Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender/Archive 3

message: 1.Both star Mark Hamill
2.Luke's final trail was to beat Darth Vader.  Aang's is to beat the Fire Lord
3.'Bad Guys' use lightning
4.Airbending is simlar to the force
Should this be added to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs).
::No, I don't think so. How would that help the article? -Sukecchi 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot better similarities than those, trust me. But, unless they come as close as the current example in The Guru (to the point that it may as well be word for word) it shouldn't be added. It's way to easy to just add small similarities mostly because Star Wars follows the traditional styles of common myth as presented in Hero With A Thousand Faces. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The similarity to Star Wars mainly comes from the fact that both trace an archetypal cycle, not that the creators of avatar wanted to specifically hint at star wars (though, who knows, this might be their objective). While i agree that a section on similarities to star wars is unneed, a broader "how avatar fits into archetypal theory" could find its place in an wikipedia article. -(Y.krzepicki 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, that's an interesting idea. I wish I had the time and background knowledge to research something like that. --Herald Alberich 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of similarities between Book 2 and The Empire Strikes Back revealed in The Guru and The Crossroads of Destiny. The Guru is essentially the same as Luke's training with Yoda. Note that Yoda and Obi Wan insist that Luke stay and finish his training rather than save his friends. Likewise, the guru insists that Aang stay and finish his mastering of the avatar state instead of going to save Katara. Also, at the end of both The Empire Strikes Back and Book 2 of Avatar, the main characters leave the invaded city in defeat with the city's leader. Sean Eberhard 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simlaries between this and [[Star Wars]]

message: The title here is self-explanatory: Should Appa have his own article?  I mean, he had an entire episode.  User:Kochdude388 01:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, that one is a tough one. Technically he could, but it would mostly be plot summary. Because he doesn't actually talk there isn't much to say about his personality or anything similar. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it.  User:Kochdude388 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think its necessary...our character pages are mostly plot summaries as it is. If anything, they need to be pruned, not have more made.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ... Appa is on the front page. And if everything was on the front page, it would be cluttered and disorganized. It's almost a Featured Article status now and the set up is good. -Dylan0513 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Appa have his own page?

message: I've noticed that there's an unusual amount of vandalism done to this article. Why don't we have this article locked? 
--TcDohl 04:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cause it doesn't work. Many of the vandals actually have a an account with Wikipedia. The others will just wait it out until the lock goes away. Until the assholes find something else to tickle their pickle, I get to sit there and monitor every edit that gets done to this page. JOY! H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 05:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive vandalism 

message: I swear that I took out the excessive inks in this article. ANd now they're back. Please, don't link November, or American, or 2005. Chances are, the reader WILL NOT be interested in those links, and chances are, the reader will probably know what those mean. Linking is only for words that aren't common, like Lue Gehrig, or something like that. Abby724 00:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dates are supposed to be linked, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Y BCZ 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I explained in your first talk page note about it.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Dates are only suppose to be linked if there is a month and a day or a month, day and year. However, if it is simply a month, a year, or a month and year, then they shouldn't be linked. --69.43.0.31 13:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive Links! 

message: Sorry I was trying to upload a photo of Momo for the Winged Lemurs section and I didn't know how to!!! Please help!!! TommySmith 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offence, but don't. If you don't know how to upload one, there is a good chance you don't know how to properly source it. Plus, the Winged Lemurs already have a photo. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Upload a Photo 

message: I think the descriptions of the main characters are too long, especially Iroh's. I think each one should be around three sentences long because each character has their own article. Thanks! 70.137.180.59 03:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iroh's is mostly long due to the information about Mako, it will shorten once a name is revealed. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 04:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What? Don't each of the main characters already have their own article? Jazzpizzazz5000 02:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unless you count Momo as a main character.  But that's another discussion, I think... Anyway, why is Aang, Katara, and Sokka's character descriptions so short while Toph, Zuko, and Iroh's are still long?  Someone still working on that or is it supposed to be that way? Kochdude388 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it, there was no reason for such a gross removal of text. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 00:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was no reason to revert it. The point of reverting edits are to remove vandalism. And that wasn't vandalism! The original text is way too long. It looks like someone just pasted a few random pieces of information together. Plus, the decriptions are mainly plot summaries. Did you even think of reading my edit before reverting it? Quality is more important than quantity. By the way, I was going to edit Zuko's, Iroh's, and Azula's descriptions so that they aren't so wordy, too. Jazzpizzazz5000 07:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Descriptions 

message: I have studied some sources on Wikipedia and found how to improve this article.
A very good and compherensive article. --Member 16:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Improvement 

message: Is there an actual source that says anything about the Avatar representing aether? If there's not, it's really just speculation and shouldn't be in the article. Exhibit A 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's never actually said anywhere that I know of, but it's sort of implied since there is a spirit world and the Avatar is the link between are world and it. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 14:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sort of implied" is used as justification for a lot of things that get reverted, usually by you, H2P. That conclusion never jumped out at me, and aether's not nearly as well known as the other four elements, and doesn't appear in any other modern pop-culture things that reference the other four. --Herald Alberich 14:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fifth Element is a great example. Or "Heart" in Captain Planet. I've got more. The Pentagram usually places the fifth element at the top point. I'm not saying it belongs on this page, it does lack a source that the creators intended it to be that way, but if you think it really has no bearing than you can remove it, it just won't be me doing the removing. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aether? 

message: Is this seriously an A-class article now? I mean, I'm not complaining, I just want to make sure the decision is justified. Y BCZ 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its still a GA. There's been no review to remove it. I don't know why the templates were removed, its still listed at WP:GA.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guy who posted the peer review actually changed the rating. I've been meaning to send this in to peer review for a while now. We have a little more work to do but I feel we're getting close. I think Zuko might need peer review soon too, I don't think it's rating is right anymore. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait, what the... 

message: Does anyone know when the third season is supposed to start?--Editmonkey 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pooldude says the first episode wil finish production in April and will air probably in late April/early May. Though Pooldude doesn't count as a reliable source, I'm almost positive he's right on this one. -Dylan0513 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know man, I just don't see Nickelodeon pushing aside one of it's top performers for 5 months. Better shows have lost out due to such moves. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, at the PMX the creators said "with the new year." What that means, exactly, is anybody's guess.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That means 2007. And the keywords are finish production in April. This isn't Nick, it's just taking a long time to make S3. -Dylan0513 11:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe it'll come out in February/March like Books One and Two did.  Kochdude388 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third season 

message: I was reading over the article to see if there were any minor errors to fix and I found something. I found that the Main Characters part of the article is greatly written. I was amazed at how it was written. I would like to compliment all the writers and editors as this was a perfect section. In addition, I did a partial copy edit and revision up to end of the Characters section.
: Not sure how old the above comment is but... I find something very wrong with the main characters section. It sounds like it was written by someone very young. I think the whole section should be looked over and given a more mature, academic, objective-sounding tone. --Htmlism 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mature, academic, and objective-sounding? I can understand mature (some of the sections could be improved), but academic? Objective-sounding? Are you saying we should do psychoanalysis on the characters and describe their behavior in less simplistic terms? And I don't see how you could make them more objective-sounding when they're all based on observations, and not in an opinionated manner. Explain the problem more clearly before you expect us to agree that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Y BCZ 00:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just saying to say. If you don't want to change it, then don't change it. --Htmlism 01:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Characters 

message: some links get redirected. I'd help clean them up but the page is locked. --Tsinoyboi 00:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RDR#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Don't worry about it. --Herald Alberich 03:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link cleanup 

message: There is a problem with the link to the archive. I tried changing it to a different link (thinking maybe there was a /archive1 and not a /archive2 like it said) but it did not work anyway. No big problem, just pointing it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs).
:Should be fixed now. You can always view all the sub-pages of a talk page by using Special:Allpages, then typing in the name of the talk page. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Problem 

message: Avatar is number 9 for December on the Top 100 WikiCharts! 
We're also the 2nd highest on Wikipedia related page behind the Wii! I know it's only been 3 days but great job everyone and this is now and has been one of the most popular pages on all of Wikipedia! -Dylan0513 01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, things are looking up despite the chaos that erupted Friday. More importantly, the article's just one Support away from becoming a Featured Article. Good job, guys. Y BCZ 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I'm surprised Crossroads, The Guru, and the episode list aren't on there. Being ahead of Sex and Pornography on the top 100 really means something, XD. I can't wait until this article is on the main page. -Dylan0513 02:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number 9 for December! 

message: Can Azula still really be considered flat. She really isn't evil, but rather is willing to do anything to complete the goal of the Fire Nation. 
Also, who is working on the show disription? I would start it, but McAffee onlt shows half the page and I can edit it very VERY rarley. The last paragraph of the lead could be used in the discription. 
By the way, are we allowed to put the Episode telpate under the header for the Episode Subsection or not? I think that would be a much better use. Cnriaczoy42 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must disagree with you on the point of Azula. It's pretty clear with her actions and the cinematography surrounding her situation the viewer is intended to see her as evil. She probably sees herself as someone willing to do anything, but in a T.V. show atmosphere, it's really what is alluded to the viewer that forms the basis of opinion. -(Y.krzepicki 03:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azula and show discription 

message: I'm removing the episode template that was just added because I think it's best served to bind the episode pages together, not the main article. --Htmlism 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that it might work, but i'm not going to revert to change it. I just thought that it would be an easy way to jump to episodes automatically. Cnriaczoy42 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Template 

message: Is the lead really too long? I checked Wiki guidelines, it looks fine to me. It looks like we can maybe move one paragraph (about the reception) to a later point in the article, but as it stands, it's four paragraphs that address the context of the show and media information. Aren't those the main points? I want to remove the tag, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia guidelines to take the initiative. Y BCZ 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually on the FL statements. There is a guy on there who thinks we should move towards the House article and seperate the show's development information as well as popularity into it's own section. Feel free to go read it, I do mostly agree. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 04:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plead read WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph of this article is too inclusive of the wide range of details. FrummerThanThou 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until he have a good development information section, we should keep the lead. I believe once we have that,, it will be easier to cut the lead in size. Cnriaczoy42 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...Intro too long? Says WHO!? 

message: Okay, the Nick web-site is used as a source for a lot of info on Avatar, and that makes sense since Avatar is a Nick production, but how reliable is the web-site?
I just noticed a note on The Crossroads of Destiny where it says that, according to the Nick web-site, Aang never successfully opened the seventh chakra.  I checked, and that's true, the site does say that, but I also noticed something else: It was just plain wrong in its description of the episode.  It had dialogue that was not in the show, inaccurate descriptions of Aang's entrance into the Avatar State towards the end and, though I stopped reading to come and write this, probably more errors.
If it's wrong on this episode, who knows what else it's wrong about? Can we trust it as a source? JBK405 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The show is the first source above all others. Nicks site is the second. I think when it comes to actual episode information the site gets a little skrewy because it's half synopsis and half preview. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well the only actual contradiction to the site is the show or the co-creators themselves. Since the co-creators are working for Nick and, as we assume, giving this info to Nick, then by all standards we can consider the information on Nick to be correct unless contradicted by the show or it's creators. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 02:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy of the Nickelodeon Website

message: Can someon please revert the edit where the awards were removed. I would be mcaffee makes only part of the page come up. Cnriaczoy42 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  awards edit 

message: I moved some of the information from the lead into a seperate section in the overview. However, I did not want to remove the tag at the top of the page until I am sure it is okay.jeremybelpois(Murder me for my actions) 00:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix Up 

message: Call me crazy, but the info in the Criticism section isn't criticism.  It's more like praise.  Maybe we should change it to something like 'Performance' or 'Critical Reaction' instead? Kochdude388 16:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It also needs more sources to better support the claims. Supertigerman 16:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've looked for actual crtics and did not find any reviews. They are either hidden in the deep archives of the Internet or are just not where you can find them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well think about it, what "upstanding" critic would review a show designed for kids on Nickelodeon? I'm pretty sure there is a review on Anime Nation that we could use (they did a detailed synopsis of SotFN before it was released). H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 05:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: In the Episode The Great Divide the story told by the Zhang is animated in a style very similar to Dead Leaves.  Anyone know what the style of the Gan Jin is suposed to be? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.9.243 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anime Influence 

message: I found a sutible link. Someone go to Avatrspirit.net and their is a link to a ratings that shows how popular it is. I would add it myself, but ic ant view the link because of parental controls. Cnriaczoy42 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link for hidden text in opening paragraphs. 

message: I found this while looking for news, and it has some information such as what Coleman, vice president of Nickelodeon, observes about Avatar and such (10th paragraph down).  Also, theres information on how they do the voice-acting for Zach, the voice-actor of Aang, towards the end of the article, and some information on what they are about to do/did with Mako, which is also near the end.  Do you think that some of this is worth mentioning? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Kupo (talk • contribs) 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Souce about the Fan's Reception and Voiceacting 

message: The last two paragraphs in the beginning should be moved down to the Media Information section, also the last paragraph is kinda redundant since it is practically re-stated in the Media section. Any thoughts? Whydoit  (Why...do it?) 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By this, I mean that in the second paragraph:
Originally slated to start November of 2004, Avatar: The Last Airbender debuted on TV February 21, 2005 and is available on DVD or for download at the iTunes Store and the XBOX Marketplace. The show was co-created and is executively produced by Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko.
With consistently high ratings in the Nicktoons lineup, even outside of its intended 6-to-11-year-old demographic, Avatar: The Last Airbender is popular with both audiences and critics, garnering 4.4 million viewers on its best rated showing.  
The part I bolded sounds like it should be moved to the media section under Production or something similar, but I could be wrong. Whydoit  (Why...do it?) 05:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's supposed to be a bit redundant, actually. WP:LEAD, especially for featured articles, specifies that the lead section should be a "mini-article" of sorts, having all of the most important information (basic plot overview, production, and marketing and reception) summarized there, with the rest of the article elaborating on what the lead says. --Herald Alberich 06:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that clarifies things a bit. I was wondering about why those were still there. Whydoit  (Why...do it?) 06:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have the slightest feeling that...

message: I've made some changes to the cultural references in response to one of the FA comments. I've removed the bits about Mongolian and Persian culture, as far as I can recall those influences only showed in a very minor context (Some the desert stuff in season two was quasi-Persian and the Rough Rhinos names are Mongolian) that's not worth listing there. I also made it clear what the Inuit mention was about. I wasn't terribly happy with the way its worded, so if you can improve it please feel free.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural references 

message: I was wondering if someone could explain these jins, is it a real life reference, is there really 85, and I'm just curious because it sounded interesting felinoel 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jins 

message: As a part of my planned Response section, critical reviews about Avatar are needed. I want to make a section (as requested by the FA candidate page) that has response, criticism, and other related materials. However, I cannot find anything. If you can find any reviews, etc., post them under a sub-heading on this discussion or simply put them in the article yourself. However, I do not reccomend putting it in yourself until enough sources and material is found to make the section at least a paragraph or two. Please help. jeremybelpois(Murder me for my actions) 02:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've tried looking also, appearantly you have to pracically scour the internet for something on the show...Whydoit  (Why...do it?) 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As have I...seems H2P has it right above: non-specialist reviewers just don't do "kid's shows".--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, check that out
"Launched in February 2005, Avatar: The Last Airbender is the #1 animated series on all of TV among the boys 9-14 demographic. The series posted double digit year-to-year gains in May and averaged a 5.2 tween 9-14 rating/1.1 million viewers in its Friday night time period, up +23% in rating and +26% in impressions over last year. Among boys 9-14 the show posted even bigger year-to-year growth, up +25% with a 6.8 boy 9-14 rating." H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 07:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This one is showing some promise...Whydoit  (Why...do it?) 08:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a review on Season 3, it may not apply to the original intended demogrpahic. jeremybelpois(Murder me for my actions) 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess I kinda fixed it; I edited the section a little but it still needs to be legnthened. Whydoit  (Why...do it?) 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Review 

message: I took from the various sources you mentioned and added a paragraph of critical response. It needs to be elongated and edited. If it is okay now, I will tell the people at the FA nomination page that we added Critical Response so they agree with this article becoming a featured article. Continue to post any sources of reviews, etc. below. As for the rest of the article, the only objections against the article are that it needs more references and it needs a bigger influence section. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I kinda fixed it; I edited the section a little but it still needs to be legnthened. Whydoit  (Why...do it?) 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, Done: Now To Fix It 

message: On the FAC page, Tony pointed out some big flaws in the intro's grammar. If the into is that bad, what's to say that the rest of the article doesn't have goofs either? I'd do some fixing but I'm on edge as to how correct my grammar is. Peer review anyone? Whydoit  (Why...do it?) 08:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria 1a

message: I noticed that in between each major character is a horizontal divider. Since it blends in slightly with the underlining of the main section headings, I was wondering why we did not just mark each seperate character with ====Character Name====. Just asking. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks better the way it is. Whydoit  (Why...do it?) 01:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Character Dividers