Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Reactions by Cameron's Peers

Spielberg, Michael Moor, Richard Kelly, Duncan Jones, Bryan Singer etc.... should be included somewhere. --Harac (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I cited some info from this site into the article under reception. DrNegative (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)

Reception by Hindus (Christians and other publics)

Hello. This is my maiden stint at Wiki, so please be (somewhat) lenient to me and guide me towards improvement.

• Suggestion: That a section entitled something like "Controversies over its title and philosophy" or "Reception by Hindus and other religious groups" be included either after "Awards and nominations" under "Release", or by itself.

• Rationale: There have been some religious discussions around the movie before and after its release. A US-based Hindu group expressed public concern with the movie's title as misappropriated from Hindu theology. A NYT Op-Ed columnist called the movie "a Gospel According to James" promoting anti-Christian pantheistic views. The Hindustan Times called "Avatar" a misnomer for the movie but reported its message as in line with the Bhagavad Gita, Hindu's most sacred book. There might be some more feedback on the movie to come from various religious groups, so it seems that an addition of such a section is not unwarranted.

• Draft:

Prior to the movie's release, a US-based Hindu statesman Rajan Zed voiced public concern over the alleged misuse of the term 'Avatar' as the movie's title, arguing that the term is held sacred in Hinduism and asking J.Cameron for a disclaimer. [1], [2] The concern was supported by Nevada Clergy Association [3] and a Hindu leader in Trinidad and Tobago Satnarayan Maharaj. [4] However, other Hindu followers in US found the movie elucidating on the actual meaning of 'Avatar' rather than sacrilegious. [5]

Hindustan Times, the second most-widely read English newspaper in India called 'Avatar' a "downright misnomer" for the movie, but reported that its message is culturally similar to that of the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred book of Hinduism. [6]

In his New York Times Op-Ed article Ross Douthat called the movie “the Gospel According to James” of “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” incompatible with Christianity. [7] Other Christian critics warned that "[t]he danger to moviegoers is that AVATAR presents the Na'vi culture on Pandora as morally superior to life on earth. If you love the philosophy and culture of the Na'vi too much, you will be led into evil rather than away from it." [8], emphasized the movie's thematic elements deemed objectionable to Christians [9] and suggested that Christians see and interpret the movie as a reminder of Jesus Christ as "the True Avatar". [10]

Cinosaur (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for a new section since this can easily be accommodated by the pre-existing critical reception section - 'critical reception' embraces a whole body of opinion that stretches beyond simply how good the movie is or isn't. I have concerns that many of the sources that you provide above such as "Hindu Blog" would not satisfy the 'notability' criteria that is required for opinion pieces, but The New York Times certainly qualifies. Betty Logan (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It qualifies, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be included. We have a lot of differing opinions on the movie already for sources far more credible than an op-ed piece. Just because someone, somewhere publishes an opinion on the movie that hasn't been explored here, that doesn't mean we have to include it in the article. Unless someone notable wrote the op-ed piece, I don't see any reason to include it.Trusilver 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to avoid using dedicated sections to list "controversies" because it tends to undermine NPOV and the general flow/structure of the article itself. It would be better to list this info under "Critical Reaction" if of course it has a reliable source to back it. This way the statement(s) would share their view with the positive opinions as well. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. DrNegative (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for comments. May I answer them piecemeal?

• Regarding including the facts into the Critical reception section -- agreed, that was my initial thought too. However, upon reading the section I saw that it focused exclusively on opinions of either professional film critics or peer writers/directors. I therefore wonder if including facts on public reception of the movie there won't be at odds with the existing smooth and clearly defined contents?

Besides, the proposed section is mainly about its religious reception rather than professional/artistic one. Wouldn't it be like comparing apples and oranges there?

An option could be to have a subsection 'Public reception' under 'Release' and put these facts there, but admittedly I don't see these facts as qualifying for such a broad title unless we decide to add more data on the movie's reception by other publics.

• To Betty Logan: Thanks for pointing out that Hindu-blog might not be notable. I have taken it out. The only reason I included it in the first place was to balance reports on Hindu opposition to the movie title with favorable Hindu views expressed there, for better objectivity. I have also found more mainstream mass-media references for reports on Hindu demands for a disclaimer and have included them in the draft. Please have a look. However, the rest seems notable enough to me: Houston Chronicle, Hindustan Times, and NYT.

• To Trusilver: As for NYT Op-Ed credibility, it is written by Ross Douthat, a NYT's conservative mouthpiece. I thought he was notable enough, and represented a large stratum of conservative Christianity-oriented public in US.

• To Dr.Negative: Thanks for welcome. Agreed on 'Controversy' as too controversial. Cinosaur (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

General Plot section issues

I accept that my edits had faults, though I do believe that the plot section does need some major revamping. I understand that it shouldn't be too "in-universe", but right now it is a collection of two sentence paragraphs that don't make any sense together. One thing that should be considered is that this movie is 2 1/2 hours long and the plot isn't simple, so the section may reach a little over the 699 word limit if it is to read well, which is after all the ultimate goal- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

See the two sections above about the plot. I didn't read all of your edits as I don't wish to be spoiled on the plot, however from the first few sentences, I saw nothing that added to the summary that met guidelines, only excessive wordiness (stating "the protagonist" which is not necessary, for example) and extraneous details). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I understand that my edits had faults, but rather than undoing my edits and taking the plot section back to square 1, perhaps you could have improved on them, for instance by taking out the word "protagonist". Also, I understand that you don't want to be spoiled on the plot, though we are trying to improve this section, and since it is the plot section, their may be a few "spoilers"-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

It was overall just too long, and I made a reasonable choice to revert based on a quick skim of the edits. Bringing it just under 700 just because we can really isn't needed. The plot was just trimmed today by an editor over quite a few edits...why not let it stand a bit, or suggest specific things you feel are lacking in terms of information missing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, so you haven't even seen this movie and are actively avoiding information about its plot ("spoilers")? Then why the heck are you, of all people, highly active in writing the plot synopsis? No offense, but shouldn't someone who actually knows what they're talking about do that? 74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to see the movie, not read the synopsis. I do not have to have seen the movie to express a view on the length of the plot section, which I know plenty about as an experienced editor in film articles. Sorry, but I have yet to see any film of this length and type that could not be properly summarized in under 700 words in a way that non-fans couldn't get the basic guist of it. A nine page book series can be properly summarized in less words than that, so why can't this film? Because people are stuck on including minor details that while relevant for someone wanting to get into in-depth philosophical discussions of the film may find relevant, are not necessary to get the basic understanding of the plot. And FYI, I have not written a single word in the article, beyond correcting the date formats and doing some mild reverting in responses to edits. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, if it makes sense for the plot summary to not have spoilers then I'm confused about what sort of audience the plot section is meant for. If it's primarily for people who haven't seen the film and don't want "spoilers," then yeah it makes sense for it to read more like what the back of a movie's DVD case would tell you. But I've always thought that these articles were supposed to contain thoughtful analysis of a movie for encyclopedic purposes, not just a "preview" of one for potential moviegoers. This is an encyclopedia, not some ticket sales site. I feel like I should be able to come to this article and get a good plot explanation that includes a brief analysis of the point of it all, and that's just not gonna happen without spoilers.74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was primarily for people who haven't seen the film, nor did I saw it was for anyone who doesn't want spoilers. Obviously the plot will have spoilers. Where did you get anywhere in my reply that I wanted spoilers removed?? Wikipedia contains spoilers, plain and simple. The plot section should be a summary of the film with the major plot points from beginning to end. That's it. It is not written purely for fans, but anyone interested in reading the plot of the film for a purpose of giving the article context as a whole. The plot section should not, however, contain every nuance, minute scene, etc. It is not a substitute for seeing the film, but a summary of the major points. See WP:MOSFILM, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF for the relevant guidelines. And no, it is NOT supposed to contain a "thoughtful analysis" unless said analysis comes from reliable sources, and that doesn't go in the plot section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay at this point I think we're arguing in favor of the same thing in different words, and mistaking the other person for being in disagreement. I too don't want the plot to have minute details; by "thoughtful analysis" I just mean the "big picture." The stuff I was saying we should add about the neural network is a "big picture" thing because it is the sole source of conflict in this movie. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright guys, I think that one thing we can all agree on is that this article's plot section is at the moment in terrible condition. Right now I am working on a new plot section, which you guys may improve on (though not undo), since this is taking me a while. One question, should I leave in the first 2 paragraphs, because I see that some of the info is covered in the topic section. Also, read Flyer22's comment at the bottom. I think out of any of this it has the most relevance to whats going on-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Alright I understand. I think that the information in the first two paragraphs could be trimmed down or could be scattered throughout the article, which would therefore leave more room for plot information. It would also leave more room for sentences that could make paragraphs such as this read better: "Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) orders Jake to gain the trust of the Na'vi so as to get them to abandon Hometree, which covers a large unobtanium deposit. As part of his Omaticaya initiation, Jake tames a flying creature known as a Banshee."-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

You're right, many of the paragraphs contain seemingly unrelated plot points. If someone could group sentences better and add transitions, the plot description would improve a lot. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The plot should be a start to finish summary. If it is out of order, by all means correct it, please. Quick scanning the first two paragraphs, yes, some of that should be cut down and moved to appropriate mention as they occur (and the height and all is really excessive detail). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that some of the sentences in there are trivial details that could be removed outright alongside the stuff I'm recommending that we add, but again, the article looks like it's locked for me so I can't do that trimming or any rearranging for cohesion myself.74.128.201.242 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

-Also, there are featured movie articles which have excelled 699 words in their plot sections (though did not reach the over 1000 words of my faulty edit). 300 for example.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

300's plot was shorter when it was passed for FA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would rather keep the plot discussion in one section, but I will state that I was surprised that editor Tovojolo trimmed the Plot section; Tovojolo has been the main one adding to the plot these past few days. And with all the complaints about the plot section leaving out important or complicated detail, I am beginning to think more and more that this is not a plot that can be adequately conveyed in just 700 words. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This may not be a very good example as it's only a GA. But Titanic is another long film, and its plot is at 2,114. --Mike Allen 07:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, and AnmaFinotera recently put tags on that article; it likely needs some cleanup, seeing as I usually trust AnmaFinotera's judgment on Wikipedia matters (even when I sometimes disagree with those judgments). Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

On my 2nd reedit of the plot section, I feel that I am making the same mistakes as last time. Could you guys tell me specifically what I did wrong so that I may not make the same mistakes?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Alright, since my edit has lasted for at least 5 minutes, I am assuming that everyone has decided to not undo. Could you guys tell me how else the plot section could be improved?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Well, certain factoids that are included such as "by disabling the bulldozer's camera systems" and "As part of his Omaticaya initiation, Jake tames a flying creature known as a Banshee and is allowed to choose a mate" are highly specific in nature and contribute nothing to the "big picture" understanding of the plot. Trimming out all those can shorten the summary greatly. Yet at the same time, certain "big picture" things are missed entirely or misrepresented. For instance, there's the failure to explain things in the context of the underlying nature of Pandora (the treeroots), and as a result there's statements like "They attempt to transplant (Augustine's) soul into her avatar with the help of the Tree of Souls, but she dies from her wounds." that are outright wrong due to the lack of that context (in that case, it wasn't about souls at all, and she didn't just die; her brain's information was successfully assimilated into the treeroots/Eywa). The article needs more explaination of why a main character did something major (ex. Jack's preference for his life as the avatar because it gives him legs is what made him get so involved in that alternate life), whereas the more minor things the characters do which are currently laundry-listed off (ex. disabling camera systems) need to just be left out to save space. In general, the article needs to be less about going scene-by-scene and describing the mundane details of each, and more about describing how things fit in, and pulling all the facts together to make one unified message. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the feedback. I was just unsure about the length (you know that issue), but yeah sure I'll definitely add more details. I've seen the movie twice (so far), so I remember quite a lot of detail. I'm just glad that my edits aren't undone. By the way, you should consider getting an account so then you could contribute to this article as well, because you sound like you have valuable things to say-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, I had a feeling that's why the article was locked for me. I made an account once; I'll dig up its password. 74.128.201.242 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Length of Plot section

I appreciate everyone's concern about the length of the plot section, though I do believe if everyone saw the movie, they themselves would appreciate that this plot is long and complex (since after all, the movie is 2 1/2 hours long). While there are still some unnecessary details which need to be weeded out (which I have been working on for the past few hours), most of the content in the section is relevant and is hard to shorten without losing important plot facts. As Mike Allen mentioned above, the plot section for Titanic was over 2,000 words and is currently rated a GA.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Other films having longer plot sections are not a valid excuse to shove in extra words. Sorry, but even without seeing it the film is not that complex. It is only "complex" when people feel the need to explain every nuance of the fictional world, which is not necessary. Please sto claiming Titanic's is 2000+ words. It isn't. Its just under 1300 words, which is still way too long and in serious need of cutting down - its being GA is irrelevant, as GA does not include compliance with WP:MOSFILM (and note that it failed its FAC due to the plot and other issues). However, if you want to look at GA examples, Category 6: Day of Destruction is a THREE hour movie, with multiple story lines going on. It is summarized in under 600 words. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The movie Category 6: Day of Destruction is about a hurricane destroying a city, which in itself is very simple and could be summarized in 600 words. This movie, on the other hand, covers multiple topics, including Jake Sully's saga through Pandora, the "treeroot" system, Col. Quaritch's desire to destroy the na'vi etc., all of which are important to the plot and should be included in this article. Also, if articles such as 300 or Titanic have +600 word plot sections but are still graded as FA or GA, then why are we having this discussion in the first place? Are we arguing for the sake of arguing or for the actual improvement of the article?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

One - other articles having problems is not an excuse to do the same here. And no, the treeroot system and all that does NOT need extensive explanation. Titanic is flagged for plot clean up now, and 300's is just above the 700 mark, and nothing like what y'all are continuing to try to do here. We are not talking about those articles, we are talking about this one. This film does NOT warrant going past the 700 word mark. Its that simple. Its obvious you loved the film, but the plot section does not need every nuance for someone to get a basic understanding of the plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm just trying to improve this article because:

• When I first viewed the plot section of this article, it was in a terrible condition
• I generally try to help improve Wikipedia when such sections are in such conditions

My opinion about the movie have nothing to do with it. Yes, I may have seen it twice because I think it was a good movie, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that this article is C-grade and I think we would all like to raise it to at least B-grade. I doubt that the length of the plot section would effect this article as much as the length of more important sections, such as "Reception", since after all that is more important (plus, for the last time, those movies that I have mentioned have been rated past B-grade, even with plot sections above the 600 words you continue to preach about [yes, that is a relevant point by the way]). Still, a plot section that is well-written and not over 1000 words is needed, which I have been trying to work on all morning. The problem is, this is a complicated plot, and I think I would know more since I have seen the movie twice. I would appreciate it if you could help me write this article instead of criticizing my every dang edit, because in the end, it is slowing down progress and annoying many people. Thanks- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Actually, 300 is now at 631 words, without the loss of any major plot points. Yes, the length of the plot does affect the article just as much as any other section. A well-written plot section shouldn't need more than 700 words in 99% of the cases, and this is not one fo the exceptions. You consider it a complicated plot, but that doesn't make it such nor does it mean that every nuance needs to be explained. I'm not criticizing your every edit, nor is anyone else. We are attempting to discuss the on-going issues with the excessive amounts of plot being added to the article in general. It isn't anything personal, nor does it mean that anyone here is less interested in seeing it improved. You improve it your way, others are free to improve it in other ways, which includes pointing out issues and discussing them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is, you have been arguing with me all morning rather than providing contribution to this plot section at all. Your point about people contributing would be valid had you of edited this article in a productive way rather than, as they say, trolling on this talk page. Now tell me, are you arguing with me to embetter this article about Avatar, or are you arguing with me for the sake of being right? From you tone of voice, it seems like the latter.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

I am arguing to improve the article, as someone who is concerned about the state of all film article as a member of the Films project and one of its coordinators who takes interest in such matters when they are called to the project's attention. If I were arguing with you for the sake of "being right" I'd say it has to be under 700 period and that's that. I've repeatedly read the arguments that the film is "too complex" without any concrete examples of what is so complex that it just must have more words. I've attempted to explain several times why I feel this one does not need to exceed the stated length guidelines. I've responded to the examples you gave (and corrected one even), noting that one failed its FAC for that reason and is now tagged for length. I've pointed to other examples of good plot summaries of longer films, which you rather rudely dismissed as a "simple" film despite its 3 hour length. Calling me a troll is neither a proper assumption of good faith nor a civil response to reasonable discussion. I am not the only one who has noted issues with the plot length and the excessive detail. Attacking me and claiming I'm not being "productive" by joining in the discussion is really not helpful to a resolution either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my comments about you being a troll, but you must understand my frustration. I have been working hard to try to improve the plot section. It all started yesterday when you rather rudely undid my edits (which by the way took me a considerable amount of time to do) and took the section back to square 1. Yes, I understand that my edits had faults, but rather than undoing, which is the easy way out, you could have built upon my edits, like its supposed to be done, since I think though there was some excessive detail on some facts, there was some usable content in there. I understand that plot sections cannot be 1000 words long, but this plot, no matter who says it, is complicated (I would know since I saw the movie), so it has been quite hard to try and fit all of that information in there without passing the apparent 700 word mark. Since you are an editor who has had considerable experience (yes, I saw your page), perhaps you could give me the advice I've been looking for this entire time.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

I don't know where I got over 2,000 words for Titanic, I put it in MS Office Word just now and it says 1,245 words. I must have been half asleep last night. Anyways, from what I gather, having a looong plot can be considered a copyright violation. So that's one reason why it's strongly discouraged. --Mike Allen 20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote?

Perhaps we should take a vote to reach WP:Consensus about this article's plot section? This back and forth is not solving anything, and plot section lengths are sometimes a case-by-case issue. It seems that the editors of the The Dark Knight (film) article have also reached consensus about the length of that film's plot section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

All those for the current length version of the plot section, vote Support, with a brief reason why and by listing your editor name or IP account, under the Support option; those against it, vote Oppose, with a brief reason why and by listing your editor name or IP account, under the Oppose option.

Support

• Support for the reasons I stated in the above plot sections on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Length is never a valid reason to delete something. Too many articles are destroyed, and replaced by some brief token bit that no one finds interesting. If you don't want to read something, you can easily skip over it. Dream Focus 20:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support-ish: While the current length doesn't strike me as excessive (especially considering the film's own length), if it can be summarized more concisely, I see no problem with that either. The plot can always be found in the film itself, while an encyclopedia has the additional ability to treat the film as an object of (sourced) analysis and social interest. Also, nobody is suggesting that a vote tally can replace consensus. Votes just help to give everyone a sense of where others stand at the beginning of the consensus-reaching process, and to bring up specific points that need to be addressed. This is what jurors often do during deliberation, and it is what Wikipedians do all the time at WP:AFD, WP:RFA, WP:DRV, and so on. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I would prefer we accept a slightly longer plot that lets us use more attractive prose, than an unappealing list of plot points. A lot does go on in this film, and if we're going to try to capture it at all, we should try to do it well. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support The plot of this movie is long and complex and is hard to contain in less than 700 words if it is to read well. Perhaps a 850 or 900 word limit would suit this.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC))
• Support. The length is fine, but needs to be as concise as possible. Also it would be great to include more about the film's greater significance that can be directly inferred from the film in and of itself. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose both the notion of a vote and the current length. Wikipedia is not a vote and simple stating "the length is fine" without any actual discussion on the content is pointless. The length is too long because it contains excessive detail that is not necessary to understanding the plot of the film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • AnmaFinotera, I proposed a vote because voting has been done with other Wikipedia articles in order to help reach consensus, such as whether or not to merge the Anakin Skywalker article with the Darth Vader article (that topic has been debated several times). I understand what you mean when you say "Wikipedia not a vote," but voting is often used on Wikipedia. Additionally, I have seen actual discussion going on above about the length of this article's plot section, in different spots on this talk page, without any hint of consensus being reached. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly advise everyone to move on from discussing the plot summary. Get it within the 400-700 word range and keep it there. The plot summary is the least important part of the article, but too many editors waste their time forever fine-tuning it. The point of the summary is to give readers context for the rest of the article. Of course there is a whole world to Avatar, like there is a whole world to be found in any epic novel. We don't reiterate that world all over again here; it can be visited directly. The summary will continue to change and change with its value never being strengthened. What needs to be done by all involved is to provide real-world context for this film. The most compelling point of a film article on Wikipedia is that it can tell the story about the story itself -- how it was made, how it was received, etc. Anyone can watch this film; very few people get the opportunity to read the background as drawn together by editors from sources not easily accessible or known. For example, Cinefex has major coverage about Avatar that could be incorporated into this article. Let the summary alone if not to keep the word count down; work on everything else. Erik (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

People are not going to stop discussing the Plot section, though, Erik. Because of that, we should work this out. Leaving it at 700 words is not going to stop the constant complaints this matter has caused; it is not just the IPs complaining about the Plot section leaving out important or complicated details, but also registered editors (some who are experienced editors here).

The rest of this article is already taken care of, though more can be added to some of those parts. It is already suitable for GA status, in my opinion (though more tweaking may be suggested during its GA nomination). I have been one of the least concerned about this article's plot section, except for when it comes to the matter of keeping it from getting really long. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, the plot is now at 773 words after a trim from 900+. Personally I'm happy with anything under 1K as I acknowledge it's a long film, but I'd also support the argument that it should be under 700 words per policy. Sorry I missed out on the debate, was visiting my folks for Xmas. If folks aren't happy with my changes feel free to revert! Doniago (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd already gotten the Plot section under control. But thanks for your contributions, Doniago. I added back in the "Physically stronger and several feet taller than humans" part. But I'll likely alter the word "several." They are rather a few feet taller than humans. When I think of "several," I always think of "seven or more." From what I saw often stated in previous versions of the Plot section, the Na'Vi are nine feet tall. That equals only "a few" feet taller ("three or more") in my book.

Anyway, I hope you had fun. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was B-class. Unfortunately any summary I could provide would lack reliable sourcing and be longer than Wiki policy recommends. (grin) Doniago (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Smart and wise reply. Flyer22 (talk)

I meant to state earlier that I will go ahead and leave it as "several feet," judging by what Cameron states in the Themes and inspirations section. From those comments, the Na'vi are 12 feet tall. But Maybe Cameron did not make them that tall in the film. It's either 9 or 12; I am not sure. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We also have to consider that not all Na'vi are exactly 9 or exactly 12 feet tall; all humans are not 4, 6, or 7 feet tall, for example; "several feet taller" adequately explains the difference in height. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)