Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Sozin's Comet FAC

Oh, and Dylan, what do you think about another go with Sozin's Comet at FAC? --haha169 (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's been done before. Not that much of a stretch then. As for Sozin's Comet? I think there's not a whole lot more that can be done to improve it, but I don't think it would pass the nomination. That shouldn't stop us though; as soon as it's improved as much as it can be someone should nominate it again noting the new improvements. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuke and Derek have done great work with expanding the Production. I'm personally too tired or too lazy (one of the two) to find and fix the small grammatical errors and other issues littered within the article - I'm leaving that to FAC reviewers. But are there really some bigger problems, like you mentioned? --haha169 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And when you say that it has been done before - remember that Castlevania is the only character FL and is video-game based, so we are still setting a precedent if we pass. :) --haha169 (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's a lot better than there being none for any medium. Big problems for the Sozin's Comet article? I just think overall the FA people will be less likely to pass it because of its length and therefore less sources. It shouldn't be a problem to them, but I don't see why they didn't pass it last time. -Dylan0513 (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Last time, it was mainly for the lack of professional-standard prose and not enough expansion of the production section. That might be fixed by now, but a copy edit would be appreciated. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 14:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

News

- 2008 Peabody Award. Winner: Avatar: the Last Airbender (3rd April 2009); THE GEORGE FOSTER PEABODY AWARDS: http://www.peabody.uga.edu/news/event.php?id=59. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlteixeira (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've added it. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes up for FLRC

Hey all, List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes is up for FLRC. I am posting this message here, because although I also posted it at the Wikiproject, I figure that more people watch this page. I'd appreciate if someone else could help me out in fixing the issue with the citation templates (ie, taking the bare urls, and putting them within the full version of {{cite web}}, without deleting any parameters). I would ask that this message not be taken as canvassing (ie, don't go vote keep at that FLRC just because you saw this message), but instead that you take this oppurtunity to help one of WP:AVATAR's lists out. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Lightning as a Substyle?

I believe that the Firebenders' usage of lightning would fall under the Substyles category in the Cultural influences section. If plantbending and bloodbending (vitually the same concept) fall into this category, lightning is important enough as to be in it, too. The Firebenders in the series are often shown having to practice their technique while bending lightning, and redirecting the lightning is also a prominent topic. Several parts of the plot, including many with Azula, revolve around the "casting" of lightning, much more so than plantbending. Correct me if i'm wrong, or if this is just semantics, but lightning is a large enough topic and part of Firebending to be included in the Substyles section. ~ 71.109.171.63 (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Dawn of Darkness

Dawn of darkness is just a fan made project, and all the information there is false. It should probably be removed. Of course if I were to remove it i'd get yelled at as always. (24.22.195.180 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

2010 Film

Shouldnt their be an article about the 2010 film heres the proof [1] The Movie Master 1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

The 2010 film, The Last Airbender, already has its own article so that it doesn't clutter the Avatar main article. Caterfree10 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender music

Is there nothing known about the music? Am I the only one who thought it was a major part of the series? Mallerd (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, music did play a major role throughout the series. I started a section 'Soundtrack'. I will maybe improve it later.--80.218.196.100 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

anime

i dont think 1 section of this article is correct really. its the "anime or cartoon one". i think it would be better to have it something saying that it is a cartoon and why instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.226.156 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender

What happened to this article? The link still exist but not the article. The Article was vital as it explained all about the four nations and included the element symbol, which this article lacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.177.47 (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted and redirected to this article by the original author (Nuke) for several reasons. See the WP:Articles for deletion discussion for more details. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

But the element symbols are vital. It should have been retained for this article's use. Nonetheless, The Last Airbender movie has the element symbols a little different from the show. Is is not addressed in either article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.177.47 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The addition of the symbols is something that's up to the editors that regularly contribute to this article. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If the discussion for the deletion of the article was KEEP, than why was it still removed? AnOicheGhealai (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Universe_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#Redirect. NW (Talk) 17:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Christ in "Cultural Influences" seems unnecessary.

This seems an awkward plug for Christianity. Why would Jesus need to be mentioned in discussion of classical avatars. Christianity doesn't speak of him as such, and the sentence "Christ is the universal consciousness that avatars possess" seems to be irrelevant if not uncited or just plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashaver (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it and the other info that strayed from the subject of the section. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-directing wikilinks

I wish I had the time to go through the article, but I thought I'd let the regular editors know that there are dozens and dozens of wikilinks of various Airbender-centric terms in this article that simply redirect the reader back to this article. "Fire Nation", "Bender", etc., all just send the reader back here. —divus 06:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get rid of some of them, though there are still a lot more to do probably, especially on other articles. Anyone know of a good script for identifying self-redirects? NW (Talk) 17:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of link to Avatar Wiki

I've noticed that I Feel Tired has recently removed the link to Avatar Wiki, citing that "Official Wikipedia policy on external links says that links to open wikis are to be avoided". This is true; however, the guideline also states that stable wikis with a substantial amount of editors are excepted. I believe that this case is one of those exceptions. This article has linked to Avatar Wiki for a long time, and in that long period, Avatar Wiki has steadily increased its number of articles and has maintained a steady base of editors. It has more than 900 articles about the series and has a few thousand unique visitors per day. For the past year, there have never been fewer than 30 editors who have made more than 5 edits during a one month period. I would like to see the link reinstated, but I would certainly prefer approval from others, as I have potential conflict of interest as an Avatar Wiki administrator. WHSL ^(Talk) 00:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Channel Guide Mixup: So Weird/Avatar: The Last Airbender on Nicktoons

Okay, I've seen this several times now, and I'm really confused as to how this mistake is even being made. I have Comcast, and sometimes on the channel guide for Nicktoons...well, once in a while, when an episode of Avatar: The Last Airbender is supposed to come on, in it's place there is instead an entry for the episode of So Weird, called 'Avatar'. Now, since So Weird hasn't been broadcasted for over 5 years, and that it's a Disney show, how are they managing to make such a strange mistake multiple times?--MixMaster81 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Relationships

I couldn't help but notice that there's not really any talk about certain relationships within the series. Aang and Katara's romance is touched upon, yes, but the article states that Katara never shows signs of her feelings towards Aang. This isn't true, seeing as how they've kissed three times in the show. Also, there is no mention of Zuko and Mai's relationship whatsoever. I hope that this will be rectified. Also, this is a bit unrelated, but there's no mention of how the series ends on a cliffhanger, and there's no mention of Zuko's mother, who's been missing for years. --Minako-chan27 (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

aang is an 112 year old boy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.181.227 (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to think of the romantic relationships within the show, or the fact that Zuko's mother is missing, as terribly important to the casual reader who wants to know the show is about and why it is notable. The series ending on a cliffhanger isn't really true - the ending resolves most of the loose ends, and in any case is impossible to source. The 888th Avatar (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Premise" Formatting Error

There is some weird formatting going on in the "Premise" section and I can't figure out how to fix it. There is a indented text block that ends in the middle of a sentence with the remainder of the sentence reverting to default formatting. The indented section also seems to begin rather abruptly but I don't know enough about the show to create a proper transition. I don't even know if that section is supposed to be indented or not which is why I don't know how to fix it. --Kitsunegami (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Plug for certain retail outlets

I think the last sentence of the second paragraph of the article is a little superfluous and violates neutrality to some degree. It seems to me that it serves more as an advertisement for Zune and Xbox Live than to contain information about the topic. Thoughts? MattW93 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

FLCL

In the article on the FLCL OVA it says 'The directors of Avatar: The Last Airbender, an American animated television series, claim inspiration from FLCL. Avatar director Giancarlo Volpe says the staff "were all ordered to buy FLCL and watch every single episode of it."' -Yet there is no mention at all of this influence on the Avatar page. If the information on the FLCL page is correct, I can't help feeling that as a strong influence it ought to be mentioned somewhere. --BMHBrown (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

metal bending

the article says about toph She is the only Earthbender seen in the show to learn to bend metal while in a episode its clear that King Bumi uses metal bending to destroy a statue of the Fire Lord in Omashu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.179.205 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC) The statue was also made from stone, so he was able to move it. He did not try to bend the metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxytee226 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Last Airbender vs. James Cameron's Avatar

Under Other Media: Feature Film is the sentence The film originally shared the title of the television series, but it was changed to The Last Airbender because the producers were worried it would be confused with the James Cameron film Avatar. That sentence should be changed to reflect the fact that it was changed because James Cameron already held the rights to the name Avatar, not because of a fear of mixing up the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.71.39 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't hold rights to a film's title. Jackal Killer (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The movie sucked

Yes, we all know this. That said, can we please make more of an effort to keep our personal opinions out of the article? I am getting a bit tired of some fanboy or fangirl coming here to argue that the movie sucked, as if their opinion had any value. It does not. Cite a source, or kindly abstain from editing. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why were they redirected?

Can anyone tell me why the articles for the bending arts and their respectful nations were redirected to the shows page? The articles on the bending arts and nations were well written and interesting. Now, if someone were to be interested in the series and wanted more info on the arts, all they get is info on the show. I'm not saying this article isn't great in it's own right, but other readers are sorta cheated out of learning more about the Avatar universe. I think it's fair to at least add links to those past articles on this page. Or was this discussed already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.21.241 (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles were deleted due to Wikipedia's policies on content inclusion. Wikipedia encourages the inclusion of articles written about fictional topics, but only when those article contain important and relevant information from the real world perspective. Usually, articles about fictional topics are composed of three types of information: plot summaries, interpretation of those plot summaries, and how those plot summaries relate to the outside world. Plot summaries are all and well, but Wikipedia is not a "Plot-only description of fictional works" (from WP:PLOT), so there needs to be something else other than just plot. As for the interpretation of those summaries, unless they can be referenced to a reliable source, they are what Wikipedia calls original research, which violates some of Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability. The only way an article on a fictional topic can be kept is if there is enough of that last type of information. If a fictional topic is important enough in our world, regardless of its relevance in the fictional world, then it deserves an article. Unfortunately, the bending articles did not have enough real world information, and the articles were mainly plot summary and original research. As a result, and after much debate from angry Avatar fans, the articles were merged. As a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender, I myself originally questioned why we were merged those articles in the first place, but once you are able to take a perspective in terms of improving the encyclopedia, it becomes more understandable. You can find more information in Wikipedia's Manual of Style on writing about fiction. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 23:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why some of that information (especially the ones that can be verified) can be moved over here. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, which information specifically. Because this article does have a Cultural influences section specifically designated for how bending and the elements in the Avatar world came to be. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I see information on the majority of elemental bending (Water, Earth, Air, Fire) although I see no mention of Energybending which is considered another primary bending technique. And the information of the nations are good. Altough the mentions of cities that are merged here such as Omashu and Ba Sing Se I see no sign of being here. Thus making redirections with these type of names useless. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And keep in mind you can be more personal in detail with the abilities of Bending. In Airbending you can fly, In Earthbending you can also Metal bend, and Waterbend you can Bloodbend, and fire you can generate lightning. And then you can be specific with these abilities. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, both Omashu and Ba Sing Se are already mentioned in the Series synopsis section, where they belong. Metalbending is also mentioned in that section. As for bloodbending, this only occurs in one episode, and that episode was a filler episode, meaning it did not profoundly affect the main plot line. Therefore, it is not really of enough significance to be included in this article. It does, however, deserve inclusion in the appropriate season article (not to mention bloodbending is referenced to in Katara's character description in this article). Energybending and flying with airbending are sort of a gray area. I feel like energybending could deserve a sentence (but no more) in the Season Three section, primarily because it had a major effect on the plot line in the series finale. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)}

Ok. Sounds fair to me. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Legend of Korra

I have removed the plot description from the section because it is unsourced. I would like to know exactly how old Aang's son Tenzin will be in the series. If he is old, it would fit the time line that takes place 70 years in the future. If, however, he is young, that might conflict with the timelime.

By the way, the Associated Press released this picture in one of their articles. Might be of some use here. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I was skeptical of that new information, too, but a press release today confirms it; I've added the reference. Chaosthird (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we start a new page for the series? ChaosMaster_Chat 16:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is not enough information about it to warrant its own page at this point. It is better to keep it on the main page until we do.

I have noticed that some editors are jumping the gun a little by adding information from the spin off to character articles that solely focus on the main series. For instance, on both the Aang and Katara pages, an anon added that both of them had a son named Tenzin. The only problem is the news article mentioning the son doesn't say anything about Katara at all. This is a clear example of WP:Synthesis. People know that Katara and Aang kissed at the end of the show, and when the news report came out, they just assumed the two had a kid together. Though likely, we just don't have enough information to state this. When the new show finally comes out, I think the pages for characters alluded to from the first series should be divided into two parts: 'The Legend of Aang' and 'The Legend of Korra'. The mention of the son should only appear in the latter. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just reverted a mention of the two having a son on the main page. This will probably be a plague on the page until actual supporting evidence surfaces. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Referenced Katara and fixed the section a bit.... I know I am a horrible speller, so sorry bout that :P ChaosMaster_Chat 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the interview. Now we have to make sure no one adds the information to material pertaining to the original series. As I have stated above, the child was conceived after the first run, so it should only be mentioned in a section dealing with the spin off. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I agree. Maybe we should put warnings on pages like the one in the spinoff section now? And sorry about the name changes, it should be the last one. ChaosMaster_Chat 21:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Katara being Tenzin's mother WAS confirmed in the interview with Mike and Bryan. Also, I saw NO proof of this being a mini-series except for people on fansites (such as AvatarSpirit.net's forum, saying that they went to ComicCon and spoke directly to the creators themselves). NO video, press release,etc. We need proof of this before putting it in the article! --Freespirit1981 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Tenzin's mother was only confirmed once the interview with the creators was released by the Wall Street Journal, but it is indeed confirmed and should remain in the article. As for the mini-series, the only real proof I can find is the show being called a "mini-series" in the caption of a photo in one of the sources. If anybody has any other sources, please bring them forth. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)}

Just a note for everybody: if you change the section name, please edit the redirects at Avatar: The Legend of Korra and The Legend of Korra accordingly. Even so much as adding a dash will break the link to the section.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Updating article

"Nickelodeon executives have since released optimistic plans for upcoming marketing strategies in regards to Avatar. Nickelodeon President Cyma Zarghami openly stated his belief that the franchise "could become their Harry Potter".[63] They expect consumers to spend about $121 million in 2007, rising to $254 million by 2009.[63] The marketing plans are to be coincided with the release of the first live-action film based on the series in 2010, which will be the first film in a trilogy.[63]"

Are there any updates on this? It seems to be good information to have in the article, but its three years out of date. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the source it comes from talks primarily about a) the movie Nick signed M. Night on for, and b) merchandise such as video games, etc., which we already have in the article. I believe the only updates we might be able to find are updated statistics on whether Nickelodeon's marketing plans have indeed turned out successful. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox formatting

ChaosMaster16 and I are currently in disagreement over a slight formatting issue in the infobox. ChaosMaster16 prefers this version, where the fact that Mako and Greg Baldwin only voiced in specific seasons are denoted by small, bold headers on separate lines from the actor names themselves, while I prefer the original version, where that fact was simply noted by putting small text in parentheses next to the actors' names. Considering the voices list is supposed to just be a list of voices who were in the show, and that the seasons these two actors were in are just a side note, I believe the original version is neater since it does not abruptly break the list. Any thoughts? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 18:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the fact of using the bold formating and putting the two people at the end of the list, rather than the middle. Also, wouldn't the spinoff be based off of The Last Airbender, rather than on? For example, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets the movie is based on the book. But the Harry Potter theme park is based off of the Harry Potter universe. The Last Airbender movie is based on the first season of this series, where the new spinoff is a whole entirely new idea, show, and (as far as we know) has very little to do with The Last Airbender, but is in the same universe exc. and therefore, it would be based off of it, rather than on it. I thought I'd bring that up also instead of editing with a limited number of words and then having Parent revert and an edit war would break out. ChaosMaster_Chat 14:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the "based off of" versus "based on" issue, there is not much evidence saying so, but "based off of" is incorrect grammar, primarily because when you say "based", you are figuratively picturing your subject with the base of whatever it was derived from. That sounded like a bunch of gibberish to me, but here's where I found it: [2]. Other than that, there are just English forums that say it's bad to use ([3]). But other than the grammar difference, they mean exactly the same thing: one thing is derived from another. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 21:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not sure which one to say I like better. I kind of like the newer look although me and Chaosmaster16 did have disagreement on where the characters article should go. Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation

I believe 群雄四分 means heroes divided amongst themselves. And 天下一匡 means the world map in a frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.30.133 (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, 群雄四分 means "crowded quarters" and 天下一匡 means "all better world" according to Google Translate, but in reality we should find a good source for what the creators of the show intended the translation to be. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 07:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Little Information On Animation Studios

There is barely any information on the animation studios that worked on Avatar and some are not even list. JM Animation is the other studio that gets mentioned in the DVD extras. Besides DR Movie and JM Animation I think there might be another one that was mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.49.16 (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

cultural influences

I thought they also used oracle bone script 81.68.255.36 (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Avatar: The Legend of Korra

Why does that page come to this page? Something wrong? 203.81.107.113 (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That page doesn't have much content hence it is "diverted" to this page. Nothing's wrong. :) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the above comments by the IP, the target article Avatar: The Legend of Korra has a surprising 1,700 hits per day! Now that's worth at least a stub. If no one opposes, I will move the current "Spin-off" section to the Korra article. As I recall, it was once agreed to be recreated upon reaching sufficient notability. Besides, creating the article would trigger further hits, thus further expansion. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I previously opposed the separate article because the spin-off was still a rumor and nothing much was known. But now that we have so much (the air date, who's involved, a plot line, how many episodes), it deserves its own article. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Per this discussion I have created it. Feel free to participate on the article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Good job! Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good job with the article. Quick question, why is the "The" missing from the article title? Also, quick thing I have noticed. Why was the episode count removed from the text of the article? ChaosMaster_Chat 02:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I didn't remove episode count I just didn't add it. I didn't originally notice the older revision of the infobox and created it on my own. As for the name title it seems that almost every reference supports the name not having "The" put on there. Not only that, the Wikia version uses this name as well. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I don't know why the other user redirected the articles and everything. I did do the template though, sorry. ChaosMaster_Chat 02:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. And the other user was just moving the original history to the latest name. By the way I did put the episode count on there and citations on the top as well. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What is this episode count that was removed. I thought that was in the infobox but you removed it. So that's not it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Would the creators ever do a mini-series about what ever happed to Zuko's and Azula's mother? Also Sokka's and Katara's mother? Because they never really stated that they were dead. The can just be captives in a secret placethat the Fire Lord had. He could try to use that to get back his throne. So know the team would have find out all the clues and also battle some of the FireLord's special hynchmen, most fire nation, some are other benders that just don't like the Avatar. ( pirates, Mindbender, ruff rhino's,and etc.) That would be cool to see how TEAM AVATAR take on all with two new member, Mai and Ty Ling. It can be a bunch of twist and turns puzzles and excitements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.209.69 (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Avatar is not critically biased?

Yes I am a fan of Avatar the Last Airbender as well, however; I must complain about this page not being critically biased enough. All there is on this page is positive criticism of Avatar the Last Airbender and no negative criticism. There are plenty of critics who have said negative things about "Avatar," including some who complain it is too violent or dark for children. It is not true education unless we can be fair to both side of the story. At least that's my suggestion.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.131.216 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you mention some of the sources for this negative reception? Without knowing the sources in question we can't know if they they meet the reliable sources guidelines nor can we add anything until the sources are provided.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What about also the entire criticism about Avatar not being anime? Gune (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed image

This image was removed from the article for third time. 24.233.119.197 said, there are lots of official pictures which can be used. My question is: Are there any free official images? If not, we should use an inofficial one that shows the main characters. --Morten Haan (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would dispute that such an image is useful. In general it is debatable whether images add anything useful as we aren't supposed to add them unless they are, and adding a cosplay image is even less useful than normal. Just because it is free doesn't make it appropriate for the subject. Derekloffin (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Gonna have to agree on this one. Image is unnecessary and contributes no further understanding to the text, especially given its placement. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Netflix instant

"However, the show along with other Nickelodeon shows will be taken off of NetflixInstant Play as of May 22nd, 2011."

It's May 24th and Avatar and other Nick shows appear to still be online. Also can't find anything recent online about Nick shows being removed. Removing this line until there's more info. 173.80.137.53 (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The 5 Elements

The elements in Avatar are taken from witchcraft which has 5 elements: water, earth, fire, air and spirit (the symbol of witchcraft is a pentegram, a 5-pointed star, for the 5 elements). The first 4 are physical elements. The last element, spirit, is also presented in Avatar, in the final episodes, as an extinct element, that was exist before the beginning of the Avatar cycle. Aang learns this element, while disappearing, from the Lion-Turtle he meets. This element deals with the energy in our body.

Is this information is useful, and can be added to the article? Galzigler (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: a paragraph about the elements can also include information about the extensions for the elements - Bloodbending, Metalbending, Sandbending, Lightnings (Fire). Galzigler (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're going to need a source for the spiritbending stuff (preferable something from Nickelodeon explaining that's what they intended the finale to mean), though I would be hesistant to add it because this is really just supposed to focus on the external aspects of the show (as in as a TV show rather than as a fictional universe). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And where the hell am I supposed to get a source for that? It's a literary analysis, something that is not nessecerely published (and sometimes the creator don't even thinks about it), especially when the story was made for a TV show, and animated one too. Galzigler (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why it would need sourcing. Our analyses are considered original research, and like the rule or not, original research is a nono on wikipedia. You can get away with it on low profile pages, but the Avatar main page in particular is not low profile. Derekloffin (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah like Derekloffin said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for original research. Anything and everything must be taken from an outside source. Thus is the nature of a tertiary source. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple explanation. If you can't find a source for it, it's not important enough for the article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the elements were based off of witchcraft anyway. Gune (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A section for themes?

Hey guys. I'm a huge fan of Avatar the Last Airbender and one thing that I really like is how it handles rather mature adult themes despite being a children's show. I know its ambitious, but I wonder if the other editors here would be open to the idea of making a section that touches on these themes. I know many movies have such a section and some TV shows and these are often my favorite section to read. We can dig those up and look at them to give us an idea of how to start. What does everyone think? Captain Stack (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty good idea. Maybe not its own section, but definitely some mention under the Reception section. However, the big problem, as always, is WP:OR. We need some hard sources that say Avatar has a multitude of themes blah blah blah, etc. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Anime

Avatar is an American anime, sponge bob is an amarican animated series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmichaelknapp (talk • contribs) 06:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The terms are not mutually exclusive. All animes are animated series (well, the ones that are series). Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Vegetarianism?

I'm all for the themes section (I'm the one who started it) but I think it may have gotten a little out of hand. I mean, Aang is a vegetarian but I'm not sure it counts as a theme of the show any more than Sokka's love of his boomerang. It's part of Aang's character, but all the other characters, good and bad eat meat and I didn't get a strong impression that the show was trying to tell me that I'm bad if I'm not a vegetarian. It was just a little cultural nugget that added to Aang to give him and his people a little more depth. I vote the entire section for vegetraianism is removed. What does everyone else think? Captain Stack (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the Vegetarianism theme - And I think it falls well within any reasonable reading of the word as described by wikipedia. Actually all the other "themes" listed here are hardly accurate to the show or sourced. For example the first one "duality" where apparently the color scheme is taken to be evidence of the theme of the duality of good and evil - however that is directly contracted by Aang in the last season (and implicitly throughout the show I think) when he refuses to kill the fire-lord - they look at a picture of him as a child and think he's cute, if you remember - Dualism in terms of good and evil does not allow for that kind of view of human nature. Additionally, my edit was removed again because it was "unsourced original research and unnecessary to boot." However, that goes for all the themes here, since there's no academics doing published research in the thematic concepts in Avatar. As to your argument - choosing not to eat meat because you are committed to nonviolence is not the same as choosing a weapon you prefer to use. I would like your feed back. --KropotkinsLibrary (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, the entire Themes section is pure original research and should be sourced or removed. Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. I am the one who added the Themes section and I would be quite sad to see it go. The themes sections of books, movies, and TV shows is traditionally my favorite part to read. If you look at the themes sections for Antz, The Iron Giant, and Titan A.E., you’ll see that themes sections often lack thorough citation. While this always puts the section in danger of becoming original research, I think the key is to know where to draw the line.

In the case of Avatar and vegetarianism, I simply don’t think it was prevalent enough in the show. Destiny is constantly coming up in many episodes and with many different characters and in a sense, the show is “about” how the characters fulfill or choose to change their destines. The message is that you can choose to embrace your destiny or you can choose to make your own destiny.

Likewise, duality is very prominent in the show. Zuko being half disfigured, the moon and ocean spirits making a yin-yang, the many references to the importance of balance, the juxtaposition of red (sometimes orange) and blue, and the constant allusions to “good” and “evil” are all examples of the importance duality plays in the show. In a sense, the show is about the clash between opposite forces.

I just feel that vegetarianism is too incidental in the show to be considered a “theme”. The only character that is a vegetarian is Aang. If the entire vegetarianism part of the show was removed, it would be largely unaffected, whereas if the focus on destiny or duality were removed, the show would be vastly different. I really feel that vegetarianism was added to the show just to give Aang and the Air Nomads a little more cultural depth, but there is no strong message about vegetarianism. Many of the good guys eat meat so it doesn’t strongly suggest that morality is tied to vegetarianism.

I hope this explains more fully why I don’t feel vegetarianism should be included in the Themes section. If you have any questions, please ask. I’d love to discuss further if you still disagree. Captain Stack (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think that "I feel" is not an argument. It seems to me CaptinStack that you feel as though you originated this section and therefore own it. On my view Vegetarianism is not too incidental, and in fact the section is titled "themes" not "major themes" or "themes that seem relevant to CaptinStack". I actually cited one episode from each season in which the topic is specifically and substantively addressed. The tension between violence and nonviolence is a(nother) major theme of the show, and Aang's vegetarianism is a part of that. I think it is relevant, and just as justifiable and justified as any of the other themes.

Another legitimate theme, on my view, would be Sokka's scientific pragmatism. Not in every show, not shared by every character, but the kind of theme that made the show worth while. On my view at least. I would appreciate it if you undo the edit which removed my addition unless you can show me how my section is less a theme (according to the definition listed by wikipedia that I linked to) then any other. Again, while I respect the fact that you don't think it is relevant, I think that "I think" is not an argument. I've argued that the theme exists and that you and I both have no objective criteria for accepting or rejecting themes based on relevance.--KropotkinsLibrary (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

First and foremost, I thoroughly believe that anything on Wikipedia is owned by nobody. It is that quality that makes Wikipedia such a great resource and I do not appreciate your assumption of my intentions. My biggest priority is to make the section as good as it can be.

Despite my use of the phrases "I feel" and "I think," I was very specific with my arguments for why vegetaranism is not a theme of the show. The definition of theme according to the page you linked to says, "a theme is the central topic, subject, or concept addressed in a story." The important word in this definition is central. In the cases of both vegetaranism and scientific pragmatism, they are central parts of specific characters but not central parts of the show. I think I said it best when I said that if you were to remove vegetaranism from the show entirely, it would be largely the same show, just with a little less depth and detail. However, if you were to remove the focus on detiny or duality from the show, the entire show would be changed. Beyond the plot, the show is "about" these topics. The story is a way to talk about these topics. However, this is not the case with vegetaranism. Would you consider a theme of the show to be carnivorism based on Sokka's love of meat? Again, it's a detail about his character that gives him depth, but it's not a central topic addressed by the story. Is this a more satisfactory explanation of my opposition to the vegetaranism section?

Also, I feel I should address your comments about dualism in your earlier post. You are correct in pointing out that the moral ambiguity of many of the characters is not allowed in traditional dualist philosophy. However, this is the point of the show. The show is about how good and evil exist in the world but exist alongside moral grey areas. Zuko's and Iroh's transition from evil to good are to show that dualist morality is flawed and that morality has more layers than two. Dualism also can be applied to more areas than just morality. The importance of balance is an example of the importance of dualism and drawing wisdom from more than one place. Dualism can be a theme of the show without being preached by the show just like a movie with racism as a theme can be about how racism is wrong. Captain Stack (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A more concrete example of something with a theme it actually disagrees with is the game Bioshock. Objectivism is a big theme to the game's world, but is heavily critiqued by the deterioration of the game world you see. It is clearly not meant as an endorsement of Objectivism despite being a very big theme to the game. Derekloffin (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This conversation demonstrates exactly why Wikipedia has policy ensuring verifiability and neutral point of view--so that these subjective disputes do not occur. I agree with Goodbye Galaxy and the anon who recently edited the page. The entire Themes section is original research, uncited, and represents editor's personal points of view (and the discussion on this talk page clearly evidences these POV disputes between authors). The themes section does not belong in this article, nor do other uncited, POV-theme sections belong in other articles. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I knew that this snag might come up if I added the section and I have to respect the rules of Wikipedia. I do believe that the rules are not absolute and within reason, can be open to interpretation. When disputes come up, they can be worked around through discussion by the editors. Avatar DOES have these themes (as much as anything has themes), even if it hasn't quite gotten the critical attention to have these themes published. I also stand by my opposition to vegetaranism as a theme as explained in my earlier posts. This is inherent in the definition of a theme. That said, no themes (as far as I have seen) have been critiqued by professional sources and if we're playing hardball on this, I cannot argue for it to be left in. Captain Stack (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If it hasn't "gotten critical attention to have these themes published" then those themes are not notable, in addition to being original research. Again, the whole section should probably be removed. Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New page for locations in the World of Avatar: The Last Airbender

Shouldn't there be some article for the physical locations of Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra? Its an expansive world. Plus Lord of the Rings has full articles for even some of the most minute places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.92.2 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Establishing notability is the issue here. Wikipedia is draconian in wiping out pages that don't have what they consider notability. So, if you can find some 3rd party, particularly emphasis on 3rd party, analysis of the Avatar world (and probably need a fair bit to justify it being an independent page), great, post it here and I'm sure someone will make a page for it. Unfortunately, I doubt you'll find any. Promotional material from the creators or Nick is no good unfortunately, and our own analyses are even worse. And no, I don't particularly like these rules, I think they are way too strict, but I don't run this place. Derekloffin (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

False information

Since this is in fact an article about an American animated television series, I am going to change that back. Sure they got som help from Japan, but it's a straight fact that it's an American production.

Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka1184 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Momo

模模 does not mean "peach" in Japanese or Chinese. 桃 means peach in Japanese and Chinese (read "momo" in the former). 模模, if romanized "mó mó" as it is in the article, would be from Chinese, as Japanese has no tones. Those characters mean something like "imitation", "pattern" or "printing block". The reduplication would probably not occur in Japanese, so in my opinion it's probably derived from Chinese (if indeed those are the correct characters). I suggest someone knowledgeable in the show double-check them. CharonM72 (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Eponymous

In the series overview section, the word "eponymous" is used too many times and in places where it does not make sense. I am not editing it because wikipedia doesn't et me edit things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.206.175 (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2012‎ (UTC)

 Fixed. (You should be able to edit the page… there is no protection on it, and you do not appear to be blocked.) – Jonadin (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is one place where it makes sense, the mention of "the last Airbender". It can be restored there. GlassCobra 17:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Meaning that the title of the show is taken from the Avatar? I am not really familiar with the correct meaning of the word, but you are free to restore whichever usages make sense of course. I just think it makes the wording unnecessarily complex. – Jonadin (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops I was looking at the wrong one and you've already added it. Never mind! – Jonadin (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about Katara image

A few weeks back the image for Katara was changed from her appearance in the original series to her appearance in the new series in which she is about 70 years older. I personally think it should be changed back because this is the characters original appearance and she was a more prominent in the original series and a secondary character in the new one. The two images can be seen at File:Katara.png. I don't think the new image should be removed completely but I don't think it should be the main infobox image.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that the same was done for Aang as well so any decision regarding Katara should also apply there for the same reason.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Surprised I didn't notice this before. I have since reverted the images to their original forms. If we want to add pictures of them from Korra, they can be uploaded and added to the article separately. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I also just realized that the same was done for Toph and her role in the new series is less significant than Aang or Katara so can please fix that one as well.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I cannot seem to find the original Toph image, so it'll take a little while until I can fix that. Maybe somebody else knows where it is or has a suitable replacement. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on the editors page that merged the toph images. Hopefully he can help. Derekloffin (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it's anywhere. Old revisions of fair use images are normally deleted. It may be possible for an admin to undelete them, but I'm not sure.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that there are some pictures of her in her original appearance on Nick.com [[4]] and I was wondering if any of those would be useful replacements for the picture that was lost. I am not very good with images so can someone please look at them and if they think that the image is a good choice can they please add it.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-write

The "Production" section is too detailed and stretched, and should be seprated into three sub-sections - development, style, music. Hei Liebrecht 01:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Linking/citing

The newer reviewer who checked this was understandably unaware of the problems, but there are a few issues with citing and linking here. First, we should avoid linking to pages with unverifiable research and potential copyright violations, per WP:ELNO and WP:LINKVIO. Second, forums/wikis/blogs aren't really reliable (though there are exceptions), so some of the cites/links should be upgraded to better ones. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why have you removed the link to the Avatar Wikia? Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender/Archive 10#Removal_of_link_to_Avatar_Wiki someone previously argued for it to be kept, and I would agree that it should be kept. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, for several reasons actually: first, the previous post was from a Wikia admin (so COI) and arose because someone previously removed it (suggesting I'm not the only one to think that's the right idea). Second, you re-added it in part based on its presence during GAN, but the new reviewer there did not examine linking, and your other justification is neither here nor there in terms of including the link. Third, the previous discussion dealt only with the size of the wiki, not other issues related to WP:ELNO (in particular, "unverifiable research") or WP:LINKVIO (issues with non-free media). Finally, WP:ELBURDEN: "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the site provides useful information to readers at a level of detail that is outside the scope of Wikipedia. Additionally, the website has a footnote and citation functionality, indicating that they strive to provide verifiable information (it's not a collection of fanfiction, if that's what you're worried about). LINKVIO talks about copyright violation issues on third party sites. Although Wikia does not have the same FIVE pillars as Wikipedia with the same push for completely free content, neither are they blatantly violating copyright law. Wikipedia's fair use requirements (WP:NFCC) are a great deal more strict than actual law (Fair use), and I see no reason to believe that the Avatar Wiki is violating copyright law. For these reasons I believe the link should be restored. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the site provides information outside of our scope, but very little of it is cited (checking a few articles I saw none, though I'm sure you can provide examples), and they claim all of it is CC when it very clearly is not (to the point that they contravene fair use - derivative and decorative images not justified and with copyright holder not identified claimed as free - in fact, I'm not seeing any mechanism for photo author to be acknowledged other than as photo uploader, though again I'm happy to be corrected). Our focus should be improving this article rather than adding a link to a questionable site just because it has more coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not at all buying your copyright argument here. All content contributed to Wikia is CC unless otherwise noted—the same deal as Wikipedia. The featured article there is Brainwashing, and the first image on the page is not be claimed to be under a free license [5]. The information on the Avatar Wiki can be verified by watching or reading the source material, same as the plot sections on Wikipedia. Some of the articles even take it a step further and provide specifics as to where within the source material the facts can be found (e.g. [6]). As a large body of useful information on Avatar, I think the link should be restored. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing examples, although it appears they may be exceptions rather than the rule. However, I remain unconvinced that this link is really valuable enough to merit inclusion despite its deficiencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are the three latest images from the wiki that are shown in the box on the right side of the site: [7], [8], [9]. Clearly there is a concerted effort by members of the wiki to abide by copyright laws, even they were to miss a few. Wikipedia misses a few, too. If you have any concerns about an image, you can always email the administrators or email Wikia to inquire about the copyright status before using it. What deficiencies do you speak of? --Odie5533 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I could email them if I cared to reuse the images, but that's rather beside the point. It's an open wiki of questionable reliability/neutrality, not something we want to be promoting. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The site has lengthy policies and guidelines [10], and has a policy devoted to Verifiability. Even if they are not 100% perfect, they still strive to provide accurate information. I think the site is a great resource and should be linked to from the article. What about the wiki's reliability or neutrality is questionable? --Odie5533 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Planet incarnated in human form. No, he's not.

Aparently The Legend of Korra have changed what the canon considers the Avatar to be. We now know that the Avatar Spirit is the product of the spirit of light, order and balance Raava merging with a man named Wan. Then Wan died, Raava told him she would be with him in all his lifetimes, and then transported herself to the reincarnation of Wan, remerged and once again created the Avatar Spirit, and that is what has been going on for thousands of years in the world of Avatar. So I think it is pretty safe now to say that we know the Avatar is the spirit of light, order and balance manifested in human form, and not the spirit of the planet Earth, which I find disappointing, because I liked the planet Earth idea much better... 87.72.89.22 (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Planet Earth in human form? Apparently not.

Aparently The Legend of Korra have changed what the canon considers the Avatar to be. We now know that the Avatar Spirit is the product of the spirit of light, order and balance Raava merging with a man named Wan. Then Wan died, Raava told him she would be with him in all his lifetimes, and then transported herself to the reincarnation of Wan, remerged and once again created the Avatar Spirit, and that is what has been going on for thousands of years in the world of Avatar. So I think it is pretty safe now to say that we know the Avatar is the spirit of light, order and balance manifested in human form, and not the spirit of the planet Earth, which I find disappointing, because I liked the planet Earth idea much better... Luka1184 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a large problem with legend of korra. It states that benders were given this and taught by lion turtles, which is in direct conflict with avatar the last airbender wich states that humans learned earthfrom badger moles air from bison fire from dragons and water from the moon Legend of korra is not very good, sad character development, korra is obnoxious and physical, given a chance she would kill the fire lord in aang so position. A sad skeleton of what the first avatar tv show was. Watch free avtar at justanimedubbed by the way. Make a list of websites that have avatar showing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.217.220.19 (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Classify "Avatar" and related articles as a soap opera

Good evening.

I suggest adding the "Avatar" series to category:American_television_soap_operas, or to be placed in a new subcategory, category:Animated_soap_operas. I also ask for it to be added to List of soap operas, accordingly.

Allow me to explain. An "animated soap opera" is a very fitting description for the show. See, a soap opera is a long-spanning arc of stories in half-hour to hour long segments, with heavilly dynamic characters, enforced continuity, and a constant advancement to the finish. Soap operas focus on drama and tying in every plotline to an end target.

Look at the actual page for soap opera: "A soap opera is a serial drama, on television or radio, that features related story lines dealing with the lives of multiple characters. The stories in these series typically focus heavily on emotional relationships." [...] "[The defining feature of a soap opera is that it] works with a continuous open narrative. Each episode ends with a promise that the storyline is to be continued in another episode."

See? Avatar is very dramatic and everyone's lives are spotlighted in some way, and every episode of the show is a continuaiton or backstory of something before it. Judging by Wikipedia's own definitions, I deem it fitting.

--99.104.188.245 (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir: Avatar is primarily a fantasy series, as it deals with a universe in which something that does not exist in our world (bending the elements) is shown as "real". It may share elements with a soap opera, however it is closer in form and spirit to Japanese anime. Also, traditionally soap operas are live action. Luthien22 (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Luthien22

Aang's Age

I have a feeling this has been discussed on this page before, but I couldn't find anything discussing it in the archives, so bringing it up here. In the article character description section it was "Aang is 12 years old" with an inline note basically saying "don't change it, he's frozen as twelve" or something like that. But... it seems to me that it should instead say that he is 112 years old, but because he was frozen, he emotionally and physically is a twelve year old. Since the note was in the article, I figured I wouldn't make a change without asking here first just in case there's already a consensus in place on this. Your thoughts on this? Luthien22 (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Section Cast List too long

The Cast list section is too long. Personally I think that it should be shortened to just feature the main cast for each season and move the rest of the article to a new article called "Avatar the Last Aribender: Cast List". Anybody thoughts? Luthien22 (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm that crazy person who deleted about half the cast list. However, since it was a little out of hand, I think it was warranted. However, I know somebody else probably doesn't think so, thus this post.

This is the full text of the original version of the cast list. Posting it here for posterity in case somebody wants to see it.

I right now have a sandbox of a modified version of this as an article, which you can see here: User:Luthien22/sandbox#Additional_voices Luthien22 (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

For some reason it posted the content of the former cast list in article format. I am working on fixing it, but in the mean time, sorry about that! Luthien22 (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it! It's all pretty now! Luthien22 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Just realized to my embarrassment this is all available in the article history. Removing the cast list since it's clunky and available there. Cheers! Luthien22 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Luthien22 - It is also worth noting that the content was added by user Avenger2015 over an absurd 66 edits. The user has been advised numerous times that submitting these ridiculously indiscriminate, unsourced, and duplicate lists, run contrary to WP:TVCAST. User doesn't seem to care and keeps adding the content against consensus. This is why he has been blocked three times. Feel free to delete at will. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Zuko's Story?

I just noticed in the infobox it says that the graphic novel Zuko's Story precedes this show. Does that really count since it was based on the film, which is based on this show? It seems to me it belongs only in the infobox for the film, not here. Any thoughts? Luthien22 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The section "Sequel (The Legend of Korra)" should be updated with new information from The Legend of Korra, specifically the air date for book 4. Nilesrogoff (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2014

I would like to edit on the following article about the kid television show by the name of Avatar: The Last Airbender I feel I could correct some information and add on to some as well. I have been a true follower of the show and would love to make corrections to it so that others may truely understand how astounding it actually is, I hope to get my request considered and thank you for your time. Crossle2000 (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I appreciate your enthusiasm. Edit requests to protected articles should be made in the form of "please change X to Y", and supported by reliable sources. Once you become an autoconfirmed user, you will be able to edit the article directly. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Production Companies

User Prototime added Titmouse, Inc. to the production company section since they created the title sequence of The Last Airbender. But after a while user Raamin reverted it saying that "Ttimouse has only made the title (opening) animation for Avatar; it's in the provided source. This doesn't make it a production company.". While it's quite true that they only made the opening title they still contributed the production of the show, they helped to take the first step of the show. Nevertheless as mentioned in Template:Infobox television the names of the production companies should be mentioned under Production company(s). So I think it's reasonable to mention Titmouse, Inc. in the infobox as one of the production companies.--Chamith (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, Chamith. I agree that Titmouse should be listed; they may not have produced the content of any episodes, but they did produce the opening sequence, which appears on every episode and certainly is part of the show. Having produced part of the show, they should qualify for inclusion in the infobox as a "production" company. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

With regard to good-faith edits submitted by Prototime [11][12] where Titmouse is added as a production company on the basis "They 'produced' the opening sequence", I must object, as this is a very literal interpretation of what the parameter is meant to convey. I'm inclined to believe that the companies that are considered producers of the content are typically the ones who are financing the work. The fact that Nick might use a Canadian company to do the opening titles, or a Korean company to do the animation, doesn't mean they are considered producers of the content, nor does it mean the series is an American-Canadian-Korean production. If Nick is footing the bill, it would be an American production that outsources work to Canada and Korea. The template needs clarification. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A few things: 1) There's already a discussion on this topic happening in the immediately above heading on the talk page; 2) I did not add Titmouse, Inc. as a production company, and it's been in the article since last April; I merely provided a source, because an editor complained it had none; 3) a "producer" is not necessarily a "funder", and I'm not sure where that limited definition comes from, if you could please elaborate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm yielding on this until the television community clarifies the intended scope of the parameter, and since I very well could be wrong about this and don't care to get humiliated so close to the weekend. I've opened a discussion at Template:Infobox television. This seems a small part of a bigger picture. For example, if we list all of the companies who were contracted to work on this project, does that mean the nations of origin are the US, Korea and Canada? The Simpsons, for instance doesn't list the Korean animation houses in the infobox. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for starting that discussion, I'll be curious to hear what they have to say as well. (And I wish I had your perspective on weekends; Saturday seems like it's years away for me!) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Template needs clarification, not just that template. There are tons of templates in Wikipedia that needs proper clarifications. Editors often get confused when adding details to infoboxes. I'm glad that you started a discussion. Most of template attributes are merely described. They clearly need some improvement--Chamith (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2014

The show is know as Avatar: The Legend of Aang in PAL regions. Pleas change line 1 to reflect this

http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar%3A_The_Last_Airbender - First line of general description

ShadowSyther (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Wikia is not considered a reliable source as it, like IMDb, TV.com, TVTropes, and even Wikipedia itself is user contributed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Credit

There is Supervising Director on this show and that's missing here. His name is Seung-Hyun Oh, and He came from S. Korea, and Supervised all three Directors (Giancarlo Volpe, Joaquim dos Santos, Ethan Spaulding) and the Whole Story board team. He also did lots of concept designs for many episodes. He is also Co-Founder of JM Animation who brought all the talented Animation Directors in S. Korea into JM Animation. He Started as a Supervising Director for Layout and Animation at JM Animation Studio in 2004, then he got Invited by Mike and Bryan and moved into U.S in 2006, then he became a Supervising Director for total production. He appears as two Characters in this show, which, first one is pirate barker Oh in episode 109, and second one is Warden Oh in episode 315, 316, 'the boiling rock'. Can somebody edit the credit on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick0404 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rick0404 it's not clear what you want to have added or where. If you're talking about the infobox, there is no |supervising_director= parameter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cyphoidbomb, Thank you for your responding! ;) That's what I'm saying. there is no Supervising director in the info box which it should have. Supervising Director is one of the most important position who gave all the note and directions to all of directors and Story Board artist for Every Episodes. It should be added in the info box. If you need to see some evidence, I'll send it for you. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.238.34 (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are proposing the addition of a new parameter to the infobox, the place to bring that up would be Template talk:Infobox television. (Please be sure to sign your posts with four tildes. (~~~~). Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please help me to find that category? I cannot find that page...lol

Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick0404 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

My mistake--I typed it incorrectly. Fixed above. You can also click here Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help!! I'll move on to it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.238.34 (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Serious issues with ratings info

The ratings information for this show given here has some very serious issues. It's not simply that many of the numbers are uncited, since the source for them clearly appears to be the same as that of the numbers that are in fact cited. Nor is it even that they appear to be taken from an unreliable source, because the source itself seems to be an aggregator of reliable data, although the fact it does not provide individual citations is quite problematic. It's that almost every single one of the numbers appears to be wrong, in some cases to an extreme extent.

The first problem, which applies to almost all the numbers, is that according to the source they have been converted from households to viewers using a measure which even the source itself calls an approximation. Even if this wasn't such a rough measure the fact is that the exact number used for the conversion is subjective and cannot be used at all if taken from an unreliable source like this one. In other words, almost all of the numbers need to be switched back to households, but it seems unclear if providing viewers by households is in line with policy – anyone care to comment on this?

The second problem only affects some of the numbers, but it's a much more serious issue than the first one. It's that some of them appear to be entirely wrong because of simply being copied from the ratings for the lowest-ranked shows on said days; the source refers to these as being under a particular value. These ratings must be removed entirely if replacement reliable sources are not found promptly, and should be tagged in the meantime.

I'd appreciate some feedback on and preferably assistance with this. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2015

I don't think the live-action movie can be considered a "financial success"... Slask (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I would just remove the "but financially successful" part. Slask (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: financially successful seems accurate. Box office take of $320 million on costs of $150 million translates to successful to me Cannolis (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Cast of Avatar: The Last Airbender

Is this list worth keeping in some form? It seems pretty redundant to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. Reach Out to the Truth 13:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I redirected it to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters per WP:SILENCE. Feel free to undo if you disagree. Reach Out to the Truth 14:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Pilot vs first episode

Someone confused the pilot with the first episode in the second paragraph. They probably assumed all first episodes are pilots, but the Avatar pilot did not ever air as far as I'm aware. 2602:306:33B8:2610:ADE2:5936:DE2E:849B (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A typo on the creator list

One of the writers' names is spelled wrong in the beginning of the article. The writer named "Kaite Matilla" in the article is actually Katie Mattila. I would've fixed it, but can't due to vandalism protection... Correctionate (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed. AJD (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Avatar: The Last Airbender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/avatar/en/interface.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202192706/http://www.annieawards.org/foryourconsideration.html to http://www.annieawards.org/foryourconsideration.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pgnx.net/news.php?page=full&id=14399

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avatar: The Last Airbender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517061205/http://annieawards.org/33rdwinners.html to http://annieawards.org/33rdwinners.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509064413/http://annieawards.org/34thwinners.html to http://annieawards.org/34thwinners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Avatar: The Last Airbender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302152900/http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/avatar/en/interface.aspx to http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/avatar/en/interface.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://flaming-june.org/videos/Audience%20Question%20%26%20Answer%20Pt.%202.wmv
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.viacom.com/NEWS/NewsText.aspx?RID=1077954
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315144706/http://www.take40.com/news/17653/2009-nickelodeon-kids%27-choice-awards-winners%21 to http://www.take40.com/news/17653/2009-nickelodeon-kids%27-choice-awards-winners%21
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.viacom.com/news/Pages/newstext.aspx?RID=1179537
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080126052639/http://community.livejournal.com/avatar_fans/1658088.html to http://community.livejournal.com/avatar_fans/1658088.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pgnx.net/news.php?page=full&id=14399
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805125255/http://www.toonzone.net/news/articles/34609/sdcc2010--batman-under-the-red-hood-roundtables-pt-2-timm-greenwood-amp-romano to http://www.toonzone.net/news/articles/34609/sdcc2010--batman-under-the-red-hood-roundtables-pt-2-timm-greenwood-amp-romano

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Avatar: The Last Airbender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014145037/http://www.medialifemagazine.com:8080/News2005/jun05/june6/5_fri/news4friday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com:8080/News2005/jun05/june6/5_fri/news4friday.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=1066
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105224926/http://www.animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=1794 to http://www.animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=1794

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of episodes wrong

Number of episodes is 62, not 61 (include '0-th' episode from season 1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.86.127 (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments on the critical response section

The critical response section suffers quite a bit from the "A said B" problem; see WP:RECEPTION. For exampl, in the first paragraph we have "Nick Hartel said... Erik Amaya describes... Henry Glasheen calls... Brittany Lovely assured..." and on for eight or ten more sentences. It's better to find common threads in the critical commentary and structure the sentences around those, using the individual critics as support -- and you don't always have to name them in the sentence. See Talk:True Detective (season 1) for an example of how to start with the critical commentary and construct a reception section that avoids "A said B".

The other paragraphs have the same problem though they are slightly more varied. It isn't enough to assign each critical comment to an appropriate paragraph and list it in sequence -- that reads like a simple list of comments with no structure. I can see there is some organization -- for example the comments on animation are all together -- but that's not quite enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ya, I came to the talk page to say the same thing. Many of the comments can be stacked. Instead of X felt it was the best and Y said it was the best, either go "X and Y said it was the best" or "multiple journalists described it as the best"—but the point is to give clarity for a general audience. When you use surnames in the later paragraphs, how am I to remember who said what, and if the who isn't important then why are we seeing their last names anyway? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 15:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie and Czar: I did a re-write of it here. -- 1989 17:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to review it without the refs, since some of the generalized claims—as phrased—would need some exceptionally authoritative support. czar 15:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie and Czar: Miniapolis recently helped copyedit the section and the rest. Could you take a quick look to see if it's up to FA standards? -- 1989 02:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think my original comments still apply to the live, copyedited version. I thought the rewrite went in the right direction, but I can't evaluate the extent of its claims while the rewritten text is unsourced (don't know text–source integrity) czar 04:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: I added refs. -- 1989 22:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't give a full review right now but my quick response to the question is that it's not FA-ready yet. Statements like "The Avatar series has received mostly positive reviews from critics" are declarative and easily challenged, so a source should be provided. Sources like j-entonline.com and popzara.com, at least at first blush, do not appear reliable for statements of fact (do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, akin to newspapers and other published periodicals?) and nevertheless shouldn't be used for major pronouncements like "It has been labeled as one of best cartoons and animated programs to air on American television". On a lesser note, one reviewer—especially a minor one—making such a claim on the basis of their own opinion ("I truly believe that it’s one of the best animated TV series") becomes disingenuous if generalized as a widespread opinion. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, such as a major source making that summative claim from multiple other reviewers or some other wide expertise. I'm not familiar with some of the publications used here but that's all the more reason why it's useful to have more information on why we're trusting reporting from "Inside Pulse" and "Nerd Society", if such sources should be used at all. There is also some jumping between they vs. he in referring to a single reviewer—it should be consistent even if using the outlet metonymously for the reviewer. The sentence structure could also be more interesting (FA "brilliant"-quality prose) by inverting sentences (without using passive voice) to avoid "X said that Y" repetition. After resolving the above, I'd look at holistically massaging the text into sentences that flow into each other. I'd personally remove about half of the examples, starting with the unreliable sources and reorganizing the text into smaller paragraphs by theme, with each paragraph signposted such that the reader knows what to expect and the text doesn't read like a list in paragraph format. czar 17:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

New Article Critique

This is a great article! It has a lot of reliable sources, like the New York Times, interviews from the creators themselves, and other pbulications like Slug Magazine and Hypable. The only things I would add, in terms of sources or gaining new information, is, in the film section, directly source the Rotten Tomtatoes page and, if possible, find some sources that have an opposing view point and/or point out the redemable (if any) factors of the movie in roder to help the article read more neutrally.

All of the information is defintly up to date -- I loved how the sequel section is labeled and links to the Legend of Korra page. Maybe adding a bit more information and how sections of that show relate back to the original would be good and would give that section more relevant and updated information. Things like, are there any characters that reapear in the sequel, or any voice actors who voice a new character.

As for clarity, the critical reception could be cleaned up. There is a lot of long, bulk text that makes that information difficult to read and sort through -- maybe seperating it with block quotes or only sticking to the major critical outlets.

Otherwise, fantastic article!

VicBrncz (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)VicBrncz

"Universal acclaim"

I don't think we should use "universal" as the term indicates there are no detractors. Please change it to "largely positive reviews". 46.186.192.8 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Truth or vandalism?

I am not sure whether the claim that it is considered one of the worst movies ever made holds water, could it be vandalism?201.240.147.131 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

its on the list here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_worst Wikiman5676 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

SVG Logo

I've uploaded an SVG logo here[13] to Wikimedia. This article is locked so I can't add it. --AlexOvShaolin 04:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2019

In the Synopsis section:

"...carried out a genocide against the Air Nomads during the passage of a once-a-century comet that increased the Firebenders' power,"

and

Also in the Synopsis section:

"After Roku's death, the Avatar was reincarnated as an Airbender named Aang."

Any word ending in -bending or -bender, except for the title of the show, is never capitalised. Change them to "firebenders'" and "airbender", instead.

In the Books subsection:

"The Rift was followed by Avatar: The Last Airbender – Smoke and Shadow about a resistance force in the Fire Nation against Firelord Zuko,"

Every other instance of this is spelled "Fire Lord". Change it to that. 81.99.141.192 (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Doing... DannyS712 (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the edit, but if it isn't too much trouble, you added a space, but didn't capitalise "Lord", as it is in the rest of the article. If you do that, then I think the whole page will be perfect, at least from a spelling standpoint. 81.99.141.192 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Linguistical (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

I suggest adding a section/sub-section listing the characters played by the voice actors with a basic introduction of each character and perhaps citing List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters as a main article for the section. Kindly look into this. ~Rajan51 (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on February 28th 2020

In the episodes section: "As of 2019. the complete series is also available on Netflix." It is now 2020 and the show does not appear to be on Netflix (much to my dismay). WillyPuds (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

New article for the franchise

The Avatar franchise now comprises of 2 animated series, which both also have a comic book series attached to them, there are the Kyoshi novels, the upcoming life action series, (the movie we don't talk about), and multiple multimedia tie-ins such as games and even Lego sets, not to mention a large and active fandom. There is, however, no article on Wikipedia that offers a general overview of the franchise. This article is, and should be, about the initial Avatar: The Last Airbender series. It mentions other media in the franchise lower down the page, but I propose to shorten that section here, and move and expand the information to it's own article, akin to pages about other franchises, such as Dragonball, Stargate,... MrEvers (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that such a Wikipedia article should exist, though I think it should be titled "Avatar: The Last Airbender (franchise)", as to not have to change the name of this article. And yes, cutting down on the individual references and simply linking to the franchise article would open up new space to expand on the TV series in the lead (and especially refreshing not having to give too much attention to the movie that doesn't exist here). Iroh (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

One option might be to change List of Avatar: The Last Airbender media to "Avatar: The Last Airbender (franchise)", and then apply the above. Iroh (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2020

The Deserter to The Desert 63.153.5.152 (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"The Deserter" and "The Desert" are different episodes. Are you sure this one is supposed to be "The Desert"? AJD (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Intro

"A number of critics have referred to Avatar as one of the greatest television series of all time" is a bold claim. I agree that Avatar is one of the greatest TV show but we can't just promote the idea. Please read WP:PEACOCK before adding such statements. Also, I'm moving the rotten tomatoes score from the intro to the "Critical response" section. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

When reinstating Babyhenchy1's edit (as well as adding an additional source), I scaled back on his later phrasings, including terms like "many" and "widely". However, I do consider "a number of critics" to be a perfectly reasonable way of summarising the number of sources whose authors refer to Avatar as one of the greatest TV series of all time. (By the way, the Wikipedia pages of some movie classics make even "bolder" claims.) Since this isn't a legitimate example of WP:PEACOCK, and the daily pageviews of this article currently average around 50,000, I will now partially revert your edit; hopefully we can avoid an edit war. Furthermore, I will replace the source simply noting that Avatar has now been added to Netflix (one that's already included among the critics' sources) with this one expanding on the fact that the show is now the most-viewed on US Netflix despite not being featured on its main page. Finally, I do agree that the Rotten Tomatoes critics score may be moved to the "Critical response" section. Iroh (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the references from the intro and expanded the "Legacy" section. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That's okay, but your new wording "animated" and "cartoon" doesn't reflect the contents of the sources. Iroh (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The sources I provided lists Avatar as one of the greatest "cartoon" or "animated" series, not "television" series. I think we should use the term "animated". DarkFallenAngel (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

All but one of the sources were provided by Babyhenchy1 (the last one was provided by me), and they all specifically refer to Avatar as one of the greatest television - not merely "cartoon" or "animated" - series of all time. I don't see any sources provided by you. Iroh (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please, have you even read the articles you cited? Most of them call it as one of the best "animated" series so stop reverting my edits already. Vice News : "it has been ten years since the season finale of one of the best animated children’s television shows" - Insider : "Avatar: The Last Airbender is on Netflix now, and it still stands up as one of the best animated TV series ever" and the sources I cited at the "Legacy" section praise the series as "cartoon" or "animated" series not simply "Television" series. I don't believe we should claim that Avatar is one of the greatest "television series of all time" since it will look like we're just promoting the idea, the series does not even get featured on lists of "Best Television series" like The Simpsons or Looney Tunes. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

All six sources:

'Avatar: The Last Airbender' Is Still One of the Greatest Shows of All Time (Vice)
Avatar: The Last Airbender Is One Of The Greatest TV Shows Of All Time (Kotaku)
To this day, no animated series — and arguably, few television series in general (Insider)
And automatically becomes one of the best shows on Netflix (Polygon)
one of the best animated series of all time (Slash Film)
one of my favorite shows of all time (Forbes)
I agree that the Slash Film source should not be included here; as for the other five sources: they're saying that Avatar is one of the greatest TV shows of all time, which also happens to be an animated cartoon. Some of them also draw a distinction between their views that it is one of the greatest TV series, and the greatest animated series. With all due respect, I am starting to doubt whether you really qualify for WP:COMPETENCE. (And you comparing Avatar with the types of series that lack any consistent plot lines is a bit odd, to say the least. Kind of like comparing chicken with ice cream.) Iroh (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

But most of the sources you cited don't call it the "greatest television series of all time".

Vice Versa: "it has been ten years since the season finale of one of the best animated children’s television shows."

Polygon: "one of the best shows on Netflix". Doesn't say anything about Avatar being "one of the greatest television series".

Insider: "Avatar: The Last Airbender is on Netflix now, and it still stands up as one of the best animated TV series ever.

Forbes: "one of my favorite shows of all time" - Again, no mention of "greatest television show".

There's also the Slash Film source but you removed it only because it claims Avatar as "one of the best animated series of all time" not the "greatest television show".

I think the claim "greatest television series of all time" needs to be adjusted. It's really not justified based on just these reviews. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I also added "As of 2020" for specification. Iroh (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should just put "animated" in parentheses? Iroh (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Finally, I noticed that you changed the wording to "several" in the Legacy section, but left "a number of" intact in the lead. Either phrase works for me, but I think we should be consistent and apply the same one to both portions of the article. Iroh (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Episodes

This isn’t referring to this page, but I was just wondering if we could make individual pages for the the episodes themselves. The only episode of the show that has its own page is the finale, and I’d love if some of us could work on getting them their own separate pages. 2ndmillienium (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Please change the sentence in the lead, "Avatar is set in an Asiatic-like world in which some people can manipulate the classical elements with psychokinetic variants of the Chinese martial arts known as "bending"; one individual, the Avatar, is capable of bending all four elements and is responsible for maintaining harmony between the world's four nations", by changing the semicolon to a full stop (period), thus: "...some people can manipulate the classical elements with psychokinetic variants of the Chinese martial arts known as "bending". One individual, the Avatar, is capable of bending all four elements..." The second part is highly significant and should be in a sentence of its own. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:1166:2F9A:DFB3:CAED (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Please change the IGN Mike and Bryan reference URL to its current location at https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/06/interview-avatars-bryan-konietzko-and-michael-dante-dimartino --BaseFree (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done This appears to already have been done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Audience scores

@Toa Nidhiki05: I fail to understand how sources reporting their own sites' scores can be "not reliable". The question is whether they're relevant, which I think they are. Furthermore, the IMDb rating consists of both audience and critics scores (there is no separate rating section for critics), and I could include the Rotten Tomatoes critics score (which happens to be 100%), too, if you'd prefer that. Iroh (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Critics scores are reliable Audience scores never are. Toa Nidhiki05 18:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I see. The Rotten Tomatoes audience score will be replaced by its critics score, then. Would it be acceptable to keep the IMDb source, but use the word "ranked" instead? It is, after all, a critical publication in the sense that the ranked list of TV series has certain conditions (100K+ ratings), and their ratings include those of the site's critics. This would be akin to the "As of August 2019, Rotten Tomatoes has listed the film fourth on its list of the "Best Superhero Movies of All Time",[10][note 1]" sentence in the lead section of Wonder Woman (2017 film). Iroh (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

No. IMDb is user-generated and thus is not reliable. Including the actual critic reviews from RT, however, would be acceptable. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

IMDb's ranked lists are partially user-generated, just like their Rotten Tomatoes counterparts, which are apparently "reliable". Would you please care to explain the difference? Iroh (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

How are RT lists user-generated? They are editorial pieces written by staff that take existing Tomatometer ratings and put them in a lit. IMDb scores are user-generated and thus aren’t reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, you were right to remove WP:USERGENERATED audience scores, user voted web polls are simply not reliable sources. MOS:TVRECEPTION also makes it clear that IMDb scores are not allowed.
Although Rotten Tomatoes lists this show as having a score of 100% that is based on a combination of 9 reviews for season 1, 6 reviews for season 2, and 5 reviews for season 3, a total of only 20 reviews. Not a whole lot. It seems WP:UNDUE to put this in the intro, when Rotten Tomatoes is not mentioned at all in the "Critical response" section of the article, because the intro is supposed to summarize what is in the article. I would suggest moving it out of the intro and down to the "Critical response" section. -- 109.77.195.200 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I still think it is misleading to put such emphasis on the 100% score from Rotten Tomatoes, and do not think it should be included in the intro. Again I recommend moving it down into the critical response section. -- 109.76.132.95 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It is good that the Rotten Tomatoes 100% was moved out of the intro but the Critical response section still fails to include proper context. At the very least "the show has a critics score of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes" should be changed to "the show has a critics score of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes based on reviews from 20 critics". (For comparison Rotten Tomatoes counted 190 reviews for the much maligned film, compared to just 20 reviews for 3 seasons of the show. It is misleading to try and present an impressive looking 100% when it is based on an unimpressive 20 reviews.) -- 109.76.195.210 (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done DarkFallenAngel (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I should have double-checked, and it is probably because the show has been getting so much attention on Neflix, but the number of reviews is as of July 2020 a total of 23 (season 1: 10[14]; season 2: 6[15]; season 3: 7[16]). -- 109.76.195.210 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Iroh (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Firelord or Fire Lord

An editor just corrected "Firelord" to "Fire Lord", saying the two-word spelling is used by "official sources". What official sources are these? The show itself uses the spelling "Firelord" onscreen, in the episode title "The Avatar and the Firelord". AJD (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the official Avatar YouTube channel FULL Uncut "Aang vs. Fire Lord Ozai Final Battle" 🔥| Avatar. And your link appears to be dead. Iroh (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, https://books.google.se/books?redir_esc=y&hl=sv&id=h9s-0pRXqFcC&q=fire+lord#v=snippet&q=fire%20lord&f=false

https://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Nickelodeon-Avatar-The-Last-Airbender-The-Search/Part-1?id=48667&readType=0#16 Iroh (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean; but I'm not necesarily convinced that those sources should outweigh the spelling used on the show itself. AJD (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You make a good point, too. It's just that the vast majority of canon/official sources spell it as "Fire Lord", and quite frankly, I think that works much better aesthetically. Imagine for instance the Earth King being spelled as "Earthking". Iroh (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

In ATLA, the sibling pairs of azula and zuko and Katara and sokka are perfect foils for each other. Both lost their mother at a young age and the younger sister was considered a prodigy or more powerful than the older brother. However, the way their family treated them as they grew up drove them radically apart. Zuko was blatantly abused by his father Ozai for not being as good of a bender or as cutthroat as Azula whereas Hakoda never treated Sokka poorly and trusted him to take care of their village when the rest of the men went off to war. In regard to their mother, Katara clearly loved her mother dearly but Azula always felt as though her mother was scared of her or thought she was a monster. 99.5.242.123 (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Comic translation

I noticed that in the comics section (5.1.1), space is given to the Hebrew translation. The information is correctly referenced, but I feel that it should not be included in the article. For instance, what about other translations? Is there a specific reason why Hebrew is important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.125.73.58 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree this is both too specific and ignoring other languages. I suggest this be removed or replaced with how many other languages it has been translated into. Seriousc (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirects warranting their own articles?

There are a number of pages that redirect to this one that could potentially have their own articles. The ones I have run into are Pai Sho, bending types (e.g. airbender, waterbender, &c.), and various in-universe kingdoms and locations (e.g. Earth Kingdom, Fire Nation, Ba Sing Se, &c.). See here for more links to this page specifically, although there are redirects to specific episodes and whatnot too. Some of them have been made redirects after initially being written as independent articles although there is not an enormous amount of discussion as to what warrants significance. Any thoughts on making any of those or perhaps some other related ATLA articles their own, instead of just redirects? - Procyonidae (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

The IGN Top 100 Animated Series list from 2009 is now located here, and yes, it's right to its spot, so please adjust the reference accordingly, including a removal of its dead link designation if necessary 141.157.254.24 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"Avatar-Bending Master" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Avatar-Bending Master and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Avatar-Bending Master until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

"Book 4: Air" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Book 4: Air and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Book 4: Air until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

"Bloodbender" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bloodbender and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Bloodbender until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

"Avatar: The Last Airbender – Agni Kai" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Avatar: The Last Airbender – Agni Kai and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 29#Avatar: The Last Airbender – Agni Kai until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tube·of·Light 13:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The avatar, the last Airbender

Hello, I was wondering if you could consider adding new seasons to the last Airbender I would love to keep watching this show and I am amazed how good it is. I would greatly appreciate it if you would do that. 2600:1700:4E90:6530:10E1:7159:BA9C:D56 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)