Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The Lost Scrolls

Ok here's the thing there are these new four "[Lost Scrolls]" books that are gonna be coming out for Avatar. The first two, water and fire, are already out. They provide insight and rich informative detail of the cultures in terms of both bending and backstory. For example, The Fire Nation was once ruled by a council consisted of the Sages until the Great Sage (the leader and also the most spiritual and powerful) sought to rule the Nation without the remaining Sages (ie Lord). This caused an imbalance/struggle for power which lasted for several years until it reached an equillibrium in which Sozin rose to power and the Sages were submitted under his rule. The problem is there are naturally a couple of inconsistent parts to the book. Basically I feel that this all this information shouldn't go to waste and the hindsights are relatively natural due to how big the Avatar universe is gettin. Plus its from the same guys who worked on the cine-manga with the creators. 71.163.69.77 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to say...

Aang does not have to master the elements in that specific order, as we can see from the episode "Deserter". However, in that same episode, Jeong Jeong basically told Aang that he must learn the disiplines in order, learning the point and expressions of each, to be able to CONTROL fire in the end. Each element requires learning a self disipline before being able to bend it effectively. Aang was too free and playful when learning fire. He didn't want to wait and concentrate. He was still in his airbender mode. This is why he burned Katara. I remember in the 2nd episode, Aang told her, "In order to become a bender, you must let go of fear." This can be seen as airbending principle because that is all Aang knows at this point. They are a free people. We can also see the needed self disipline when Aang is learning earthbending.

There are a lot of things wrong with this article, and many other web articles about the "Avatar". I saw one where someone thinks there were four air temples, when there are only three. There is no sense in arguing about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evitar28 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

There are indeed four air temples, that's been confirmed by the show's creators. One (the northern temple) just doesn't show on the map, is all. As for the issue with the order, see above. As for anything else, it would be helpful to provide specific examples, rather than just say there are "a lot of things wrong."--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then there are four templaes. I'm not talking about this article when I say, "There are a lot of things wrong..."

Yea, I know about the order. I think you're right. There is no absolute order. If Jeong Jeong doesn't "reappear", I think Iroh or Zuko will teach Aang firebending in the end.

What about Kuzon, Aang's old friend from the Fire Nation, the creators said that he will play an important role in the future. This may be the position of Aang's firebending master.

Anyway nice talking to you. I only adding something because I was curious, and I saw that this was just the other day or so.

Happy Holidays.

The Air Nation no longer exists.

"When it happens, the eclipse will leave the Fire Nation defenseless. This will also give the other three nations the chance to annilhate the Fire Nation."

Shouldn't that be, the other two nations? There is no air nation any more. And annihilate is misspelled.

Was it just the air benders that were all destroyed, except Aang, or did they destroy all the people of that nation? Or since that attack happened a century ago, haven't all those people that were part of that nation at that time died of old age by now, and everyone else was born after the conquest, so they are part of the extended fire nation. National borders change, don't they? Without their benders, I doubt the rest of the populace was able to put up any resistance to the fire nation at all.

Actually, according to interviews and the comic book, the Air Nomads were all airbenders, due to their highly spirtual culture (I can provide sources for this if you'd like). –Prototime (talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps some still consider them part of the air nation, destined to rise up in a great rebellion one day. I haven't seen all the episodes since I just started watching recently, so I don't know. Dream Focus 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Techncally Aang is Air Nation, so the other three nations will be attacking. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Air Nation still technically exists (their temples are still there) and they still have Aang, so it should stay the other three nations. Bagpipeturtle 20:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how a person, a couple animals and some mostly deserted temples count as a nation.67.172.125.13 17:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why they are called the air Nomads. 24.165.122.145 05:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Their land is still intact (well, mostly), and they still have at least one citizen (two if the Guru counts), so they are still a nation. Even though it's really small, the Air Nation still exists. Bagpipeturtle 05:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

could the air nomads come back some how? after the war balance will have to come back to the world and the only way that will happen is if the Air Nomads come back

what i dont understand is how the fire nation really could kill all of the airbenders; i mean they were flying nomads. firenation couldnt fly. some other airbender should still be alive but were could they be? -Iroh!*

There's this thing in fictional stories...called "suspending disbelief." We're talking a world where the laws of physics no longer apply- we're talking a world where a large number of people are telekinetic, and a bunch can shoot fire from their hands. Aang is "the Last Airbender"- it's in the title. It would make less sense if there ended up being any other Airbenders alive than if there weren't. In any case, it's been directly stated in the show that the Air Nomads are DEAD, so instead of having mass speculation, let's just nod our heads and put that info up here. This is not a forum, take those ideas somewhere else, okay? I know a bunch of places where this kind of talk is welcomed, but this isn't one of them. Y BCZ 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My minor correction edit can unedited.

"Aang (Mitchel Musso in the unaired pilot, Zach Tyler Eisen onwards) - The fun-loving, 12-year-old..."

I changed that to Aang (voiced by Mitchel Musso in the unaired pilot, Zach Tyler Eisen onwards).

Those are the voice actors, not the animators, or writers of the show. Should my edit have stayed? Dream Focus 00:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Voiced by isn't needed as it's already implied simply by parenthesis. Also you'd have to make it consistant with all the characters. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

wasnt it mitchel musso in the aired pilot too? it wasnt zach tyler right? --skuj

No. Musso was the unaired pilot only. Y BCZ 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting Character Section

Section One

As there is an recently created page at List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, and this page has already had some concerns expressed about article size, I'd like to suggest reducing the content of this section and splitting it off to that page. You may also wish to examine the discussion on that page, where I've expressed further ideas on why it is worth considering, such as the existence of such articles for other Television shows that have become FA. FrozenPurpleCube 21:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We've already told you on that page that we were against splitting, you and the guy that did it are the only one thinking it should be and you won't let us fulfill the agreed upon decision. Stop acting like this Wikiproject doesn't know what it's doing. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm offending you, but developing consensus on Wikipedia is very important, and I am using the tools provided to try to build discussion and consensus on this. Prematurely deleting tags and declaring that the decision has been made when only a very people people have had a chance to contribute is not a good idea. Give people time to make a decision, make good arguments for why you feel the way you do, and you'll accomplish more. FrozenPurpleCube 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus...hummm. Like...discussing BEFORE making major changes? There's an idea...--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be why I put the tag up, to give folks a chance to see. Leaving the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters of page in place isn't a problem either. The Avatar Wikiproject has over fifty members, and Wikipedia itself has a lot more editors. Why not see what more people think? FrozenPurpleCube 21:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but here's what you're proposing- in order to keep the new page alive, we cut down the content on this page. The reason being because the new page has no content that's not already on this page. I'm gonna say no. It sounds like this is just an effort to preserve a page that really doesn't need to be there. The section in question already contains links to several different pages, which contain more information on individual characters. There's no reason to just remove the section and stick it up somewhere else, unless it's for length consideration, and I don't think there's an overwhelming concern over that matter. Y BCZ 21:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm proposing that in order to improve the Avatar page, that the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters be used as an effective sub-article, which is a pattern you'll find in many other Featured Articles like: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lost, The West Wing and The Wire. And that's just featured articles, many other television shows use the same style. The article itself right now is rather long (see previously expressed concerns on this page), and as sections go, this would be the easiest to split off, and more consistent with other television shows. Do you have some reason why you think it would be a bad idea? FrozenPurpleCube 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think another page is needed. If anything, the characters section COULD use a bit of a trim, but that's hardly a reason to (re)move it all together.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting the removal of the section, merely trimming it down, same as you believe. That this can be combined with splitting the content off to another page that would be consistent with other television shows is a benefit, not a drawback. FrozenPurpleCube 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the wikiproject people are on holiday right now I think, when they come back the consensus will be a hands down majority in our favor anyway. But, if keeping that little discussion tag there will keep you happy and away from us Manticore. I guess we can leave it even though the page is still being reviewed for FA status, cause discussion tags don't look bad at all! H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, most people are on holiday. An even more pressing reason to wait and discuss things, as is the FA review, which I note already has some comments about the character section as well. BTW, you may wish to look at WP:Civil and WP:AGF for advice. It seems to me that you are taking this situation a bit too personally. FrozenPurpleCube 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Further note: I'd also like to point out that the other page's creator also seems to agree with a redirect: diff. So then, how long do we have to let this sit here on the off chance someone objects?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting till more people have a chance to participate, however long that may take. FrozenPurpleCube 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Be aware that, short of asking for an RfC (which is, I think we can all agree, unwarranted at this point) that may well never happen. The active editors of these pages have already given their opinions, you simply insist there are not enough of us.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking an RFC is completely warranted, and I decided to do so shortly before reading this comment. An RFC is a perfectly neutral way to seek further input, and in this case, may be very worthwhile. FrozenPurpleCube 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You have GOT to be kidding me...nobody objects, so we need to send out a cry for somebody that will? Ugh!--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're offended, but I do think seeking further comment is highly warranted. You may wish to look at WP:OWN for reasons why. FrozenPurpleCube 23:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

For those who come here like myself who haven't seen all the episodes yet, having the character information there is a bit of a spoiler. Every other page I've seen, for any show, list all the characters on a seperate page. I vote that be done. And as someone said, if you don't, then you are above the size limit. Dream Focus 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the character section should be separate from this article. I am the person who originally called for this article to be shortened. And by the way, that was a great call on WP:OWN, FrozenPurpleCube. You guys don't own the article.(Ghostexorcist 02:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

Each charater has their own page, the characters here are supposed to be a short introduction to who they are, their actual pages provide their full bio. The major secondary simply gives a name and an even shorter description. Having the character pages split into another page (and then split again from that page) takes away from this article. The next thing you'll want us to do is make every damned section it's own article until this page becomes nothing but external links. having short bios about the main characters on this page helps introduce people to the show. There shouldn't be any spoilers on the characters, we've been trying to keep them off. And true while we can't OWN the pages, we damn well babysit them enough to have an authority over them. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 02:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think anybody intends to turn this article into merely a link to a bunch of sections. And no, having another article doesn't diminish the value of this one. It might even increase it, by increasing the overall utility of the page and wikipedia. And no, you don't have any authority over this page, that's what WP:OWN is all about. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Authority, that's funny. I feel administrators need to be notified of H2P and other user's supposed authority over this article. I've seen how any user who makes an edit, who isn't apart of the "click", is instantly shot down. So the problem of "article ownership" needs to be addressed.(Ghostexorcist 11:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

I think H2P is getting a bit defensive at this point, and he needs to cool it for now. Still, Exorcist, I'm resisting the urge to say various things. Please stick to the topic in question- stop trying to dismiss us because of our aggressive way of dealing with the page. It doesn't matter why we want certain things to happen, we're talking about whether a major change is necessary, and we're arguing that it's not while backing it up with reasoning. If you can't come up with a reason to make the move other than "I think it should be that way" or "you guys aren't following X guideline of Wikipedia in your behavior", then just drop it. Now to everyone, please just stop it. We're obviously all doing things to tick each other off- Manticore and Ghostexorcist are calling out users on certain policies and, well, those users are responding by taking actions that encourage Manticore and Ghostexorcist to KEEP calling them out. Can't we just settle this issue? Y BCZ 14:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you just said, it's hard to settle an issue when folks are being aggressive. There are reasons why the policies I've pointed out exist, and reasons why I've felt obliged to point them out. FrozenPurpleCube 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the spoiler argument: Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning#Unacceptable_alternatives clearly says that material may not be moved to make spoiler-free articles.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay look, the only real reasons I can see on this discussion for moving the character section is the "spoiler" thing, which Fyre has addressed, and length, which is really all a matter of opinion- we say it doesn't matter, others say it does, so the fact that it's been brought up hardly changes a thing. Does anyone have another reason for the move to happen? If not, I currently believe there is no reason to enact this change. Y BCZ 06:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several reasons actually. WP:Size is not something to be ignored with a "It doesn't matter" but something to be weighed and considered. I don't think there's been a good faith showing of that consideration being made. Just summary dismissal. There is also the practice of many other television shows (as mentioned before Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lost, The West Wing and The Wire among featured articles about television shows, and lots of others at this category). Arguments against it (ignoring the uncivil ones) so far amount to redundancy or not being necessary. Those are not very good arguments. The reference to WP:SPOILER is I think mistaken, as it says content should not be deleted to avoid spoilers, and that simple parallel pages not constructed. That doesn't mean care shouldn't be taken to avoid unnecessary spoilers. Take the article of Luke Skywalker, which doesn't say that Vader is his father (apologies if I spoiled things for anybody! :)) until deep in the page. Or if you want a Featured article, see Padmé Amidala. Care has been taken to avoid the spoilers there too. Even the existence of Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader involves a desire not to have spoilers. Is it worth considering here? Maybe. In any case, there is no harm in the existence of the page, and while that page is currently identical to the section on this page, that could be easily changed. Heck, having duplicate information is not even a reason for deletion (believe it or not). You may not consider the opinions being offered persuasive, but I don't consider the objections being offered persuasive, and that's ignoring the tone of some of them that I think you realize is not conducive to reaching a consensus. That's a problem in itself. Trying to deal with that too, but it's hard to get this discussed and that problem solved at the same time. Leads to issues being muddled. FrozenPurpleCube 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

1) I see no spoilers in the character sections. Would you care to point some out? If there are some, I'm sure we can take care of them by simply modifying the text of the character sections, rather than simply moving them out of the article.

2) Click on the "Edit this page" buttons for the articles you pointed out. The West Wing is 50 kb long, as is Lost. The Line is 68 kb long, while Buffy the Vampire Slayer is 75 kb long- and both display tags on the edit page suggesting the article be cut down or divided into smaller articles. Avatar: The Last Airbender is only 45 kb long- shorter than all four of the Featured Articles you pointed out. If we should consider following the example of previous Featured Articles pertaining to television series, as you have suggested, then it follows that there is no reason to cut the article down.

Further on the issue of spoilers-you bring up a strange example with Luke and Vader. I checked Luke's page, and it indeed does avoid that spoiler. But...Vader's doesn't. Kinda weird. Y BCZ 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's the existence of the two pages that matters in regards to Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker, though you'll note there is a spoiler warning very early in that page as well. Perhaps too early and the content should be moved. However, that's a discussion for another place. I don't even think there are spoilers on this page (except perhaps by including some characters at all). If you want to ask about that, try asking some of the people who have brought up the issue. I merely differed with what I see as a misinterpretation of the guidelines on spoilers. My primary objection is that I think that the descriptions are too long. Which leads us back to the size discussion. You can't just look at the raw kilobyte size of a page and make decisions, that's an oversimplification. You have to look at the pages. For example, take a look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's got lots of sections, and a whole lot of citations and quotes. (In fact, I'd say those citations and quotes make up a not insignificant portion of its size). It's not because the character section is especially large, instead it has a few paragraphs and a link to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Same with Lost (TV series), the West Wing, and others. Therefore, it doesn't have to be a bad thing to have a separate page for lists of characters. Given the style of those other pages as a model, I think that each character's description should be reduced to a sentence or two, not the couple of paragraphs they have now. I'm iffy on the image question, I think it's a bit much, even if well-done. Possibly even move off the minor character list to the page as well. That would reduce some of the clutter appreciably. Or if enough people prefer, instead of a character by character description, a paragraph based version could be developed instead of the current list. FrozenPurpleCube 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you may wish to note that there was an objection in the FAC about the lines as well. A list article would work better with regards to styles like that. FrozenPurpleCube 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Size issue is a very valid argument. And my comment about this article’s supposed ‘ownership’ is valid as well. I know what it's like to put so much effort into an article to see others edit it, but I got over it. You guys are saying the article doesn’t need to be shortened based only on a few votes from people from your click. What about other editors? I think a straw poll needs to be utilized. However, I’m afraid that not all editors will be aware of this. So I think a notice should be posted on the avatar wiki project, as well as the anime wiki project, and any other project in some way connected to this one. Thoughts?(Ghostexorcist 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

Well, there's always Wikiproject:Television and American Animation if we want to put some more notices up. And one at the Avatar Wikiproject might not go amiss. FrozenPurpleCube 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that to releive this article of size, what should be done is reduce the description of the characters and ceate a full article for each of the main characters. That way we can expand the overall amount of information related to Avatar.Coldman64 06:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's part of the problem. There already exists separate articles for each of the main characters. (Ghostexorcist 07:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

Take the following tid bit from the Iroh section of this page:

Mako, the voice actor who portrayed Iroh, died on July 21, 2006. While guest-starring at the Pacific Media Expo on October 28, 2006 the creators confirmed that another voice actor has indeed been selected, although no names were mentioned as for who will take up the role.

This is already mentioned in Iroh's main article. Actually, the first paragraph of Iroh's description on this page does an adequate enough job. The other paragraphs dealing with his personality and appearance need to be deleted since the material is already covered in the character's main page. All of the other character descriptions are just like this one--too redundant.(Ghostexorcist 07:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

Section Two

What I have read so far after I came back from vacation was that a couple of people want us to move/shorten the main characters descriptions so they can be in a seperate article when each character already has there own page. I assume this is the situation. I completely disagree. There is no point to have the main article, a list of characters, and then a page for each individual character. The point of the page is to introduce the show to new people. As mentioned before, spoilers have supposedly been found in the description. However, this only proposes that the spoilers be removed from the character descriptions, not that the whole list have a seperate page. Another support for the idea I have heard was that many other articles have done the same thing and that we should follow suit. Why should we make a major change to the article just so the article could be just like every other article of its kind? Finally, the last complaint to be addressed is size. Even if the article is too long, there are other section in the article too. The characters section is not the only one taking up space. It may be a little bit too large but that does not prompt for another page to be created just so readers can be directed towards a larger description of each character when they can just go to the character's main page. This just means that the descriptions need to be shortened. If there are any other reasons I missed (other than the fact that a couple of users just want to seperate the section) or if there are any objections to what I said, PLEASE do not hesitate to respond. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 16:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, common practice is a good thing, a certain degree of uniformity is very helpful in improving the presentation of information. That so many other editors of other television series see such pages as an advantageous is an idea highly worth considering here. This is done even when the major characters have their own pages. Why not do it here? Besides, I'm sensing a bit of an objection just to the idea of a page being created, as if there was some major drawback to it. Creating another page on Wikipedia has an almost infinitesimal cost, and the potential benefits are high. In terms of options, you could have longer descriptions of major and minor characters than is appropriate for the main page, even include the entries in pages further down. Take a look at some of the pages in Category:Lists of Fictional Characters, there are plenty of good models to examine. FrozenPurpleCube 18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Second, if you see some other section you think should be split, feel free to suggest splitting them. Just put it a tag on it, and start up some discussion. Just saying "Why not split some other section instead" isn't as helpful as specifically citing a section. I don't think any of the other sections are as large as the character one, or as easily self-contained, but I'd be glad to see your thoughts. FrozenPurpleCube 18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this: we keep the main characters (Aang, Katara, Sokka, Toph, Zuko, Iroh, and Azula) and shorten their descriptions, and add 'Main article: (fill in chracter's name here)'. Then we could get rid of the major and minor character sections and simply redirect to their respective articles, maybe under the section 'Other characters'. And since all of the main characters listed here (and Appa) have their own articles and the major and minor characters both have their articles, do we really need another characters article? It seems that all it is is a redirect page. The 'Creatures and animals' and 'Guest voices' could be cut too, as they're on the template. Just a suggestion... Kochdude388 19:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a very good idea. (Ghostexorcist 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

Well, is any article really necessary? Nope. But could this be useful? I think so. I don't know about you, but instead of links to 3-4 lists, I'd rather have a link to one list which itself can have sublinks. FrozenPurpleCube 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Section Three

Personally, I think that the main character section should stay and just get rid of a little extra information, and then take out the list of major secondary characters. There is already a page for them, so we don't need to take up space on the main page for them. On a similar topic, The 'Influences' section could possibly be moved to its own page, but I think it's in a good place where it is now. Bagpipeturtle 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the Avatar page should remain as is, with NO changes at all. I think that it looks fine. Really, why change it at all? It's remained that way for so long, and it hasn't caused great confusion or inconvenience to anyone, really. I beg you, please do not edit this page. Altering it may cause more confusion and inconvenience than not. Thank you. Uioh 22:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that most people would disagree with you on both practice and principle. Practice-wise, there is a lot about this article that could be fixed up, not just this one section, and that's leaving aside the issue of further developments in the Avatar series. Principle-wise, Wikipedia isn't about static content anyway, it's about the continued dynamic influence of thousands of monkeys typing away to make the best darn collection of knowledge possible. That means it'll probably never be complete. So I'm afraid that you're just going to have to accept that this page is going to continue to receive edits and discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to agree now. I did not agree with taking the main character section out completely but just to shorten it is okay. I addition, whoever first mentioned the idea to take the secondary character out really made an impact on the argument and may have almost solved the disagreement. Anyway, I agree with the change to shorten the main character descriptions and create a redirect for all other characters. Maybe we could put something like this at the top of the main characters descriptions:

Thjs is a list of the main character in the show, for all other characters in the show, go to <Article with List of Other Characters>.

In addition, we would have to change the section heading around to where there is only one main heading that says Main Characters. Are there any objections? I think its a good idea. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would simply say "Characters" rather than adding main in front of it. Keep the names on there now, shorten it to a sentence or two, with a brief paragraph of description for everybody else, with a link at the top of the section to the List page. FrozenPurpleCube 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

An example of spoilers. I just saw the episode today where Toph escapes from the metal box they trapped her in. I would've rather been surprised she could escape, than to know from reading the wiki that she alone can bend metal. But, my fault for reading anything after the spoiler warning.. although I don't remember seeing it last week. Just one point of putting all the character stuff on another page, was the spoilers. It also list the episode in detail on how she was introduced, which is certainly a serious spoiler. For Katara, it says "She is a very gifted Waterbender who, by season two, achieves her dream by becoming a Waterbending master." which might be a bit of a spoiler. I guess many people just figured out on their own she'd eventually learn to be a master at it. Anyway, do people make polls to have official votes on things like this, or how does it work? I vote to put all spoiler information on another page, with a warning. Some might want to read about this series, without having certain surprises in the episodes they haven't seen yet revealed to them. Dream Focus 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

While we are still talking about the character description section, I would like to note that in the FAC page, someone objected that the horizontal lines seperatin the characters be removed. Maybe we should replace them with headings or just put line breaks. I know I brought up the topic before and now there are other people that say it should be changed. Does anybody agree with me? Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with the simple line breaks, there's no reason to make them separate headings, all that would do is clutter the TOC. FrozenPurpleCube 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better now. Anyway, as for your comment a little further up, I think the descriptions should be more than a sentence or two. Maybe just a short paragraph since they are all at least two paragraphs right now. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think either using some sort of table would be best or just a simple one sentence paragraph break. Look at a similar setup on Only Fools and Horses. Medvedenko 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We really need to settle this problem. Is there ANYBODY that still disagrees with the idea that we only shorten the character descriptions, leave the horizontal lines out, and not use a seperate main characters list page? Parent5446 ^{(Murder me for my actions.)} 17:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of this settlement, and will provide assistance in shortening the descriptions. Y BCZ 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I favor keeping the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters page as it would offer a good centralized resource for somebody looking for information on the characters in the series, and be consistent with the practices of other television shows. I haven't yet seen any convincing arguments against having such a page, and it would allow the Character section here to be much shorter and not have to include links to so many other pages about characters. One link to a single list (with sublists) would look much better than the current section. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going on a WikiBreak so I will not be able to help until January 8th. If it is not finished by then, I will help. By the way, this whole argument is one of the reasons people are objecting on the new FAC page so this will be one more thing done. (The FA Director restarted the nomination since we made such a great improvment.) Parent5446 ^{(Murder me for my actions.)} 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Section Four

There is no need to make a page just to list the various character pages, since that's essentially all that this new page is. The main characters all have their own pages, the major secondary characters have their own page, and the minor characters do, too. This page (The main Avatar page) needs a section on characters because its purpose is to inform on the show in general, and a shows characters are quite integral in a show. If the characters already have a page, and this page needs to keep a small section on the characters, then what's the point of creating an entirely new page? All it would do is force people to spend an unnecessary amount of time clicking through to different pages, and it would force the editors to change a whole bunch of links. JBK405 05:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't agree that this would be a substantial improvement to this page's appearance. In my opinion, all this would really accomplish is making a directory of lists and character articles, and the navigational template already does that just fine.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think we should leave it as is. This would just create more hassle for people to keep going to different sections when it could be made easier to just have the information here. It would also mess up the templates and everything. Why have a list of main characters when each of them already has their own page? -Dylan0513 23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of people have asked what's the benefit of a character page? Well, there are several that I see. Ease of navigation is one major benefit. It's easier to look at one list that's solely about the characters than a page about the series. Besides, it's pretty clear that there's no way all the information about Avatar would fit on one page (if it was, we wouldn't have pages for individual characters or episodes). Presentation is another. Having too much information about the characters reduces the impact of the other information on the page. Personally, I think the individual character listing on a series page is questionable in terms of style anyway, but I'm not that convinced of the necessity of a change either. Length is the more important issue, and it's still a little long. Obviously, another person may feel differently, but as I've noted before, the existence of one page does in no way take away from another page. FrozenPurpleCube 00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the main characters already have separate pages. Why do we need another page describing them. It's on the main page to provide a brief summary and then link to them. I think we need to shorten the descriptions on the main page, but not take it away all together. And a separate page is more of a hassle. You have to go to a whole different page and the editors have another article to take care of that doesn't have much of a purpose. We may as well just take away the different pages for each main character if we're going to do this. -Dylan0513 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to list them, because a character page that doesn't list the main characters isn't much sense at all. Navigation is much easier as well. On terms of the list's page's content, if you think the descriptions now are too long, well, I don't disagree. I could live with a short, minimal description of each on the character list page(for people who don't know the characters by name, so need some identifiers), and having the main article more of a summary and less of the list it is right now. In terms of extra work, the burden is minimal, and if you don't feel up to it, well, luckily on Wikipedia, there's always more shoulders to bear the load. So the hassle is not a good argument either. FrozenPurpleCube 00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But basically what you described is linking to a separate page that wouldn't take up that room on the main page and just makes the main article seem more of just a navigation point. We're going for FA here and losing! If we're going to have a separate article there needs to be more of a purpose other than short character summaries. If there is, then this would probably work. -Dylan0513 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if being a featured article is what you want, take a look at some of the television shows with Featured Article status that I've pointed out above. They've got relatively short summaries for characters too, with separate list pages. I'll also note that one of the problems the FA commentary has brought up was that the character section had unreferenced material in it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm firmly of the opinion that having descriptions of the main characters on this page is important. I don't like the idea of making readers view several different pages in order to get important information. Having them there doesn't make the article too long, it makes it complete, again in my opinion. Following from that, leaving the information here and having it on a second location is just needlessly redundant. And, as I said before, I don't see how it can do anything as a navigational tool that the navigational template doesn't already do.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is what the template is for. Can we all agree to shorten the summaries already on the main page some more to help with the FA nomination? -Dylan0513 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is, we have to draw a line somewhere to what is and isn't important information. Some information is more important than other information, at least on a given subject. It's why there are separate articles for characters. You can't say everything about Aang, or Katara or Sokka all on one page and still fit in the television series as a whole. So obviously there is a limit to how long the character descriptions will be, right? (And that's not even getting into minor characters who obviously shouldn't be on the main page, but should be found somewhere). And what the template doesn't do is provide descriptions of the entries. The template only provide names. In some cases that is enough, but that may not apply to everybody's needs. For them, a fuller list than should be present on the main article might be desirable. There is a real navigational advantage to be found there. FrozenPurpleCube 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I have seen enough. Everybody is just arguing about the same thing over and over again. This has to stop. As said before, this article is losing in the FA Nomination because of this dispute. I e-mailed a PhD student at berkely who is a mediator on Wikipedia and asked him to help. Maybe outside help can solve out problem. Parent5446 ^{(Murder me for my actions.)} 02:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've agreed not to go through with this. The most active members on the project have said no and it's the ones outside that are causing this. This has pretty much already been settled. -Dylan0513 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN FrozenPurpleCube 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OWN isn't the issue, the issue is that a concensus has been made and you are the only one not allowing people to take action on that consensus. There has been plenty of input from multiple people as well as the arguments on the Featured Article discussion pages. It's time to admit that your option wasn't chosen and let what is currently being agreed upon become the decision and action. 24.165.122.145 05:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Dylan is perfectly right to point out that a relevant Wikiproject has a consensus on a matter. That's one the reasons we have Wikiprojects. I've even seen administrative action taken action based on Wikiproject consensus, so don't tell me saying it exists violates policy, because that's just incorrect.

Now, for the matter at hand: I really think we have a consenus here. Everybody can't get their way, but the majority seems to be in favor of keeping things the way they are, and I doubt this will change with further discussions.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what consensus is reached, I don't think it is a wise idea to put one side against another on this issue, and that's exactly what his words meant, by saying there is one group with some entitlement because they are active, versus some outsides. That's not a good way to look at things, and is a bad habit to get into. It would be much wiser to actually discuss the merits of the section, not the editors. I'd really like to see more discussion of that. So far, that's been lacking, though at least for a while the whole insider-mentality was avoided. But it's not quite gone. So, instead of attacking me, try explaining how you want things, and why. FrozenPurpleCube 20:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, now I know why the republicans complained about filibusters. Look man, the conversation's gone on for over a week, and we haven't made too much progress. The majority of people who have voiced their opinions on this want things to go back to the way they were before the split was proposed, though are willing to shorten the descriptions a bit in the interest of cutting down page length. The reason is because we feel it's not necessary- the new page would only act as a directory to pages that are already linked to in the main article. Now, let's consider arguments in favor of the mov, besides size (as an alternate solution has been presented for that). Spoilers have already mostly been removed from descriptions, and there's a spoiler warning on the page anyway. Ghostexorcist mentioned that creating the new page would allow for information on Avatar to be presented, but this is not true- the information that is already there would just be moved around a bit. Other than that, it's all been a matter of opinion versus opinion, and that never gets anywhere...

Manticore, I understand there are various issues surrounding my Project's behavior, and that we will have to work to resolve them. However, I believe that your citation of OWN should not relate to the discussion at hand. Quite simply, you are rejecting our arguments because of our stances. Now, I ask you to consider the issues objectively, regardless of your opinion of the participants in this discussion. If you can present a reason that has not been addressed thus far for the change to be made, then do so. Otherwise, please cease simply delaying the resolution of this situation in the hopes that the state of the discussion will change. Y BCZ 20:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It relates to the discussion at hand because people keep bringing up the argument that they have more merit to their side because of who they are. That's a bad argument to even bring up, it fosters resentment and all sorts of other bad stuff. I'll give you credit, you did provide some argument, but even now, you've complicated it with extra commentary. That's not helpful. Anyway, I disagree with your contention that it's not necessary. First, there is no requirement for an article to be necessary for it to fit on Wikipedia. And while you may not find the page valuable, other people might, especially as a navigational tool. In which case including all the characters (main and otherwise) is a good idea. And as I've said before, I think the character section in the main article should be more of a summary and less of a list. That style fits better on a list page than one on the series as a whole. FrozenPurpleCube 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before, the character descriptions should be stripped to their bare essentials. Most of them have 2 - 3 paragraphs. If you read the very first paragraph, it has all the info a newcomer would ever need. The rest of it is unnecessarily "in-depth". Therefore, these extra paragraphs should be deleted since that info is covered on each character's individual articles. It would knock the page down several kilobytes too. (Ghostexorcist 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Section Five

(edit conflict) Personally, I believe the section should stay. If this article is a stepping stone in to the world of Avatar, the Character section should stay on this page. If the section above it is allowed to describe the plot, the next logical step is to read about the Characters. It provides a clear flow for the article and helps to give new readers more information and immediate links about what it is important for the article. The page is not excessively long like other T.V. show articles. If the page was considerably longer than this, I would vote the other way, but since the page is not excessively long, I vote to keep the section, but I have no problem reducing each Character to one paragraph. I will do that now. The Placebo Effect 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I stick by my comments and all I am saying is that members of this project should have more merit than members who come in solely for the FA nomination and possibly other reasons. We have more knowledge of the articles and have put countless hours of work into these. Aren't projects created to do what's best for the set of articles and members of the project make those decisions. We now definitely have a majority and a consensus among us and a majority among everyone who's replied here. Attacking you? I didn't ask you to originally reply to my comment. And we've already stated our reasons.-Dylan0513 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"More merit"? If you don't want an article edited, don't create one. It doesn't matter how many hours you've put into it. Other people are going to make changes. What do you think the consensus would be if notices were sent out to every project connected to this (tv, anime, cartoon, etc) and told to nit-pick the page? What would it look like then? Would you tell them "you can't work on this page because it's all mine"? Because that's what it sounds like. You seem to speek for the few people that live on this page.(Ghostexorcist 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Part of the purpose of Wikipedia is that everyone has equal merit. Some members may have earned more respect, but all non-admins are equal. And the project is to unite people of a common knowledge base. Remember, we are not voting, but trying to reach a consensus. So can we please all be civil and end this like professionals. The Placebo Effect 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, there's been plenty of discussion about the mertis of this section. The problem is, the only resonsces I see are to somebody "misbehaving", rather than about any points they make. Ignoring somebody's points because they "aren't nice" won't get us anywhere. A suggestion: take "behavioral" issues to user talk pages of the person(s) involved, rather than cluttering this up.

Now as for discussing the merits of the section...that's exactly what I've been doing. I've said it before: I'm all for trimming it, but NOT for moving it to a second page. I'm of the opinion that brief, succinct descriptions of the main characters are necessary information on an article about a largely character-driven show. Thus, I can't support any proposal to merge that section into another page. It serves an important purpose on this one.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you on the trimming, but I don't understand why you are opposed to an additional page that expands much more on the subject. As far as I am aware nobody is suggesting the wholesale removal of that section, right? However, reducing it is valuable, and if we're going to have a generic character page, not including the main characters doesn't make sense. A simple list with short descriptions would be quite adequate even if you don't want the paragraphs to be found there now. FrozenPurpleCube 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that removal was indeed suggested, based on the merge template, since that's what merging is. If you're instead talking about simply copying the section's content...well, I'm not aware of any polciy or guideline that suports that sort of thing, and I really don't see where any benefit would be gained from a central characters page, but so long as this article is left intact, I could live with it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say you were mistaken then, since nobody was proposing that at all. A merge does not have to completely eliminate the content of one page. Not even sure why that template is up there, I thought I used split. Guess not. Oh well, just to assure you though, that's not what anybody is asking for. The section itself is still going to be there, just in a different form. And I don't know about any explicit policies or guidelines, however, as I pointed out, most of the featured articles for televisions already have such pages, and it would address some concerns on the FAC. FrozenPurpleCube 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about merit in decision making and discussion, not editing! And I'm not referring to myself BTW. I mean some members in certain articles have earned more say in matters than others. This being an example. Now back to the discussion at hand please. -Dylan0513 22:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you may wish to read WP:OWN. Making a distinction between editors is not a good thing, and should be avoided. It personalizes situations, and tends to distract from the real merits of any argument. FrozenPurpleCube 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This being a good example, XD. And putting Wikipedia policies aside, I don't have any disrespect for most editors, I just think some people who have experience on this project should have a little more say in issues than someone who has less. That's all. And everyone makes distinctions between editors, I guarantee it. If you wish to discuss this further, you can at my talk page. We are discussing the issue at hand in which I think a majority disagrees on this proposal. -Dylan0513 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If those experienced users are really capable of making a sound argument based on their experiences, then they should be able to make that argument, and not simply rely on claims of experience or seniority. FrozenPurpleCube 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why won't you stop? We've already stated out arguments, go back and read and stop being so lazy. I said take this to my talk page if you are so unhappy. -Dylan0513 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm not bringing it up, I'm replying to you, who brought it up, and who continues to argue it. Since other people have also brought up the idea, I don't feel it's simply a personal issue which you need to be cautioned on directly, but a more general concern. However, if you do wish discussion on the issue at hand, you need only discuss the issue itself. FrozenPurpleCube 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, this is getting pathetic. I'm all for reducing the character section in the main, and having a more elaborate version on the list article. Manticore, WP:Own is not going to be a really strong point here, if you've seen some of the edits brought to us time after time, you'd understand, I see where this is coming off as an issue, but really we're just trying to make sure that some of the absolute trash doesn't remain to be seen. If the people who come in and edit on the fly didn't have to be reverted so much, it'd be nicer. But yeah, reduce the main article's section and have a more elaborate article as the list one. --Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 09:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, so what if it doesn't conform to the format of the other FA articles? Does the same thing not become stale and mundane after seeing the conformity? FA, in my opinion, is a trophy rank; it doesn't matter. Oh sure, If we continue at this maybe we will never push this to FA. BIG DEAL. Have good ideas not popped up from something ambitious in the past? I ask you guys this. --Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 10:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to completely agree with you, Whydoit. Is the FA status really worth it if we have to go through all this (for lack of a better work) shit? -Dylan0513 11:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whydoit, I have seen some of the edits, yes, and I have seen the responses to them. If anything, that makes a stronger argument to consult WP:OWN than not. I'm afraid it seems to me that certain people have gotten worked up about vandals, and preventing the page from being ruined, that they've begun to react to anybody else's involvement in the same way. While vandal fighting is important, it's even more important to not begin to react to everybody in the same way, to be gentle, to assume good faith, and to persuade folks with good arguments, not to denigrate them because they aren't one of the crowd. FrozenPurpleCube 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Will you stop quoting that guideline! It's like the only thing you know! Just because you may feel excluded doesn't mean you can go say we're doing something wrong and treating us badly. This discussion has ended and the topic of splitting the character section is dead resulting in it not getting approval. I will take the tag off now and not expect anyone else to reply to this section of the talk page. -Dylan0513 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to stop quoting that guideline when you stop violating it, and try to make real arguments about your position. As it stands, you've made it several times, but not once have you said why things should be one way or another. That is not at all helpful, and is pretty unconvincing. Besides, I think you've misinterpreted the consensus, which seems to point towards editing the section with no prejudice against a character page. FrozenPurpleCube 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's look at things this way: if nobody wants to remove the characters section here, just trim it (as was talked about doing before this whole mess even started) the debate really has nothing to do with this page. If the debate is about no more than the existence of the characters page, somebody just nominate it for deletion, and settle the question that way.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Frye. And this is the last mention of this: You don't just keep mentioning it to me, but to everyone you get into a disagreement with. And a character page has no point if it's also on the main page. As I keep saying, Maybe if you read my argument originally, you'd know why I feel the way I do. Please do not reply to this anymore. Take arguments about me to my talk page and about a new characters page by nominating it for deletion. =Dylan0513 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I assume you're talking to me, I'd like to point out to you that your contention is untrue, I have not used WP:OWN in a discussion I've had with another person just today. Why? Because it didn't come up. If people hadn't made possessive statements here, I also wouldn't have brought it up. And really, if you were so concerned about moving this off this talk page, why haven't you used my own? I'd have used yours, but I'm concerned that you'd actually resent that more. FrozenPurpleCube 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop replying to this. And I don't resent you, we just disagree on this. I've seen you use that elsewhere and it's really annoying. Back up your arguments with something else. I have no idea how to lock a section of the talk page but if anyone knows or something of the similar, this would be a good time. -Dylan0513 12:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I continue to sense some resentment. Is there some reason why you can't take the action yourself of simply not replying if it bothers you so much to continue this discussion? I do think you may need to look at some of the many pages Wikipedia offers for advice. I really don't think this attitude of "Please stop this" is helpful, as I'm being polite and not attacking you, but you're acting like I am. Hence the perception of resentment. In fact, given your attitude here, I am even less inclined to take it to your talk page. I think you'd feel even more attacked. FrozenPurpleCube 14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Animated logo slowing / freezing anyone else?

The animated gif that is now replacing the old jpg logo appears to be slowing down my browser (MSIE 6). Is anyone else experiencing this problem? (And more importantly, does this particular animated gif add to the encyclopediac nature of the article?) --Snicker^|¥°^€| 13:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)