellers that contra-rotate, not counter.

174.124.10.180 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Reality of life around a Gas Giant?[edit]

I don't know if there is anything out there that could be used to source this but a local college professor held a open lecture on "Astronomy in Popular Films". In this, he had stated that given our current knowledge on gas giants, it would be nearly impossible for life to have developed on Pandora. Gas giants can have an intense magnetic field with large Van Allen-like Radiation belts. As an example, he stated that the surfaces of the Galilean moons are bathed in huge amounts of lethal radiation from Jupiter's powerful magnetic field. Any earth-like world, such as Pandora, orbiting a gas giant would have to have a powerful magnetosphere of it's own to deflect the radiation, and a thick atmosphere to help shield any life forms on the surface from energetic particles. If it was too close to the gas giant, it may be subjected to considerable tidal flexing, giving it a surface with catastrophic amounts of tectonic activity. If it was too far away, it would have a very long day/night cycle, since all such worlds would most likely have a rotation synchronized to it's orbital period, and that could be problematic for life as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.15.102 (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the film's background literature addresses those points with exactly what you stated: very thick atmosphere and strong magnetosphere. You're professor is very much correct when it comes to normal moons such as those around Jupiter, but it seems the film staff anticipated this situation when they were creating background details. Regarding sources, there's a book called "Avatar: A Confidential Report..." that might have some information on this, but I don't own it. Huntster (t @ c) 08:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

Does anyone know where the name Na'vi comes from? 111.125.110.30 (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Splitting[edit]

this page is too long and really needs splitting into a few sections i have already made a page pandoran biosphere. I do believe that this page needs splitting, because as it mentions in Article size under readability issues and technical issues.Here it explains that large articles such as the original one are bad for poor or slow connections. secondly to read the full article which is too long at just over 6,000 words. this is a logical split as it is a subject that adds to the encyclopedia by itself. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssamhe (talkcontribs) 14:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Astronomy and geology[edit]

This section needs a serious tidy up because it makes no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssamhe (talkcontribs) 15:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fictional universe of Avatar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Pandora Characters[edit]

There are new characters, listed here. --Elisfkc (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

These are all characters introduced in the amusement park attraction, I believe, so I don't think they would have any place in an articles about the film universe. Huntster (t @ c) 00:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)