Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender/Archive 5

message: Aang does not have to master the elements in that specific order, as we can see from the episode "Deserter". However, in that same episode, Jeong Jeong basically told Aang that he must learn the disiplines in order, learning the point and expressions of each, to be able to CONTROL fire in the end. Each element requires learning a self disipline before being able to bend it effectively. Aang was too free and playful when learning fire. He didn't want to wait and concentrate. He was still in his airbender mode. This is why he burned Katara. I remember in the 2nd episode, Aang told her, "In order to become a bender, you must let go of fear." This can be seen as airbending principle because that is all Aang knows at this point. They are a free people. We can also see the needed self disipline when Aang is learning earthbending.
There are a lot of things wrong with this article, and many other web articles about the "Avatar". I saw one where someone thinks there were four air temples, when there are only three. There is no sense in arguing about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evitar28 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are indeed four air temples, that's been confirmed by the show's creators. One (the northern temple) just doesn't show on the map, is all. As for the issue with the order, see above. As for anything else, it would be helpful to provide specific examples, rather than just say there are "a lot of things wrong."--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to say... 

message: "When it happens, the eclipse will leave the Fire Nation defenseless. This will also give the other three nations the chance to annilhate the Fire Nation."
Shouldn't that be, the other two nations?  There is no air nation any more.  And annihilate is misspelled.
Was it just the air benders that were all destroyed, except Aang, or did they destroy all the people of that nation?  Or since that attack happened a century ago, haven't all those people that were part of that nation at that time died of old age by now, and everyone else was born after the conquest, so they are part of the extended fire nation.  National borders change, don't they?  Without their benders, I doubt the rest of the populace was able to put up any resistance to the fire nation at all.
::Actually, according to interviews and the comic book, the Air Nomads were all airbenders, due to their highly spirtual culture (I can provide sources for this if you'd like). –Prototime (talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Techncally Aang is Air Nation, so the other three nations will be attacking. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: "Aang (Mitchel Musso in the unaired pilot, Zach Tyler Eisen onwards) - The fun-loving, 12-year-old..."
I changed that to Aang (voiced by Mitchel Musso in the unaired pilot, Zach Tyler Eisen onwards).
Those are the voice actors, not the animators, or writers of the show.  Should my edit have stayed?
Dream Focus 00:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voiced by isn't needed as it's already implied simply by parenthesis. Also you'd have to make it consistant with all the characters. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Musso was the unaired pilot only. Y BCZ 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My minor correction edit can unedited. 

message: What I have read so far after I came back from vacation was that a couple of people want us to move/shorten the main characters descriptions so they can be in a seperate article when each character already has there own page. I assume this is the situation. I completely disagree. There is no point to have the main article, a list of characters, and then a page for each individual character. The point of the page is to introduce the show to new people. As mentioned before, spoilers have supposedly been found in the description. However, this only proposes that the spoilers be removed from the character descriptions, not that the whole list have a seperate page. Another support for the idea I have heard was that many other articles have done the same thing and that we should follow suit. Why should we make a major change to the article just so the article could be just like every other article of its kind? Finally, the last complaint to be addressed is size. Even if the article is too long, there are other section in the article too. The characters section is not the only one taking up space. It may be a little bit too large but that does not prompt for another page to be created just so readers can be directed towards a larger description of each character when they can just go to the character's main page. This just means that the descriptions need to be shortened. If there are any other reasons I missed (other than the fact that a couple of users just want to seperate the section) or if there are any objections to what I said, PLEASE do not hesitate to respond. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 16:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first off, common practice is a good thing, a certain degree of uniformity is very helpful in improving the presentation of information.  That so many other editors of other television series see such pages as an advantageous is an idea highly worth considering here.  This is done even when the major characters have their own pages.  Why not do it here?  Besides, I'm sensing a bit of an objection just to the idea of a page being created, as if there was some major drawback to it.  Creating another page on Wikipedia has an almost infinitesimal cost, and the potential benefits are high.   In terms of options, you could have longer descriptions of major and minor characters than is appropriate for the main page, even include the entries in pages further down.  Take a look at some of the pages in :Category:Lists of Fictional Characters, there are plenty of good models to examine. FrozenPurpleCube 18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Personally, I think that the main character section should stay and just get rid of a little extra information, and then take out the list of major secondary characters. There is already a page for them, so we don't need to take up space on the main page for them. On a similar topic, The 'Influences' section could possibly be moved to its own page, but I think it's in a good place where it is now. Bagpipeturtle 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that most people would disagree with you on both practice and principle.  Practice-wise, there is a lot about this article that could be fixed up, not just this one section, and that's leaving aside the issue of further developments in the Avatar series.  Principle-wise, Wikipedia isn't about static content anyway, it's about the continued dynamic influence of thousands of monkeys typing away to make the best darn collection of knowledge possible.  That means it'll probably never be complete.  So I'm afraid that you're just going to have to accept that this page is going to continue to receive edits and discussion.   FrozenPurpleCube 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: I'd go with the simple line breaks, there's no reason to make them separate headings, all that would do is clutter the TOC. FrozenPurpleCube 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks much better now. Anyway, as for your comment a little further up, I think the descriptions should be more than a sentence or two. Maybe just a short paragraph since they are all at least two paragraphs right now. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think either using some sort of table would be best or just a simple one sentence paragraph break. Look at a similar setup on Only Fools and Horses. Medvedenko 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. We really need to settle this problem. Is there ANYBODY that still disagrees with the idea that we only shorten the character descriptions, leave the horizontal lines out, and not use a seperate main characters list page? Parent5446 (Murder me for my actions.) 17:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of this settlement, and will provide assistance in shortening the descriptions. Y BCZ 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: :: (edit conflict) Personally, I believe the section should stay. If this article is a stepping stone in to the world of Avatar, the Character section should stay on this page. If the section above it is allowed to describe the plot, the next logical step is to read about the Characters. It provides a clear flow for the article and helps to give new readers more information and immediate links about what it is important for the article. The page is not excessively long like other T.V. show articles. If the page was considerably longer than this, I would vote the other way, but since the page is not excessively long, I vote to keep the section, but I have no problem reducing each Character to one paragraph. I will do that now. The Placebo Effect 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "More merit"? If you don't want an article edited, don't create one. It doesn't matter how many hours you've put into it. Other people are going to make changes. What do you think the consensus would be if notices were sent out to every project connected to this (tv, anime, cartoon, etc) and told to nit-pick the page? What would it look like then? Would you tell them "you can't work on this page because it's all mine"? Because that's what it sounds like. You seem to speek for the few people that live on this page.(Ghostexorcist 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Well, I agree with you on the trimming, but I don't understand why you are opposed to an additional page that expands much more on the subject.  As far as I am aware nobody is suggesting the wholesale removal of that section, right?  However, reducing it is valuable, and if we're going to have a generic character page, not including the main characters doesn't make sense.  A simple list with short descriptions would be quite adequate even if you don't want the paragraphs to be found there now.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that removal was indeed suggested, based on the merge template, since that's what merging is. If you're instead talking about simply copying the section's content...well, I'm not aware of any polciy or guideline that suports that sort of thing, and I really don't see where any benefit would be gained from a central characters page, but so long as this article is left intact, I could live with it.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say you were mistaken then, since nobody was proposing that at all.  A merge does not have to completely eliminate the content of one page.  Not even sure why that template is up there, I thought I used split.  Guess not.  Oh well, just to assure you though, that's not what anybody is asking for.  The section itself is still going to be there, just in a different form.  And I don't know about any explicit policies or guidelines, however, as I pointed out, most of the featured articles for televisions already have such pages, and it would address some concerns on the FAC.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, you may wish to read WP:OWN.  Making a distinction between editors is not a good thing, and should be avoided.  It personalizes situations, and tends to distract from the real merits of any argument.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This being a good example, XD. And putting Wikipedia policies aside, I don't have any disrespect for most editors, I just think some people who have experience on this project should have a little more say in issues than someone who has less. That's all. And everyone makes distinctions between editors, I guarantee it. If you wish to discuss this further, you can at my talk page. We are discussing the issue at hand in which I think a majority disagrees on this proposal. -Dylan0513 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If those experienced users are really capable of making a sound argument based on their experiences, then they should be able to make that argument, and not simply rely on claims of experience or seniority.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why won't you stop? We've already stated out arguments, go back and read and stop being so lazy. I said take this to my talk page if you are so unhappy. -Dylan0513 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'm not bringing it up, I'm replying to you, who brought it up, and who continues to argue it.  Since other people have also brought up the idea, I don't feel it's simply a personal issue which you need to be cautioned on directly, but a more general concern.  However, if you do wish discussion on the issue at hand, you need only discuss the issue itself.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Alright, this is getting pathetic. I'm all for reducing the character section in the main, and having a more elaborate version on the list article. Manticore, WP:Own is not going to be a really strong point here, if you've seen some of the edits brought to us time after time, you'd understand, I see where this is coming off as an issue, but really we're just trying to make sure that some of the absolute trash doesn't remain to be seen. If the people who come in and edit on the fly didn't have to be reverted so much, it'd be nicer. But yeah, reduce the main article's section and have a more elaborate article as the list one. --Whydoit  (Why...do it?) 09:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, so what if it doesn't conform to the format of the other FA articles? Does the same thing not become stale and mundane after seeing the conformity? FA, in my opinion, is a trophy rank; it doesn't matter. Oh sure, If we continue at this maybe we will never push this to FA. BIG DEAL. Have good ideas not popped up from something ambitious in the past? I ask you guys this. --Whydoit  (Why...do it?) 10:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to completely agree with you, Whydoit. Is the FA status really worth it if we have to go through all this (for lack of a better work) shit? -Dylan0513 11:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Whydoit, I have seen some of the edits, yes, and I have seen the responses to them.  If anything, that makes a stronger argument to consult WP:OWN than not.  I'm afraid it seems to me that certain people have gotten  worked up about vandals, and preventing the page from being ruined, that they've begun to react to anybody else's involvement in the same way.  While vandal fighting is important, it's even more important to not begin to react to everybody in the same way, to be gentle, to assume good faith, and to persuade folks with good arguments, not to denigrate them because they aren't one of the crowd.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you stop quoting that guideline! It's like the only thing you know! Just because you may feel excluded doesn't mean you can go say we're doing something wrong and treating us badly. This discussion has ended and the topic of splitting the character section is dead resulting in it not getting approval. I will take the tag off now and not expect anyone else to reply to this section of the talk page. -Dylan0513 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be glad to stop quoting that guideline when you stop violating it, and try to make real arguments about your position.  As it stands, you've made it several times, but not once have you said why things should be one way or another.  That is not at all helpful, and is pretty unconvincing.  Besides, I think you've misinterpreted the consensus, which seems to point towards editing the section with no prejudice against a character page.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Since I assume you're talking to me, I'd like to point out to you that your contention is untrue, I have not used WP:OWN in a discussion I've had with another person just today.  Why? Because it didn't come up.  If people hadn't made possessive statements here, I also wouldn't have brought it up.  And really, if you were so concerned about moving this off this talk page, why haven't you used my own?  I'd have used yours, but I'm concerned that you'd actually resent that more.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, stop replying to this. And I don't resent you, we just disagree on this. I've seen you use that elsewhere and it's really annoying. Back up your arguments with something else. I have no idea how to lock a section of the talk page but if anyone knows or something of the similar, this would be a good time. -Dylan0513 12:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to sense some resentment.  Is there some reason why you can't take the action yourself of simply not replying if it bothers you so much to continue this discussion?  I do think you may need to look at some of the many pages Wikipedia offers for advice.  I really don't think this attitude of "Please stop this" is helpful, as I'm being polite and not attacking you, but you're acting like I am.  Hence the perception of resentment.  In fact, given your attitude here, I am even less inclined to take it to your talk page.  I think you'd feel even more attacked. FrozenPurpleCube 14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Five

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